The court of the gentiles, or, A discourse touching the original of human literature, both philologie and philosophie, from the Scriptures and Jewish church. Part 2, Of philosophie in order to a demonstration of 1. The perfection of Gods word and church light, 2. The imperfection of natures light and mischief of vain philosophie, 3. The right use of human learning and especially sound philosophie / by Theoph. Gale ...

The Court of the Gentiles. Part II. Of Philosophie.

Book I. Of Oriental, and Occidental Barbarick Philosophie.

Chap: I. Of Philosophie in General, and Scripture Philosophers.

The Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the Hebrew Sophim i. e. Watchmen. Pagans de∣fined Philosophie a Love of the highest and best Wisdom, answerable to the Scriptures Phrasiologie. Philosophers called also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Jewish Mysteries. God the first Exemplar, Matter, and Efficient of all Philosophie. Of the first Divine Philosophers, Adam, Seth, Enoch, Abraham. Of Joseph his instructing the E∣gyptians. Moses's Writings, the Source of Phenician, Egyptian, and Grecian Philosophie, viz. Physicks, Metaphysicks, Mathematicks, and Politicks. Solomons Philosophie; also Jobs; and of the Jewish Scholes.

§. 1. WE now proceed to discourse of Philosophie, its Original and Traduction from the Jewish Church. And before we engage in the formal Explication; and Demonstration hereof, we shall first give a more general Idea, or Notion of Philosophie, (both name and thing) and then proceed to its original causes, &c. Philosophie,* 1.1 in its first Introduction amongst the Grecians, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Heinsius (exercit.

Sacr. lib. 1. cap. 2.) presumeth, from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sophim Watch∣men: thence 'tis said Numb. 23.14.* 1.2 that Balak brought Bâlam into a place, on the top of Mount Pisgah, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the English Version, printed at Geneva 1560, renders Sede-Sophim, the Seat of the Watch men. And that the Greeks derived their Sophi from this Sophim, Heinsius affirmes it without a peradventure; because the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sophi were wont, on such high hils, to observe the course and motions of the Heavens. That the Hebrews, as well as Phenicians, called their Wise men or Prophets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sophim, Watchmen, is most evident to any that observe the Scripture Phrasiologie. So 1 Sam. 1.1.* 1.3 we read of Ramathaim Sophim of Mount Ephraim: on which the Geneva Annota∣tors observe,

That in this Citie, in Mount Ephraim, were Sophim, that is, the Learned and Prophets.

Thence the Syriack Version ren∣ders it, the hill of the Watches, or Watchmen. Yea, more particularly, that this Ramathaim Sophim was the chief Academie of their Wise men, or Scholes of their Prophets, is apparent from 1 Sam. 19.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. v. 18.* 1.4 It is said, that David dwelt with Samuel, at Na∣joth in Ramah. Najoth, say the Geneva Annotators, was a Schole where the Word of God was studied. Thence v. 20, &c. it is said, there were a Companie of the Prophets there. And what more common in the Scripture Dialect, than the stiling the Hebrew Prophets or Wise men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sophim, i. e. Watchmen? Hence it is most likely (if not without doubt as Heinsius will have it) that the Greeks derived their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; who were also stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Speculatores, Watchmen; and thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wisdom, or Philosophie, is also called, by some of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Speculation: Whence that common division of Philosophie, into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speculative and practick Philosophie.

Others derive the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the Punick Sufes, which in that Language signifies a Magistrate. So Hornius. Historiae Philosoph. lib▪ 1. cap. 1.

We will that the original of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be fetcht from no other than the Punick Sufes, who, as 'tis well known, drew their tongue from the Syrophenicians or Cananites. And he gives this account of the Origination: In times past, saies he, none but Wise men were admit••ed to the dignitie of Magistrates. Such Sufes, in the daies of old, were Charondas, Solon, Lycurgus, and other Legi∣slators, who were both wise men and Magistrates. So that there is no doubt to be made of it, but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 descended ence.

This be∣ing granted, yet it contradicts not the former Origination of Hein∣sius:

for Hornius seems to grant, according to that of Scaliger in Fe∣stum, that Sufes was deduced from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies an accurate speculation or contemplation, and so is the same with the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 'tis used in Scripture for the Contem∣plation of sublime matters.

Camero Myroth cap. 2. Math. derives 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, others from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to cover, or hide, and so answers to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and differs but little from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is of the same import. And that which makes for this origination is Joseph's Egyptian name, who was called by Pharaoh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. an Interpre∣ter of Secrets. Hence also the Persian Kings are, even to this day, cal∣ed Sophi, which signifies Interpreters of the Gods and Wise men. So amongst the Arabians Sophus imports a Religious and Wise man, as Horn. Hist. Philos. lib. 1. cap. 4. So much for that proud title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

§, 2.* 1.5 But Pythagoras (as it is conceived) judging the terme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too proud and swelling for degenerate nature, stiles his wise man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a friend of wisdom, as Solomon, almost every where, in his Proverbs, describes his wise man, a Lover of wisdom, &c. whence Christ cals his wise men friends and children of wisdom. Thus Plato also defines a Philosopher, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: A Phi∣losopher is a friend to nature and a Kinsman of truth. And elsewhere he cals Philosophers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.6 sincere and friendly Contemplators of truth. Answerably whereunto Philosophie is by him sti∣led, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 love of truth: on which, in his Cratylus, he gives this glosse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, q, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. a Divine evagation, or wandring of the mind after the first Wisdom and divine Truth. Whence he asserts, that a true Philosopher has the true Knowledge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of things: thence he de∣fines him thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Philosopher is one that covets all wisdom: and so true Philosophie is by him stiled, the Know∣ledge of the fairest and choicest good, and not only of its picture: Which in his sixth Book of his Common Wealth, he tells us plainly is no other than the Knowledge of God, which he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Idea of the chiefest good, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the highest Discipline, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the genuine Philosophie; namely because it is (saies he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Introducti∣on of the Soul from a certain night-day, to the true discoverie of the first being. Whence he addes, that his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consists, not only in the contemplation of some lower objects, and Arts; but it is conversant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about the true being of beings, and the first beautie: thence (saies he) he that contemplates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, many beauties, but not the one first, and chiefest beautie, is not a Philosopher, but a dreamer, one that has only an opinionative knowledge of things. So Aristotle in his Rhetorick, speaking of true knowledge, saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Knowledge or Philosophie is the erection and elevation of us into our natural state. And Cicero defines a Philosopher one that studies to know the causes and natures of all things Divine and human, &c. and Philosophie he termes the contemplation of death.* 1.7 So Plato in Theage, defines Philosophie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a contemplation of death, And Pythagoras made Philosophie to be the contemplation of Truth; which Architus understood of the Principle of Principles, and Plutarch of the Divine Majestie: Whence a Philo∣sopher, in the Pythagorean estimation, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Last∣ly Plato in Phaedone, cals Philosophie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an assimilation to God so far as 'tis possible for man. Whence the same Plato defines Philosophie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the knowledge of Divine and human affairs, with their causes: which agrees with that of Cicero lib. 2. Offic. Philosophie is the know∣ledge of Divine and human things. Lastly Plato assures us, that to phi∣losophize, is to know, love, and imitate God: which he makes to be the summe not only of speculative and moral Philosophie, but also of Poli∣ticks: for (saies he) that Common-w••alth is most happy in which Philoso∣phers are Kings, or Kings Philosophers.

* 1.8§. 3. Hence also the Greek Philosophers, especially the Pytha••oreans, when they came to the perfect comprehension of their mysteries and principles, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perfect, in opposition to their Novices or learners; which phrases and custom they seem to have borrowed from the Jewish Scholes, and Colleges, wherein there were divers orders; & the highest therein were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perfect: whereunto the Apostle Paul seems (unto some) to allude Phil. 3.12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and v. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perfect,* 1.9 of which more hereafter when we come to treat of the Pytha∣goreans; who were also called by the latter Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mythologists and Philomythists; because of their great imitation of, and symbolizing with the Jews, in mysteries and wisdom, from whom they borrowed the most of their Discipline and Philoso∣phie. From these general hints and intimations we may easily collect, what cognation the Pagan Philosophie had with the Jewish Wisdom: nei∣ther

can we imagine how those dark capacities of Heathen Philosophers, should come to be informed with such clear contemplations of God, and Jewish mysteries, but by some derived traditions, and fr••gments bor∣rowed from the Scriptures and Jewish Church, as hereafter·

§ 4, But to run up Philosophie to its first source and spring head;* 1.10 we must remember that God (who is the original Idea of all truth, the eternal wisdom and fountain of all light) is the first Exemplar, and Ef∣ficient of all Philosophie. For as God made all things according to the eternal universal idea of his own Wisdom and Decrees, so likewise has he stamped, and deeply impressed, on the very beings and natures of all things made, certain characters or intelligible ideas and resemblances of his own divine wisdom, which the Scholes usually terme the light and law of nature; which is nothing else but those created emanations, or rayes of light and order stamped on the beings of things, and scattered up and down in the Universe, which offering themselves to the human understanding, become the objective matter of Philosophie. So that it is apparent, Philosophie, as all other Sciences, owes its original to the Di∣vine Intellect and Wisdom; which beaming it self forth on the works of its hands, and diffusing some derivation of wisdom, light, and order into every creature, for the government and direction thereof unto its respe∣ctive ends, becomes the objective idea, or matter of all Philosophie; and then the same Divine Wisdom irradiating the mind of man, to con∣template those bright Ideas of created wisdom, which lie hid in the creature, and enabling it to gather up the same into several branches or Sciences, it becomes the prime efficient of all Philosophie. So that whether we consider Philosophie objectively, as lodged in the natures of things, or formally, as brancht forth into several sciences, it all owes its original to the bosom of Divine Wisdom.

§. 5. Hence it follows, that the original impulsive cause of all Philo∣sophie, was Admiration of the admirable Wisdom, Power,* 1.11 and Good∣nes of God shining in his works of Creation and Providence, as Rom. 1.19, 20. So Plato in his Theaetetus tels us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The great Pa∣thos 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) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Men now, as formerly, begin to Philosophize from admiration: for men first began to admire things lesse

wonderful,* 1.12 then proceeding thus by degrees, they doubted of greater mat∣ters, as of the origine of the Ʋniverse, &c. whence he concludes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wherefore a Philosopher seems to be, in some sense, a Philomythist: (or Mythologist, i: e: a relator of Fables and wonders) for a Fable consists of things won∣derful. 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 contem∣plations of the origine of the Ʋniverse, &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 night Philosophie (which is Plato's own phrase) will be more evident hereafter, when we come to treat of the Grecian Philo∣sophie.

§. 6. As for the created causes of Philosophie; they may be redu∣ced to these two common heads, 1. Its first Institutors or Authors. 2. Its constitutive principles both material and formal, or the essential parts thereof. We design some discourse on both, thence to make good our Demonstration touching the Traduction of all Philosophie from the Scriptures and Jewish Church. And to proceed methodically here∣in,* 1.13 We shall begin with the first human Institutors, or Authors of Phi∣losophie; who were indeed Divine, and divinely illuminated; so that the wisdom we find scattered up and down amongst the Pagan Philo∣sophers, was but borrowed, and derived from these Divine ••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 compre∣hended it not. as John 1.4, 5. the light, &c.

* 1.14The first created Divine Institutor of all Philosophie was Adam, who, without all peraduenture, was the greatest, amongst meer mor∣tals, that ever the world possessed; concerning whom the Scripture tels us, G••n. 2.19, 20. That he gave names to every living thing, &c. which argues his great Sagacitie and philosophick penetration into their natures.

For look a•• our conceptions, if true, so also names, if proper, should be, and, as we may presume, at first were no other than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, images of things: So both Aristotle and Plato cal names 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imitations of things. Adam could, by his profound Philosophie, anato∣mize, and exactly prie into the very natures of things, and there con∣template those glorious Ideas, and Characters of created Light and Or∣der, 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 system•• or bo∣die 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 Politi∣cus, (and elsewhere) touching the golden Age, or the state of Innocence, wherein, saies he, our first parent was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the greatest Philo∣sopher that ever was. And Bal••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 mo∣tions of the celestial bodies; the natures of Plants, of Living, and all other creatures; he first published the formes of Ecclesiastick, Po∣litick, and Oeconomick Government. From whose Schole pro∣ceeded whatever good Arts and Wisdom were afterward propa∣gated 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 Rea∣son, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exactnes of Oeconomicks, and Politicks; for man was never so much as then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sociable creature. Which the ancient Mythologists are wont to adumbrate under the Golden Age, wherein Sponte sua sine lege fidem, rectumque colebant. The seat of this most noble Philosophie is, in the sacred Scriptures, stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Garden of Eden. For there is nothing more excellent gi∣ven, by the great God, to mankind than that pleasure, which ariseth from the contemplation of things.

The Chaldees cal this Garden of Pleasures 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Greeks following them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Paradise. Thus Hornius, who, cap. 11. repetes the same in these words,

All Arts, as mankind, had their beginning from Adam, who among the pleasures of Paradise, learned Philosophie even from God himself.

And K••ckerman, Tract. 2. Praecogn. Logic. cap. 2. saies,

that he doubts not, but that our first Parents delivered over to their Posteri∣tie, 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.

* 1.15§. 7. From Adam sprung Seth, who, according to Josephus lib. 1. Antiq. cap. 3. followed his father in the pursuit of wisdom, especially that part thereof which concernes the Celestial bodies, their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in which kind of Philosophie he proved a very eminent Do∣ctor, as Josephus. So Hornius Hist. philos. l. 7. c. 2.

The first menti∣tion of Letters fals upon Seth's times; who being mindful of his Fa∣thers Prophesie, foretelling the Universal Dissolution of things, the one by the Deluge, the other by fire, being not willing to extinguish his famous Inventions of Astrologie; he thought upon some monu∣ment, to which he might concredit these Mysteries: At length it seemed good unto him to engrave Arts and Disciplines on two great pillars of Brick, thereby to preserve them from destruction.

And that this Tradition is not vain, is proved by the Autoritie, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Jo∣sephus; who witnesseth, that one of these pillars remained in Syria even to his time, and was seen by him.

* 1.16§. 8. The learned also reckon Enoch amongst the first Divine Philo∣sophers, especially for his supposed skil in Astrologie and Astronomie: so Eusebius de praepar. Evang. lib. 9. and out of him Bochart Phaleg.

lib. 2. cap. 13. fol. 101.

I cannot but adde (saies he) what is found concerning the same Enoch in Eusebius, out of Eupolemus, of the Jews. He saies that Abraham, when he taught Astrologie and other Sciences at Heliopolis, af••irmed, that the Babylonians attributed the invention of the same to Enoch, and that he was the first inventor of Astrologie. It follows, not far after, that the Grecians attribute the invention of Astrologie to Atlas; and that Atlas was the same with Enoch, &c. In which words we may note that Enoch and Atlas are reputed for the same. Perhaps from hence, that as Atlas by the Carthaginians is called Duris, and Dyris, so Enoch by the Arabians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Idris: thus Bochart.

How far these Traditions deserve assent, as also those other of Enoch's engraving his Prophecies and Astrologie on pillars, which, they say, continued after the sloud, it concernes us not to debate: only thus much we are assured by Jude 14, &c. That E∣noch had certain Prophecies touching the worlds dissolution by fire, and the last judgement, &c. And that the Stoicks derived their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or purification of the world by fire, from some broken tradition of this Prophecie of Enoch, is not without ground conjectured by Grotius & other Criticks. Baleus (de Script. Brit. cent. 20 fol. 3.) tels us, that

Enoch, a man famous for Prophecie, is supposed to have written before the floud of Divine matters, &c.

§. 9. Another Scripture Philosopher is Abraham, who is supposed,* 1.17 even by Pagan Historians, to have taught both the Chaldeans, where he was first seated, and also the Egyptians, Knowledge in Astronomie. So Lud. Vives, in August de Civit, Dei lib. 18. c. 2.

Not only sacred, but also many of the prophane Writers have mentioned Abraham: as Hecataeus, who writ a Book particularly of Abraham; so Eusebius de praep. Evang. Also Alexander the Polyhistorian; who saies, that Abraham, born in the tenth generation after the Floud, was the In∣ventor of Astrologie amongst the Chaldeans, &c. Damascenus Hist. lib. 4. writes, that Abraham coming from Chaldea with an Armie, reigned at Damascus. Hence he passed into Canaan, leaving a great memorie behind him at Damascus. But when Canaan was prest with famine, he travelled thence into Egypt, and entring into debates with those Priests, he much profited them both in the Knowledge of things, & also for pietie, & the ordering of their manners, and life. Alexander reports that he lived some time in Heliopolis, neither did he professe himself to be the Inventor of Astrologie, but to have received it from

his Ancestors, by whose hands it was conveighed unto him, even from Enoch. Artapanus reports, that the Hebrews were so named from Abraham, who lived twenty years in Egypt, where he taught Phare∣tates the Egyptian King the Knowledge of the Stars, and thence retur∣ned into Syria,

So Lud. Vives. Baleus (de script. Brit. cent. 10. fol. 3) tels us, out of Phil. Welphius of the lives of learned men,

that A∣braham found out the Syriack and Chaldee Letters, also many prin∣ciples of Astrologie; for he was a prudent and holy man, and excellent∣ly learned as to human matters. And after his abode amongst the Egyptian wise men, he was the first that instructed them in Astro∣nomie and Arithmetick: for before his coming into Egypt, the Egyp∣tians were altogether ignorant of these Sciences.

So B••l••us, G••r. Vossius de philosophorum sectis lib. 2. cap. 8. §. 7, 8. gives us this ac∣count of Abraham's Philosophie:

But whether (saies he) Abraham the Patriarch drew his Astrologie from the Chaldeans, or rather the Chal∣deans received it from Abraham; this Science came by Abraham first to those of Palestine, or the Canaanites, and afterwards to the Egypti∣ans. That Abraham passed from Ʋr of the Chaldeans into Palestine, is sufficiently known by Scripture: and that he was also skilled in Astrologie, Berosus shews in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the tenth Age after the Floud, there was among the Chaldeans a just and great man, and well skilled in the Knowledge of the Heavens. J••se••hus Antiquit. l. 1. c 7. cites this passage of Berosus, and addes, that Abraham, who was the tenth from Noah, was signified by it. And this is confir∣med by what is said of Abraham by Eupolemus, in Eusebius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he was the Inventor of Astrologie, and the Chaldaick Art of Divination. Which is an evident confession of an Heathen. It is also enough credible that the Canaanites, and a∣mongst them the Phenicians learned much touching the Natures of things from Abraham, who sojourned amongst them. More∣over it is well known, that when Canaan was prest with famine A∣braham went into Egypt; where he said his wife Sarah was his sister, whom the King had abused, had he not been admonished by God. But being taught who Abraham was, (as Josephus lib. 1. cap. 8. relates) he gave him power of conversing with the most excellent and the most learned of the Egyptians. Then Abraham (saies he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bountifully commu∣nicated unto them Arithmetick and Astronomie, for before the coming of Abraham, the Egyptians were ignorant of these Sciences: for they came from the Chaldeans to the Egyptians and from them to the Grecians.

This Philosophie of the Jews derived from Abraham was two fold, partly natural, whereof Astrologie was a part; and partly Divine, of God and his works, &c. How far these reports touching Abraham may deserve credit, I shall not contend. I find a great confirmation of what has been mentioned touching Abraham's Philosophie in Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 2. c. 10.

Amidst these darknesses (speaking of Nimrod's Apostasie) of depraved Philosophie, shone forth, as an hopeful star, Abraham, a person of a famous ingenie, who was contemporarie with Ninus, Semiramis, and Zoroaster, as Euseb. He was a man renown∣ed not only among sacred, but also prophane writers; namely of whom Hecataeus writ a whole book: and Berosus, Nic. Damascenus, Alexander, Eupol••mus, M••la, with many others cited by Eusebius l. 9. praepar, c 4. make mention of him. He being in his first years educated in the Institutes of the Magi, or Chaldeans, Jos. 24.2. drank in a corrupt Philosophie from his Parents, in which not∣withstanding he made a better proficience than all others. For he being a very wise and eloquent person, as also invested with a great sagacitie, observed from natural things, that there was a God, and that he was to be worshipped by us; as Josephus lib. 1. Ant. c. 8. and Philo teach us; But his mind being not as yet irradiated with any Divine Light, it was envelopped in the darknesses of many errors; which, so soon as he was commanded by God to depart out of Chal∣dea, he exchanged for a more bright Light, and so of a Magus he became an Hebrew, or Christian Philosopher, studious of sacred wisdom. In whose familie there was a famous Academie and seat of Philosophie. For Abraham had a great name for wisdom, not only among his own, but thorowout all the East. Josephus, out of Bero∣sus, attests, that he communicated to the Egyptians the science of Numbers, or Arithmetick; and that of the Stars, called Astronomie, of which sci∣ences the Egyptians were then very ignorant. And Alexander tels us, that the Heliopolitan Priests, and others made use of his Institution in Astrologie, Arithmetick, Geometrie, and other parts of wisdom. And who can doubt of his skill in Astrologie, seeing he drew his ori∣ginal from Chaldea. VVhence what Orpheus sung, that God of

old reveled himself to one Chaldean only, they suppose to be meant of Abraham: when therefore he came into Canaan, it may not be doubt∣ed, but that the Phenicians drew from him the rudiments of purer wisdom; for he was much in favor with the Princes of that Countrey, and venerable among their Kings. Thence, whilest his children dis∣persed Golonies into diverse Regions, his more pure Philosophie was communicated together therewith; which was soon contaminated by the errors of Cham's Posteritie. This wisdom his son Isaac recei∣ving from him, as an inheritance constantly to be reteined, according to the example of his Father, propagated in Canaan, and in Egypt. The same may be said of Jacob, whose great sagacitie and experience in Natural Philosophie, is sufficiently discovered in the wonderful artifice he used for the conception of the Cattel Gen. 33.37, &c. There is also in his Historie, some mention made of the Astrologie of the Syrians, &c.

Thus Hornius more largely.

* 1.18§, 10. Amongst the Divine Philosophers we must not omit the mention of Joseph, who is said, and that upon solid Scripture grounds, to have instructed the Egyptians in their wisdom, and Philosophie; and in after Ages passed amongst them under the name of Hermes, or Mercurius Trismegistus. Thus much is asserted by Cluverus in his Historie of the world pag. 12.

Joseph, saith he, having attained to a mesure of wisdom, as it seemed above human, he obtained the whole administration of Egypt, and a dignitie the next to the Regal. Hence the common sable, that Hermes, that is, Interpreter, was the first inventor of Arts and Sciences amongst the Egyptians. For the wisdom of the Egyptians owes its self unto Joseph, who by the Kings authoritie taught them both divine and human Arts.

So Cl••v••rus. The name Hermes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies an Interpreter, seems to be gi∣ven, and that most properly unto Joseph, because of his Divine Art in the interpreting of Dreams. And that he was esteemed by the E∣gyptians, as a person endowed with an extraordinary facultie of divi∣ning, and interpreting Dreams, or things secret▪ is most evident from Gen. 44.5.* 1.19 where they mention his divining, &c. Though they knew not the Divining power by which he was inspired, but imputed it to his cup, yet the thing it self was manifested by his interpreting the Dreams of Pharaoh, his Butler, &c. That this Art of Divining, or in∣terpreting things was also attributed by the fabulous Pagans to Mer∣curie,* 1.20 is apparent from Act. 14.12. where Mercurie is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

an Interpreter. The Egyptians called their Hermes Theuth, and sup∣posed him to be the inventor of all their Arts and Sciences. That Jo∣seph was indeed the Instructor of the Egyptians, and that by the Kings appointment, is most clear from Psal. 105.22.* 1.21 where he is said to be appointed by the King to teach his Senators wisdom: but the old Ge∣neva Edition (an 1560.) renders it more properly: and teach his An∣cients Wisdom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to instruct their Elders, that is, their Priests,* 1.22 &c. That Joseph took a particular care of the Egyptian Priests, not only by instituting a College for them, and making provision accor∣dingly, as Gen. 47.22, but also by instructing them in the Knowledge and service of the true God, the motions of the Heavens, and other parts of sound Philosophie, will afterward appear, when we come to treat of the Egyptian Philosophie. At present it shall suffice us to give his character, as drawn by Hornius Histor. Philos. l. 2. c. 10.

Joseph, saies he, was of a great name; who after various Vicissitudes of Provi∣dence, was at length, after having happily interpreted the Kings Dream, by the publick suffrage of the King and people reputed, as indeed he was, the most wise of all the Egyptians, and so honored with that splendid Title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i e. an Interpr••ter of secrets (Gen. 41.39, 45.) Neither may we in any measure doubt, but that, whatsoever there was of Truth agreable to Scripture, to be found among others, especially the Egyptian Philosophers, that they received it from the Hebrews, among whom they frequently and long conversed, even from Abrahams times. But especially from Joseph they received much of their Wisdom, whom, seeing he was next the King, no one of them durst contradict. Whence there are not wanting some who write, that there were Scholes of Wisdom and Virtue erected by Jo∣seph in Egypt. And indeed that there were such, appears, from the Hi∣storie of Moses, whom the Scripture makes to be learned in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, Which seems to be made good by what David notes Psal. 105 22. that Joseph was commanded by Pharaoh, to teach his Princes according to his pleasure, and to instruct his Elders in Wisdom. For so the Vulgar renders the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from which version, seeing it is most plain, we may not recede. For it may be dedu∣ced as well from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying as well to instruct as to chastise.

Whence I wonder, what came into their minds, who

contend, that Josephs Doctrine was not publickly approved. For see∣ing it was publickly delivered in their Scholes and Academies, who

can denie, that it was publickly authorized by the King, and Nobles of the Kingdom? His Placits were so far from being contradicted, as indeed no one durst murmur against him Gen. 41.39, &c. They do ill allege the event. For the Egyptians after the death of Joseph, and their King, who favored him, returned again to their Vomit, and abrogated the true Philosophie. This is well observed by Philip in Chronico l. 2. Not long after the death of Joseph, the Egyptian Kings, rejecting his Doctrine again worshipped Idols, and embraced Magick Arts. Yet there remained some rudiments, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of truth. For, that the ancient Egyptians held the world to have a begin∣ning, and that they thought the year to begin from Libra, which they supposed also to be the beginning of the World; these Traditions they drew from no other fountain than Joseph, as Jos. Scaliger ad lib. 1. Manil••i admonisheth. From the same Joseph also they learned the Souls immortalitie, which presently was changed into that mon∣stre of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As therefore the Egyptians owe not the least part of their wisdom to the Hebrews, so also they participate with them in many names, which is even yet discovered, in many of the names of their Gods, as we have before often demonstrated.

See Part 1. Book 2. c. 7. of Egyptian Gods.

* 1.23§. 11. But amongst all the Divine Philosophers, there was none that opened a more effectual door, for the propagating of philoso∣phick principles and light, than Moses; who by his writings,* 1.24 contained in his five books (besides his per∣sonal Conferences) laid the main foundations of all that Philosophie, which first the Phenicians and E∣gyptians, and from them the Grecians were masters of. Whence was it that Sanchoniathon, and the Gre∣cian Philosophers after him, had such clear notions of the original of the world, the first Cha••s or Matter, out of which God framed all things? Was it not from Moses's descriprion of the Creation Gen. 1.2? Lud. Vives de Veritate fidei, speaks thus;

The Creation of the World was so described by Moses, that the greatest Philosophers admired the depth, and embraced the truth of the narration; especially the Py∣thagoreans (whom Plato in his Timaeus follows) who expressed the said production of the world, sometimes in the very same words.

Plato (in his Timaeus fol. ••9. being to treat of the origine of the Universe, ac∣knowledgeth,

this could not be known but by some probable fable or Tra∣dition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. which came originally from Moses's Historie of the Creation. This will be evident by the enumeration of particulars.

1. How came Sanchoniathon, that great Phenician Philosopher, to the Knowledge of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cauth Ereb,* 1.25 but from Gen. 1.2. & darknes, &c. only the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from v. 5 Hence all the Poe∣tick fictions of the first Chaos, & the philosophick contemplations of the first matter, privation, &c. Hence also Mochus, another Phenician Phi∣siologist, received his traditions about Atomes,* 1.26 which he makes to be the first principles of the world, &c. Whence also drew the Egyptians their philosophick persuasions of the worlds beginning, &c. if not from this Mosaick Fountain? How came Plato to discourse so accurately of the order, beautie, harmonie and perfection of the Ʋniverse, the contem∣plation whereof (saies he) was exceeding pleasing to its maker? Could he possibly have discoursed of these things in such Scriptural Phrasiologie, had he not received some Traditions from Moses Gen. 1.31, &c? Whence came his conceptions of Anima mundi, the Soul of the world, but from Jewish Traditions touching Gods framing and gover∣ning the world by his Spirit and Providence (which Plato cals 〈◊〉〈◊〉) in the most perfect harmonious manner, as the soul governes the bodie Gen. 1.2? Hence Plato (according to his Allegerick manner of dis∣course) supposeth the world to be an Animal,* 1.27 yea a visible image of the in••isible God; that is, saies Johannes Grammaticus (that excellent Christian Philosopher) what Moses affirmed properly of man, Gen. 1.27. that he was made according to the image of God, Plato transfers to the wh••le Ʋniverse. Yea indeed the whole of the Grecian Physiologie, touch∣ing the Origine of the world, its first matter, privation, and forme, &c. in all likelyhood, owes its original to some Mosaick tradition from the first chap. of Genesis, &c.

2. As their Physicks, so also the Metaphysicks,* 1.28 laid down by the Gre∣cian Philosophers, seem evidently to be derived, and borrowed from Mo∣ses's sacred Philosophie. We read Ex••d. 3.14. of Gods name I am, whence Austin puts it beyond all doubt, that Plato traduced his no∣tions of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he ascribeth to the first and most perfect Being. From the same Scripture Fountain also came his con∣templations about his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. as Gen. 1.2. whence the Plato∣nicks generally assert a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Trinitie answerable to the Scriptures: and, in sum, never Heathen Philosopher treated more distinctly, yea di∣vinely 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

of God, his Nature, and Attributes, as also of the Soul, its spiritualitie, infinite capacitie, immortalitie, &c. than Plato: which, ac∣cording to the common vogue of the Learned, he received, by con∣ference with some Jews, or by tradition from Moses's writings: of which more else where.

* 1.293. Farther, that the Pagan Geographie had its original from Moses's Narration Gen. 10. how the world was peopled by Noahs posteritie, is asserted and made evident by the Learned Bo••haert, in his Phal••g; where he demonstrates, that the Pagan Geographie exactly answers to Moses's description. The like may be affirmed of the Pagan Chronolo∣gie, and Historie, of which before part 1. book 3· chap. 2. §. 6 7. So in like manner, that the Heathen Politicians, or Lawgivers, viz. Lycurgus, Solon,* 1.30 Minos, Draco, Plato, &c. received the chief, if not the whole of their Politicks from Moses's Laws, is generally affirmed by the Learned, and will be made farther evident by what follows.

We find a good Character of Moses, and his Philosophie in H••rnius

Hist. philos. l. 2 c. 13. Moses, saies he, had a mind most capacious for all things: who being educated from his childhood among the Egyptian Priests, drew from them all their wisdom, even their most abst••use mysteries: which seems to be the cause why he is reckoned by the Grecians among the Magicians. Plinie l. 10. c. 10. There is another faction of Magick, which sprang from Moses.

And Moses indeed has obtained a great name even among profane Writers. Eupolemus saies, that Moses was the most wise man; and that he delivered Letters first to the Jews, and that the Phenicians received them from the Jews, as the Greeks from the Phenicians. Artapanus relates, that Moses was called by the Grecians Musaeus; and that Orpheus learned many things from him. Some conceive that Moses is mentioned in that of Or∣pheus;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

For that Moses was thence so called, because drawn out of the water, is the persuasion of Learned men. Others make Moses the same with the Egyptian Mercurie, to whom they ascribe the Invention of Let∣ters: of which see Part 1. B. 1. C. 10. §, 4. That Moses arrived unto the top of Philosophie, and by the Inspiration of God, was taught the secrets of Nature, is affirmed by Philo in Euseb. praepar. l. 8. c. 5. And the same Eusebius in Chronico writeth, that Moses philosophized in the Desert 40 years; namely being a wise man he spent his time in Con∣templation

of things Natural and Divine. Origen and Austin (lib. 2· Quaest. in Gen.) prove that Moses being skilled in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians, could not be ignorant of Geometrie. Some also sup∣pose him to have been a Chymist, which they collect from his exqui∣site skill in reducing the Golden Calf into Ashes. That Orpheus, Pytha∣goras, Plato, Homer, and others borrowed many of their choicest no∣tions from Moses, is shewn by Justin Martyr, in his Exhortation to the Gr••eks, of which hereafter. To conclude this discourse touching Moses's Philosophie, It is apparent from Scripture that he was not only skilled in sacred Philosophie, but also excelled in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians: as Act. 7.22. Now the Egyptians (as Macrobius and others tell us were the Parents of all Philosophie; to whom the Grecian Philoso∣phers had recourse, age after age, for their Philosophie) who without doubt received great improvement in their Wisdom by Moses, and his writings: for hence they received their Hieroglyphicks, &c. (as hereafter). Though the Egyptians, being unwilling to seem beholding to the Jews for their wisdom, pretend they received it from Hermes, &c. We find Moses mentioned amongst the Egyptians under the fable of Typhon, &c.

§. 12.* 1.31 Another great (yea the greatest next to Adam in innocence) Divine Philosopher was Solomon, of whom God himself gives this Cha∣racter 1 Kings 3.12. that he had a wise,* 1.32 and understanding heart (or as the Hebrew, an amplitude of heart, so that there was none before, or after, like unto him. And more particularly 'tis said 1 Kings 4. from v. 29. to 34. That Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the East Countrey, and all the wisdom of Egypt: For he spake 3000 Proverbs, &c. & v. 33. he spake of Trees from the Cedar, to the Hysop: also of Beasts, Fowls, Creeping things, and Fishes, &c. Moreover that Solomon committed this his Philosophie to writing, is affirmed by the Learned out of Eccles. 12.10, 12. and the Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha) ch. 7.13. Thus Hornius Hist. Phi∣los. l. 1. c. 13.

In the Book of Wisdom cap. 17.17, 18, 19, 20, 21. the Amplitude of Solomon's wisdom is egregiously expounded. For he was the greatest Contemplator, especially of things Physick, and admira∣ble, a Disputer of the most acute Questions with the Tyrians, and the Queen of Sheba. For having contracted a great friendship with the King of Tyre, (whom Eupolemus cals Syros) it came to passe that they often conferred of the most subtile points. (For the Tyrians, a∣mong whom the Phenician Theologie resided, were famous in this Age.)

Josephus makes mention of the Tyrian King, and Solomon their provo∣king men to the Studie of Wisdom, by great rewards; and that Solomon on that occasion joined some Cities, belonging unto the Kingdom of Tyre, unto his own. And Josephus in his Antiquit. lib. 8. writeth, That Solomon composed Books of Songs 1005; of Parables and Simi∣litudes 3000 Books; and that he disputed of every kind of Plant, as in like manner of Beasts, Fishes and all other living creatures, &c. for he was not ignorant of, neither did he leave unexamined any Being or Nature, but philosophized of all things, eminently ex∣pounding their natures and proprieties,* 1.33 &c. so Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civit. De••, l. 17. c. 20.

And Eusebius writes,

that these Books of So∣lomon's Proverbs, and Songs) wherein he discoursed of the nature of Plants, and of all kinds of Animals; as also of Medicine or the cu∣ring of diseases) were removed out of the way by Hezekiah, because the people did thence seek the curing of their diseases, without re∣course to God for the same.

See Wendelin in his Preface to his Phy∣sicks. Solomons Wisdom is farther evidenced by the Queen of Sh••ba her Addresses to him, and his Responses to her, mentioned 1 Kings 10. And some relate, that the Sabeans reteined the Books of Moses, brought to them by the Queen of Sheba, even from Solomon's time: Josephus also indeed reporteth, that this Queen, upon Solomon's permission, carried with her, into her own Countrey, a Colonie of ten thousand Jews. Which if granted, will give us some account how the Zabii, and Chaldean Philosophers came so well acquainted with Jewish Dogmes, even before the Babylonian Captivitie. This Concession of Solomon some gather from 1 Kings 10.13. And that the same of Solomon's Philosophie (as also its main principles) was diffused not only Eastward, as 1 Kings 4.34. but also Westward, amongst the Grecian Philosophers, is very probable. For certain it is, that Solomon had great correspon∣dence both with the Phenicians, and Egyptians; by whom, we may presume, his wisdom was communicated to the Grecians Have we not sufficient ground to conjecture, that Pythagoras, and Plato tradu∣ced much of their Symbolick and Parabolick Philosophie hence? Also the Stoicks their Moral Philosophie; and Hippocrates his Medicinal Science; and even Aristotle his Historie of Animals; as his Scholar and Successor Theophrastus that of Plants: which have all great Affinitie with Solomon's Philosophie. As for the Writings of Solomon, especially such as were Philosophick, the Jews say, that they were lost in the Cap∣tivitie.

There are some, who say, that what was more useful therein was, by the Spirits Dictate, collected; and is now extant under the Title of Solomon's Proverbs, which contein the Ethicks of Solomon, Eu∣seb. praepar. l. 2. c. 2.

§. 13. We might also mention here amongst the Divine Philoso∣phers Job,* 1.34 who has many accurate philosophick discourses touching several parts of Natural Philosophie; the Meteors, &c. But I shall con∣tent my self with the character given him by Hornius and others. Horn. Hist. philos. l. 5. c. 9. saies,

That Job was a famous Doctor of Phi∣losophie, than whom there was not a more ancient, more learned, and more sublime to be found throughout all Antiquitie.

Lipsius cent. 1. ep. 99. saies; Behold amongst the most ancient Job, whom they conceive not to be of the elect Nation, and yet he writ all select or choice matters. His Book, addes Hornius, is Dialectick: For, as Jerom to Paulinus saies,

He determines all according to Dialectick Laws; by Proposition, Assumtion, and Conclusion. Moreover he shewes the manner how to solve fallacious Arguments. His friends also, who were very learned in Philosophie, and without peradventure pro∣ceeded from Job's Schole, when they sport themselves with perpe∣tual Paralogi••mes, are egregiously convinced by Job. Who not on∣ly propagated this wisdom among his own, but also opened publick Scholes, as Job 4.3. Eliphaz the Temanite testifies: where among other Elogies he saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou hast taught many. Neither have we more ancient Disputations than those which occur in his admira∣ble Book. His friends are the Opponents, and he Respondent: which mode of Disputing was invented by Job, as Ambrose. l. 1. de officiis c. 12.

It is commended in Plato, that, in his Politie, he brings in him, who dis∣puted against Justice, craving leave to oppose what he approved not, &c. By how much more ancient was Job, who first found out these things.

§. 14. We shall conclude this chapter,* 1.35 with a brief account of the Jewish Academies, or Scholes, of which we find frequent mention in the Scriptures; as 1 Sam. 1.1. we read of the Citie of the Sophim or Learned, so 1 Sam. 10 10, 11. and 1 Sam. 19.18, 24. where we find Societies of the Prophets or Students, of whom the more ancient were called Doctors or Rabbies, perfect, and Prophets, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Samuel: but the younger students were called Novices, or Sons of the Prophets, &c. We find a good account of these Scholes of the Prophets in Hor∣nius Hist. philos. lib. 2. c. 13.

Samuel revived the pristine fame of wisdom

among his Countrey men: for there were then erected Scholes of the Prophets, unto which the Jews sent their Children for Instituti∣on: Which Custom continued long after. Some one of the Pro∣phets, more conspicuous for wisdom, and pietie, presided over them. Among these Scholes, Ramatha in Gilead was mostly celebrated: where there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or an Academie, as the Chaldee inti∣mates. Thence those most eminent Wits David, and Solomon, were given to the world; both egregious Candidates of Divine, and Hu∣man Wisdom: both excellent Doctors of the Mosaick Sapience.

And that the Jews had Scholes in Babylon,* 1.36 Diodati proves, and observes on Psal. 137.1. After the Captivitie those who instructed the Youth were called Scribes, as it appears out of Esdras, and Nehemiah; and in Christ's time, Doctors, Luke 2.46. Amongst whom there were none more famous, than the Essenes, who had their Colleges and Phi∣losophie, which was principally Medicine; with whom the Pythago∣reans did greatly symbolize, as hereafter. Viret, in his Interim, pag. 122, treating of the Essenes saies,

That they retired from the croud of Politick and Ecclesiastick affairs (wherein the Pharisees, and Saddu∣cees were plunged) into certain Colleges, where they addicted them∣selves to Gardening; but principally to the Studie of Medicine: And for the better ordering of their Studies, they divided the day into times for Prayer, Reading of Lectures, Private Studies, Labors with the hand, and for Refreshments of Nature: in such sort, that all things were transacted amongst them with very good order. And as they lived in common, so had they all one common purse. In sum; their state, at that time, was an excellent Schole of Medicine, of Doctrine, and of examples of Virtue: and, I suppose, the first Christian Monks took their patterns from them.* 1.37

Thus Viret. That the Pythagoreans had a great affinitie whith them, see Book. 2. Chap. 6. §. 7. &c. Ger Voss. de Philosophorum sectis lib. 2. cap. 1. §. 8. tels us,

That the Philoso∣phie of the Jews, which they derived originally from Abraham, was two fold. For it was partly natural, whereof Astrologie was a part: and partly Divine, or of God, his works, and will. The latter Jews named their Philosophie from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to receive, Cabala: because it was received from God. This they divided into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beresith: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mercacia. The former treated of celestial, and elemen∣tary bodies, in which Solomon excelled; the latter treated of God, and his worship. Johannes Picus Mirandulanus was an admirer

of this Cabala, who gloried that he had LXX. books of it,* 1.38 which he bought at a vast price; and that he found in them the Religion de∣livered by Moses, and Christ, &c.

Thus Vossius. But Bishop Ʋsher judged all these Rabbinick and Cabalistick writings as cheats, and not ancienter than 600 years, &c.

Touching the Jewish Scholes after the Babylonian Captivitie, Hornius Histor. philos. l. 7. c. 3. writes thus:

The Jews, after their returne from the Babylonian Captivitie, erected many Scholes, both at Jerusa∣lem, and elsewhere. Before the Destruction there were reckoned in the Hierosolymitan Academie, Synagogues, or Colleges more than 40. in each whereof were two Scholes: one was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the house of the Book, wherein the written Law was read: the other, wherein the Misnajoth, or Traditions, and exegeses of the Ancients, the received Sentences, the forensick decisions, and other things of that sort were taught. This was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the house of Doctrine. All these were destroyed by Vespasian, as Rab. Phinees in Gem••ra Hie∣rosol.

I shall conclude this Chapter of Divine Philosophie, with that of Hornius Hist philos. l. 2. c. 10.

Wisdom, as we know, began first in Paradise, and was afterwards cultivated by the sacred Fathers, and propagated to Posteritie. For God alwaies raised up some, who, relinquishing the errors of profane men, endeavored, even by the studie of Wisdom, the restauration of the Image of God. Such were, after Noah, the Hebrews, as Abraham of the Posteritie of Sem, a man of a Divine Ingenie, and famous for his admirable Knowledge, &c. of which see what precedes § 9.

Of the Jewish Scholes in Babylon, &c. see what follows C. 4. §. 8.

CHAP. II. Of the Egyptian Philosophie, and its Traduction from the Scriptures, &c.

The Egyptians great repute for wisdom: Their Skill in the Mathema∣ticks, Astronomie, Geometrie, Arithmetick, Geogrophie, &c. Their Natural Philosophie, Medicine, &c. Their Moral Philosophie,

especially their Politicks, both Legislative, and Administrative, from the Jewish Church. The Egyptian Theologie, and Gods from Joseph, &c. Of their Hieroglyphicks, and other waies of expressing things. The Traduction of the Egyptian Philosophie from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures, proved both by Testimonies, and Artificial Demon∣stration. Joseph's Provision for the College of Egyptian Pri••sts: His informing them in the Knowledge of God and true Philosophie. The Advantages which the Schole of Alexandria received from the Jews, and Scriptures, translated into Greek by Ptolomie's request. Of Am∣monius, the great master of the Alexandrian Schole, his mixing Scrip∣ture Notions with his Philosophie. The Christian Church at Ale∣xandria, its influence on, and advantages from the Schole.

* 1.39§ 1. BEing now to enter on the Easterne Pagan Philosophers, we shall begin with those of Egypt, who were exceeding famous, e∣ven to a superlative degree, for being the first Parents of Philosophie, and conveighers of it unto the Grecians. We find mention in the Scrip∣tures of the Egyptian Wisdom, and wise men, so Gen 41.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exod. 7.11. And Apulcius 6. Florid. gives this as the peculiar Character of the Egyptians, that they were wise. So Gellius lib. 11. cap. 8, saies of the Egyptians, that they were very exquisite in the finding out of Arts, and endowed with a peculiar sagacitie for the Disquisition of things. So Macrobius tels us, that the Egyptians were the Parents of all philosophick Sciences,* 1.40 and Arts. And that a great part of the Grecian Learning was originally borrowed from the Egyptians, is very evident by the Con∣fession of the Greek Philosophers; as also from matter of Fact. Thus much is confessed by Plato (in his Timaeus fol. 22.) who making mention of Solon, his Kinsman's travels into Egypt, to informe himself about the ancient pieces of Learning, he saies, that one of the Egyptian Priests told Solon, that the Grecians were but children, as to the true Archaeologie; but the Egyptians were Masters of the most Ancient Wisdom, &c. Of Solon's being in Egypt, and getting VVisdom thence, see Vossius de phi∣los. sect. l. 2. c. 2. §. 3. Diodorus Siculus Biblioth. l. 1. tels us, that all those, who were renowned amongst the Greeks for Wisdom and Learning, did, in ancient time, resort to Egypt; and that not only the first Poets, Homer, Orpheus, &c. but also the first Lawgivers, Lycurgus, and Solon, as also Philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. gained most of their Knowledge out of Egypt. And indeed we need go no farther than the Scriptures, to

evince the great repute the Egyptians had for human Wisdom: for in 1 Kings 4.30. it is said, that Solomon's Wisdom excelled all the Wisdom in Egypt. By which it is evidently implied, that the Egyptian Wisdom was ve∣ry considerable, in that it is made the measure of Solomon's Wisdom. We have the like honorable mention of the Egyptian wisdom Act. 7.22. where 'tis said, that Moses excelled in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians. Without doubt, had not the Egyptian Philosophie been very conside∣rable, the spirit of God would not have made such use of it, to adorn Moses's Character, who was otherwise sufficiently accomplished with many eminent qualities. Vossius de philos. sectis l. 2. c. 2. §. 4. tels us,* 1.41

that in ancient times the fame of the Egyptian Priests was very great: Yet in Strabo's time they were of no repute. See Strabo l. 17. where he saies, That when he was in Egypt he saw vast houses, which the Priests in times past inhabited, who were both Astrologers, and Phi∣losophers: but these Sciences were in his time so defective, that there was scarce one to be found skilled therein. All that their Priests could do, was, to enumerate to strangers the Rites of their Sacreds, &c.

Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. tels us,

That the Egyptians had 42 books, which belonged to their Priests, written by their Mercurie, whereof 36 conteined the whole of the Egyptian Philosophie, their Laws, their Gods, and the discipline of their Priests; wherein their Cantor, sacred Scribe, Astrologer, Curator, and Prophet ought, each according to their respective Offices, to be vers'd. The other 6 Books belonged to such as were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. who wore the Cloke, which conteined their Medicine,* 1.42 &c. see Vossius de phil. sect. l. 2. c. 2.

The Egyptian Philosophie lay amongst their Priests: so Strabo Geogr. l. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their Priests embraced Philosophie and Astronomie &c.

§. 2. But to treat a little more particularly,* 1.43 and distinctly of the Egyptian Philosophie, and Wisdom. Vossius de philosophorum sectis l. 2. c. 2. §. 8. gives us this general account of the Egyptian Philosophie, and its extent:

How large the Egyptian Philosophie was, is known by this, that it comprehended the Liberal Sciences, the Hieroglyphick mode of writing, the Knowledge of the Stars, and of Universal Na∣ture, the Situation of the earth, and particularly of Egypt; and of the increases of Nile, the Discipline of Virtues, and of Laws, the Nature of the Gods, and the mode of worship by Sacrifices, and various ceremonies, also the whole of Medicine both Prophylactick,

for the preservation of health; and Pharmaceutick, for the restauration of health; as also Chirurgick. Yet notwithstanding, all these were not required in all Philosophers; but the Cantor, or Musician, took one part to him; and the sacred Scribe another; the Horoscope, or Astrologer assumed other parts; the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Curate of the sacred Rites, others; the Pastophori, and Prophets others. Clemens Ale∣xandrinus lib. 6. delivers, concerning the Egyptians, that they had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a certain peculiar or mystick Philosophie, which, saies he, appears by their sacred ceremonies, &c.

Diogenes Laertius, and others, divide the Egyptian Philosophie into four parts, Mathema∣tick, Natural, Divine, and Moral. We shall speak something of each, and endeavor to shew, what advantages, and assistances they had from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures, for their improvement thereof.

* 1.44As for the Mathematicks, the Egyptians were reputed to be well skilled in Astronomie, Geometrie, Geographie, Arithmetick and Musick; for the improvement whereof they had considerable helps from the Jewish Church, and Patriarchs.

* 1.45As to their great insight into Astronomie, it is asserted by Strabo, Herodotus, and Diodorus; and it is sufficiently manifest, in that they, as it is generally affirmed, were the first, who found out the course of the year by the Sun's motion, which, as it is supposed, was the invention of the Priests of Heliopolis. Thence saies Herodotus lib. 2. The Egypti∣ans were, of all, the first, who found out the Course of the Year; distin∣guishing it into twelve Months, which they gathered from the Stars. This Calculation of the year, Thales (who was the first amongst the Greci∣ans that distinguished the seasons of the year) seemed to have learned in Egypt. Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. tels us,

That the Egyptian Horoscope, or Astrologer, carried in his hand an Horologe, and Palme, the Symbols of Astrologie, who had alwaies in his mouth the four A∣strologick Books of Hermes, whereof one treated of the five Planets, the second of the Sun and Moon, the third and fourth of the rising and setting of the Stars:* 1.46 see Vossius de philos. sect. l. 2. c. 2.

By reason of these their Astronomick observations and experiments, the Egyptians fell into a superstitious admiration of these glorious celestial Bodies, and thence into an opinion that they were Gods. Thus Diodorus Siculus lib. 1. tells us,

that the ancient Inhabitants of Egypt, contemplating the Celestial World, and the Nature of the Superior World; they, with great

stupor, admired the Sun and Moon, esteeming them as the first eternal Gods; whereof the Sun they called Osiris, and the Moon Isis.

The same Lactantius lib. 2. cap. 2. observeth. And this Idolatrous persuasion, that the Stars were Gods (which sprang from natural Astronomie) was the original of all Idolatrous worship, especially that we call Zabaisme, or the worship of those planetary Deities, so much in use amongst the Chaldeans; whence also sprang judicial Astrologie, as it will evidently appear in our Discourse of the Chaldaick Philosophie, chap. 4. §. 4. As for the occasion, which the Egyptians had for the improving of Astro∣nomie, even unto Idolatrie; we have it well described by Eus••bius praepar. l. 1. c. 6. They report that the Egyptians were the first, who lifting up their eyes to Heaven, and admiring the mode, order, and quantitie of those celestial bodies, thought the Sun and Moon to be Gods. So Lactant. lib. 2. Inst. cap. 14. The first of all, those, who possessed Egypt, began to contem∣plate and adore those cel••stial bodies. And because they lived, by reason of the Qualitie of the air, without covered houses, they thence had opportunitie to note the Courses and Defects of the Stars; and thence fell into the admi∣ration, and adoration of them.

As for the Egyptians skill in Geometrie,* 1.47 Porphyrie assures us, that they have been for a long time very studious therein.* 1.48 And Proclus in Euclid. 2.4. faith, that Geometrie was invented by the Egyptians, taking its be∣ginning from measuring of fields; it being necessary for them, from the inun∣dation of Nilus, which washed away their bounds. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 39. gives us a clear account of the whole: The Wisdom of the Egyptians, what was it (saies he) but principally Astronomie, &c? Ludovi∣cus Vives on this place▪ gives this account:

The Ancient Egyptians much exercised themselves in Astronomie, Geometrie, and Arithmetick. As for Geometrie, necessitie taught them that, which they greatly nee∣ded, when the bounds of their fields were broken down by the over∣flowing of Nilus; neither could they, any other way, divide their grounds &c. Whence Geometrie is so termed from measuring of the earth.

As for Astronomie,* 1.49 the commodiousnes of their situation gave them great advantage for improvement therein, they, having their nights alwaies clear, and serene, and the Heavens lying open to them without clouds, could easily contemplate the risings, and set∣tings,

of the Stars, with their progresses, and regresses, &c. Then to these two, Arithmetick was added, as subservient, without which the former could not be attained.

Thus Lud. Vives.

And that our Astronomie came much of it, if not the whole, from the Egyptians, and those Eastern parts, seems very probable from those Hypotheses, or Hieroglyphick Signes, which are used by Astrono∣mers in the Zodiack, and other parts of the Celestial Globe, to expresse the Celestial Bodies, and their motions by: which way of expressing things was in much use amongst the Egyptians, and by them called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which they derived (as 'tis supposed) from the Jewish Church, their Rites, and Ceremonies.

* 1.50Neither were the Egyptians unacquainted with Geographie; as it appears from Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. l. 6.) his description of the sacred Scribe, in the solemn procession; of whom it was required, that he should be skilled in Hieroglyphicks, Cosmographie, Geographie, the motions of the Planets, the Chorographie of Egypt, and the description of Nile. Eustathius, in his Notes on Dionysius, attributes the invention of Geographick Tables to Sesostris, who caused the Lands he had conque∣red, to be described in Tables, and so communicated it to the Egyptians, and from them to others, as Stilling. Orig. Sacr. Book 2. c. 2. Vossius de phil. sect. lib. 2. c. 2. §. 8. We find a good general account of the Egyptians skill in Mathematicks, given by Hornius Hist. philos. lib. 2. c. 7.

They so handled the Mathematick Sciences, that if they be compared with other Nations, they may be said, not so much to perfect, as invent them; which they affected out of a humor of vain glorie. Especial∣ly there were famous among them Petosiris, and Necepson: by whose Prudence (they are the words of Julius Firmicus) there was an ac∣cesse made to the very secrets of Divinitie. They vindicated to them∣selves the invention of Geometrie, Astrologie, and Astronomie.

* 1.51§. 3. That the Egyptians had in like manner the Knowledge of Natural Philosophie, especially of Medicine, and Anatomie (which are but branches thereof) is generally affirmed by the Ancients. Its true their superstition kept them from dissecting,* 1.52 and prying into the na∣tures of those creatures, to which they attributed a Deitie, yet were they not without many choice experiments, and curious observations, even in the experimental part of Natural Philosophie: for Blinie (Hist. l. 19. c. 5.) tels us,

that it was the manner of their Kings to cause dead bodies to be anatomized, to find out the Structure, or Composition of Man's

bodie, with the causes, and nature of Diseases.

* 1.53 Besides they were ex∣act in making philosophick observations touching any curious natu∣ral events, or their irregularities. For when there happened any pro∣digie, or irregular thing in nature, they did, saies Strabo, with much cu∣riosity, lay i•• up amongst their sacred records; and Herodotus addes

That more things of this nature were observed by them, than by any other Nation; which, saith he, they not only diligently preserved, but frequently compared together, and, from a similitude of Prodigies, ga∣thered a similitude of Ev••nts.

Thus much also Plato in his Timaeus fol. 22.33. observes concerning them, in his relation of S••lon's Conference with the Egyptian Priest: where Solon, having a curiosity to find out the truth, and original of those ancient great events, touching Phoro∣neus, Deucalion, and Pyrrhus, &c. the Egyptian Priest unfolds these mythologick fabulous narrations, by an historick relation; wherein he seems to reduce the Storie of Deucalion to that of Noahs Floud; and that of Pyrrhus his wife, to the Burning of Sodom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fying fire: as also that of Phoroneus to the drowning of Pharaoh in the Red Sea: Phoroneus, and Pharaoh being according to the Hebrew, and so the Egyptian tongue (which differed little from it) conjugates,

And that the Egyptians had some natural historie of the first Crea∣tion, (which could not be traduced to them by any hand,* 1.54 save that of Moses, originally, Genesis 1.) is apparent out of Diogenes Laert. (proem pag. 7.) where he saies;

that the Egyptians did constantly believe that the World had a beginning, and was corruptible; that the Stars were of the nature of Fire; and that the Soul was immortal, &c.

But that, for which the Egyptians were most famous abroad,* 1.55 was their skill in Medicine; which is so much spoken of by Homer, Plato, He∣rodotus, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, &c. Plinie tels us, lib. 29. c. 1. that

the original of Physick, or Medicine amongst the Egyptians, was from the relations of those, who by any remedy were cured of any Disease; which for a memorial to posterity were recorded in their Temples.

The Egyptians had also excellent skill in the embalming of dead bodies, for their conservation (which appertaines to Medicinal Philosophie) as it appears from Scripture: Gen. 50.2.* 1.56 where Joseph commands the Physicians to embalme his Father. Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. trea∣ting of the Egyptian Philosophie, conteined in 24 books written by their Mercurie, tels us,

that 6 of these Books concerned Medicine, which were studied by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i. e. those who wore the Cloke)

wherein was distinctly handled the Fabrick of Mans Bodie, the Na∣ture of Diseases, and Medicaments; and particularly the Medicine of the Eyes, and of Womens Diseases, &c.

Diodorus makes the Egypti∣ans the first Inventors of Medicine. And what their dexteritie in Ana∣tomie was, is evident by that of Gellius lib. 10. Noct. Att. cap. 10.

Ap∣pion, in his Egyptian Books, saies that Human Bodies being dissected, and opened, according to the Egyptian mode, it was found out, that there was a certain most tenuous Nerve, which passed from one sin∣ger to the heart of man. Farther, how much the Egyptians were verst in Medicine is discovered by that pleasant Character of Homer (who conversed much with them) Odyss. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Thus Hornius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 7.

The Egyptians greatly studied Natural Philosophie, wherein how much they excelled appears from Medicine it self, which they strenuously exercised.

See Vossius de Phi∣los. sect is l. 2. c. 2. §. 8.

* 1.57§. 4. Neither were the Egyptians defective in Moral Philosophie, especially as to Politicks, for which they had a great repute amongst the ancients, both for their excellent Laws, and also for their good Ad∣ministration, and execution thereof. As for their Laws, they are high∣ly commended by Strabo, and Diodorus; and so greatly esteemed by Lycurgus, Solon, and Plato, as that they were not ashamed to borrow many of their Laws, and politick Constitutions from them.

It is most certain, saies Stillingfleet, that those who formed Greece first into civil Societies, and well ordered Common Wealths, were such as had been Traders for Knowledge in other parts. To which purpose Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. lib. 1.) informeth us, that Ly∣curgus and Solon, as well as the Poets, Orpheus, Musaeus, Melampus, and Homer; and the Philosophers after them, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. had gained most of their Knowledge, and Wisdom out of Egypt: nay he saith in general, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

All those who were renowned amongst the Greeks, for Wisdom and Learning, did in ancient time resort to Egypt, there to participate of Learn∣ing, and Laws, &c,

* 1.58And as the Grecians received their Learning, and Laws from Egypt; so we need no way doubt, but that the Egyptians received the best

part of their Laws from the Mosaick Constitutions, besides what they had immediately from Joseph their great Legislator, as hereafter.* 1.59 As for the Egyptians Wisdom, in their politick Administration, or Go∣vernment of State, it is evident from Esa. 19.11, 12. where the King of Egypt is stiled the Son of the Wise. Besides the continuance of their State so long in peace, is a sufficient demonstration of their State Poli∣cie, or prudent management of State Affairs; for the improvement whereof, we have reason enough to judge, they received much light from the Mosaick judicial constitutions; as also from Solomons Politicks, with whom they had great affinitie (by reason of Solomon's Wife) and commerce, or correspondence: Though indeed they owed much of their Politie and Government to Joseph; who passeth amongst them under the names of Hermes, Apis, Serapis, &c. as in what follows.

§. 5. We now come to the Egyptian Theologie,* 1.60 for which they were greatly reputed; the original wherof they owe to Joseph, and Jewish Traditions, as it will appear by the parts thereof. Clemens Alexan∣drinus (so called by reason of his same in the Church, and Schole of Alexandria in Egypt was greatly versed in Egyptian Rites, and Worship, whereof he gives us this account, lib. 6.

The Egyptians, saies he, have a proper, or mystick kind of Philosophie, which appears from their sacred Ceremonies. For first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Cantor precedes with a Musick Symbol,* 1.61 and those 2 books of Mercurie, the one containing the Hymnes of the Gods, the other an account of the Kings life. After the Cantor follows the Horoscope, with an horologe, and palme,* 1.62 the Symbols of Astrologie in his hand. This has alwaies in his mouth the four Astrologick Books of Hermes. The Horoscope is received by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or sacred Scribe,* 1.63 carrying in his head Feathers, and in his hands a Book with a ruler, wherein is an inkhorn, and pen to write. This person ought to be skilled in Hieroglyphicks, Cosmo∣graphie, Geographie, the order of the Sun, Moon, and 5 Planets, the Chorographie of Egypt, and the Description of Nile, and all sacred Rites, and Places, with their Dimensions; and whatever belongs to Sacreds. After the sacred Scribe follows the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Ornator,* 1.64 who hath the Cubit of Justice, and the sacrisicing cup. This person is instructed both in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. such things as conduce to Learning, and the Liberal Sciences; and also in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the Doctrine of the Sacrifices of Calves, and the Ceremonies appertaining thereto. All these things the Egyptian Religion conteined, Prayers, Pomps,

Festival daies, Sacrifices, first Fruits, Hymnes, and other things like hereunto. In the last place goes their Prophet,* 1.65 who carries in his bo∣som a Water pot, and is followed by those who carried the panes emissos, i. e. bread set forth. This person is the Governor of the Sacreds; and he learned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the 42 Sacerdotal Books, written by their Egyptian Mercurie, which treated of Laws, Gods, and the whole Priestly Discipline.* 1.66 In all of which this Prophet is to be versed, be∣cause he is also to oversee the distribution of Tributes, &c.

So Vossius de philos. sectis l. 2. c. 2. That the chief of these Egyptian Ceremonies were borrowed from the Jewish Rites will be evident to any, that con∣sider, how parallel they are. The Egyptian Cantor to the Jewish Singer; their sacred Scribe to the Jewish; their sacrificing Cup to that, wherein the Jews offered their Libamina, or Drink-Offerings; their panes emissi, or bread set forth to the Jewish panes propositionis, shew bread; their Calve-Sacrifices to the Jewish; as their Prayers, Festivals, Sacrifices, first Fruits, Hymnes to those amongst the Jews.

Philip Melancthon, in his Chronichon lib. 2. concerning Abraham, tels us, that Joseph setling the College of Priests in Egypt, informed them with the Knowledge of God, and planted a Church amongst them, which pious Institution of his, in after times, degenerated into Supersti∣tion and Idolatrie, &c. As for the Egyptian Gods, it is evident, they are all younger than the Patriarchs; and, as it is supposed, had their original from them, especially from Joseph. Melancthon makes Osiris,* 1.67 which signifies auxiliator, or a blessed man, to be contem∣porarie with Abraham; but I should rather judge him an Hierogly∣phick of Joseph, who helped them in their famine. That the memorie of Joseph was preserved amongst them under the Egyptian Apis, Vossius (de Idol. lib. 1. c. 29.) makes very probable, from the testimonies of Julius Maternus,* 1.68 Ruffinus, and Suidas, as also from the great advanta∣ges, which the Egyptians received from Joseph, which no Hieroglyphick could expresse more emphatically, than the Egyptian Apis, which re∣sembled the fat and lean Kine. 2. It was the manner of the Egyptians, to preserve the memories of their great Benefactors, by such Symbols, which were at first designed only for civil use. 3. He proves it also from the names of Apis and Serapis. Apis he conceives to be the sacred name of Joseph, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 father; so Gen. 45.8. Joseph himself saies he was a father to Pharaoh. And Serapis, as Suidas, and Ruffinus tels us, had a bushel on his head, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sor, a Bull, and Apis. Yea that

the Egyptian Demons had their rise from Joseph,* 1.69 whom they esteemed as one of their chiefest Demons, and Heroes, is very probable: so Mr Bochart, in a Sermon at Caen, affirmed,

that the Egyptians had a Citie, which they stiled the Citie of their Heroes, as some think, from Joseph, whom they accounted amongst their Heroes, or Demons.

That the E∣gyptians had their Demons is asserted by Iamblicus, &c.* 1.70 As for Orus (which signifies Light, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Or) who is said to have taught the Egyptians their Wisdom, Melancthon (chron. l. 2.) thinks that he was instructed by Abraham, and thence instructed the Egyptians in the Knowledge of the true God, as also in the Motions of the Heavens, &c. But may not this name be more properly applied to Joseph; who is expressely said Ps. 105.22.* 1.71 to teach them Wisdom? Whence he was by the Greeks called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: to which the Egyptian, or Hebrew Orus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Or, exactly answers.

Isis was later,* 1.72 and (as Learned Bochart told me) the same with Pharaoh's Daughter, who adopted Moses: so the name Is••ha signifies Virago. as Melancthon. As also Busyris,* 1.73 which, according to Melan∣cthon, signifies Munitor,* 1.74 and is supposed to have built the Egyptian Py∣ramids, by the hands of the Children of Israel. See more of the Egypti∣an Gods. Part 1. B. 2. C. 7. §. 10. of Egyptian Gods.

Yea not only the matter of Egyptian Theologie, but also the Instru∣ments, and Promotors of it, seem evidently of Judaick, sacred Extract. For look, as the Jewish Theologie was seated among the Priests, and Pro∣phets: so also the Egyptians had, in imitation of these, their Priests,* 1.75 and Prophets. Thus Diogenes Laertius lib. 1. tels us, that the Egyptian Philo∣sophers were stiled Priests, and Prophets. So Apulcius de Dogm. Plat. saies, that Plato went to Egypt, that he might learn there the Rites of the Prophets. This also gives us the reason, why their chief Philosophers were called Priests; namely because the chief Matter of their philosophizings was Theologick. Thus Hornius Histor. philos. l. 2. c. 7.

They were called Priests by reason of their ancient Philosophie, which was joined with Theologie. For they discoursed of the Gods, their Natures, and Worship; and of things natural, which they esteemed also a•• Divine, because Nature was with them as a God. The like he addes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what follows: The Philosophie of the ancient Egyptians took in al•• as has been said, Theologie it self, which they who mostly studied, for distincti∣on sake, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Priests:

Which is the very ••otion by which the Jewish Priest is expressed. Some distinguish their Egyptian

Priests, and Prophets thus: the former they make to be imployed about Sacreds, the latter about Oracles, and the prediction of futures. Which also answers to the Jewish Distribution. Touching the Egyptian My∣steries, or Mystick Divinitie, it was couched under Hieroglyphicks; of which we are now to treat.

* 1.76§. 6. We have done with the matter of the Egyptian Philosophie, both Mathematick, Natural, Moral, and Theologick. We now proceed to their manner of philosophizing, which was by Hieroglyphicks, or Sym∣bols answerable unto, and, as it is very probable, derived from those in use amongst the ancient Hebrews and Jews. So Lud. Vives, on Austin de civitat. Dei. l. 18. c. 39.* 1.77

Artapanus (saies he) reports that Moses gave Letters to the Egyptians — and if any shall inquire in what let∣ters that Wisdom of the Egyptians, in which we read Moses was in∣stituted, was conteined, he will find, peradventure, it was wont to be traduced and received by vocal Tradition, and so conserved in the memorie of the Teachers, and of the Hearers: if they had any formes of letters, they were no other than Images of Animals, or other Crea∣tures, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Letters engraven in Sacreds, &c.

The same Ludovicus Vives tels us,

that we find some mention of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hieroglyphick Letters (which were the formes, or images of beasts engraven on their Sacred Sym∣bols) in the fragments of Orus, that ancient Egyptian Writer, &c.

Vissius de philos. sectis l. 2. c. 2. §. 7. saies,

that the Egyptian Philoso∣phie, for the most part, was couched under Allegories: which way of philosophizing ought not to be rejected: For every where in the Old Testament we find Allegories. And Christ himself in the Evange∣list saies, I will open my mouth in parables, and in dark sayings will I speak of the ancient matters.

Also the Evangelist saies, that Christ spake to the people in parables.

Athanas-Kircherus Oedip. Aegypt. Tom. 3. cap. 1. gives us this Ori∣gination of an Hieroglyphick.

An Hieroglyphick derived 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. from sacred Sculpture, is nothing else but a Symbol of a sacred thing engraven on stones. It's called a Symbol, to indicate the reason of its mysterious sense. It is said to be of a thing sacred, thereby to constitute the difference 'twixt sacred, and profane Symbols.

For there was a two ••••ld kind of Egyptian Parables, the one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which comprehended vulgar similitudes; the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, drawn from their Sacred Doctrine. Clemens Alexandrinus Strom 5, saith

that they

who are taught by the Egyptians,* 1.78 learn first of all the method of the Egyptian Letters, called Epistolographick; secondly the Hieratick, used by those, who write of sacred things; the last, and most per∣fect, called Hieroglyphick, whereof there is one Curiologick (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) another (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Symbolick: of the Symbolick also there are three sorts, the one is spoken properly, by imitation;* 1.79 the o∣ther is written as it were tropically; another, on the contrary, doth allegorize by Enigmes. As for instance; in the Curiologick way to ex∣presse the Sun, they make a Circle, to expresse the Moon, a Crescent. Tropically they, by resemblance, traduce, transfer, and expresse, by changing some things, and variously transfiguring others. Thus, when they deliver the praises of Kings in Theologick Fables,* 1.80 they write by A••aglyphicks▪ In the third kind, by Enigmes, they liken the Sun to a B••••tle, because they say, this Creature liveth six Months under ground. see Stanly of Pythag.

We have an instance of their Hierogly∣phick Mysteries in that famous Hieroglyphick of Diospolis, of which we find so much mention amongst the Ancients; where, to expresse our coming into the World, they used a child; and to notifie our going out of the world, an old man; they expressed God by an Hawk; hatred by an Hippotamus; Impudence by a Crocodile. And all this to expresse this pretty Apothegme. O ye that come into the world, and go out of it, God hates Impudence. so Stilling. orig. sacr. book 2. c. 2. Vossius de philos. sect. lib. 2. c 2. §. 5. tels us,

that the first Discipline of the Egyptians con∣sisted in their threefold Scripture: one vulgar or common,* 1.81 which was used in writing Epistles, another sacred which they used in writing sacreds; and a third Hieroglyphick, or the Sculpture of sacred Images, &c.

These sacred Hieroglyphicks are called by Apuleius lib. 11. Pi∣ctures and Images, which saies he, they used to preserve their Philoso∣phie from contempt, and oblivion by. Benjamin Tudelensis in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣quaints us, that at Alexandria, on the shore, there was to be seen a Marble Sepulchre, whereon all kind of Birds, and other Animals were en∣graven. Whence it is conceived, that these Egyptian Hieroglyphicks were not so much letters or words, as some conjecture, as intire senten∣ces, ye complete Discourses, for the more easie preservation of the me∣morie of things. So under the forme of a Bee making hony, they ex∣pounded the office of a King. Lucan wittily stiles these Hieroglyphicks, Magicas Linguas, Magick Languages, because they denoted not sin∣gle letters, or words, but intire orations; as Hornius Hist philos. l 7. c 6

* 1.82§. 7. This Hieroglyphick and Mystick way of philosophizing, though it has little of substance in it, yet did it make a great noise, and was exceeding taking in the infant state of the world; as it is the proper∣ty of children, to be taken more with sensible formes, shadows, or pi∣ctures, which please the fancie, than with solid reason. So the Gym∣nosophists, and Druides were wont to wrap up their Philosophie in ob∣scure and enigmatick sentences, as Laert. lib. 1. The like is said of Ta••u∣tus the Phenician, as Sanchoniathon in Euseb. praepar. l. 1. c. 7. For the first Philosophers delighted to concele their more hidden Mysteries, from the Vulgar; whence they bound their Auditors by an oath o•• se∣crecie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which words are taken out of a famous formule of the oath, whereby Vettius Valcus the Antiochene Astrologer bound his reader, as Seld•••• Prol. 3. de Diis Syris & Synt. 1. c. 1. H••rnius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 6. This kind of philosophizing, Pythagoras translated immediately from the Egyptians, but originally from the Jews, into Greece. Porphyrie in the life of Pythagoras tels us,

that it was permitted unto Pythagoras, when he was in Egypt, to acquaint himself with all the Studies of the Egyptian Priests at Thebes;* 1.83 which was never granted to any For∣reigner besides.

Diogenes saith,

that whilst he lived with these Priests, he was instructed in the Learning, and Language of the Egyptians, and in the three modes of writing, Epistolographick, Hieroglyphick, and Sym∣bolick, whereof the one imitates the common way of speaking, the rest are Allegorick, by Enigms, &c. as Clemens Strom. 5.

Plato also took up the same mode of allegorick, or symbolick philosophizing, though not so expresly, as Pythagoras. And indeed this kind of philosophizing was extremely pleasing to these first Ages, and Philosophers; as A∣myraldus well observes in his Salmurian Thes••s de Imaginibus.

In the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks (saies he) the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, manners and passions were figured by the shapes of Animals, and other creatures. which were very delightful to sense; &c.

Athan. Kircher. Oedi••s Aegyptiaci tom. 2. part. 1, cap. 1. saies,

that the Egyptians were the first amongst men, who insisted on this mode of philosophizing by Symbols. For they, being of an acute, and subtile ingenie; as also continually vers'd in a certain profound contemplation, and disquisiti∣on of Truth, delighted themselves in these mystick expressions, &c.

And the same Kircherus, in what follows cap. 2. gives us the Origine of this Symbolick Doctrine.

It stands thus (saith he) with human con∣dition,

that if men have any thing that is pretious, rare, and beauti∣ful, they not only hide it under secret formes, but also concele it un∣der enigmatick and mysterious words, that none but the more wise, and quicksighted, may come to the manifest notice thereof. VVhich, as it has been the custom of all times, so especially amongst the anci∣ent wise men. For seeing they had, as it was most meer, so high an esteem, for those great secrets of Divinitie, communicated, by suc∣cessive Tradition, from the Patriarchs, as conteining the in exhausted treasures of eternal felicitie; they thought it dangeorus to expose these rich treasures, to the ignorant people, and dull ingenies. VVhere∣fore they endeavored, by all means possible, to couch them under such symbolick coverts, that vulgar capacities might penetrate only the bark, or outside of the words; the marrow, or sense, being still hid from them.

And then in what follows cap. ••3. the same Kircher. gives us the Interpretation of many Hieroglyphick Symbols, out of Zo∣rcaster. Moreover cap. 4. he interprets many Hieroglyphick Symbols used by Orpheus. And cap. 5. The Symbols of Pythagoras are inter∣preted by him, VVhence he proceeds cap. 6, 7, 8, 9, &c, to explicate many Hieroglyphick Symbols used by Plato, Proclus, Picus Mirandula∣nus, and others. Thence in the second part of his second Tome, he in∣terprets many Mathematick, Mechanick Medicinal, Chymick, Ma∣gick, and Metaphysick Hieroglyphicks: from Classis 7. to 12.

This ancient mode of expressing things worthy of memorie,* 1.84 by cer∣tain hieroglyphick formes, or symbols, was very common amongst the ancients, both Poets, and Philosophers: For in this infancie of the world, knowledge being impolite and imperfect, they took delight to shad∣dow forth their highest mysteries, and contemplations, by terrene Ima∣ges, and sensible formes; which way of conveighing, and preserving knowledge is not only helpful to the memorie, and delightful to the fancie, but also very efficacious, as to the moving of Affections; and therefore the wise God made use of this familiar way and method, for the instructing of his own people, in the non-age of his Church, sha∣dowing forth, and signifying to them, the most sublime heavenly my∣steries of his Gospel, by earthly Symbols, or Types. VVhence that great maxime 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sensible formes are imitations of Intelligible things. Thus were the greatest pieces of Jewish wisdom couched under the covert of Symbols, or Types. VVhence the Egypti∣ans, as the other Easterne Philosophers borrowed their Hieroglyphick

manner of philosophizing by fables, &c. which will more fully appear hereafter, in the life of Pythagoras, and Plato. See more of these Egyp∣tian Hieroglyphicks in Athan. Kircher. O••dipi Aegyptiaci Tom. 3. cap. 1.

* 1.85§. 8. Having given some account of the Egyptians Philosophie, both as to the matter, and manner of their philosophizing, I shall now proceed to give a more particular demonstration, that the chiefest parts, if not the whole thereof, descended originally from the Jewish Church, or Scriptural Tradition. I shall begin with Inartificial Arguments, or Authentick Testimonies of such whose skill in Antiquitie, and faithful∣nes in their relations thereof, is generally acknowledged, and recei∣ved.* 1.86 VVe gave some Testimonies hereof afore in our account of A∣braham, Joseph, and Moses, their Philosophie; to which we shall adde, 1. that of Ludovicus Vives on August. de Civit Dei lib. 8. cap. 9. The Philosophie of the Egyptians (saies he) is very ancient, but for the most part derived from the Chaldeans, especially from Abraham; though they, as Diodorus writes, refer it to Isis, Osiris, Vulcan, Mercurie, and Hercules. Thus Lud. Vives. First this old Tradition, that the Egyptian Philoso∣phie, and thence the Grecian sprang from the Chaldeans is, and that not without great probabilitie, by the Learned interpreted of the He∣brews: for Abraham their Ancestor was a Chaldean: and the Hebrews themselves lived under the Chaldean Empire, at that time when this old saying began amongst the Grecians, mentioned by Plato, &c of which more hereafter. 2. Lud. Vives expresly saies that the Egyptian Philo∣sophie came principally from Abraham; for which he has much of Pagan Antiquitie on his side, as we mentioned on Abraham▪ Josephus A••ti∣quit. sud lib. 1. cap. 16. judgeth that the Egyptians learned their Arith∣metick, and Astrologie from the Patriarch Abraham, who brought these Sciences from Chaldea. But the Egyptians are wont to refer their Philo∣sophie to Isis, Osiris, Vulcan, Mercurie, and Hercules; as Diodorus Sicu∣lus. The Doctors of this wisdom are, by Clemens Alexandrinus, called Prophets, by Suidas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as amongst the Ethiopians) by Eusebius, in an Egyptian name, Arsepedonaptae. These drew their wisdom from Abraham, as before; and perhaps from Joseph also, who first taught the Egyptians the use of Geometrie, as Artapanus in Josephus testifies. And this opinion, as some think, may be founded on Psal. 105.22. It is credi∣ble also, that they got some things from the Israelites, who also descended from Abraham; and hence Aristophanes, in Avibus, cals them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

which Suidas also observes. Thus Ger. Vossius de philosoph. sectis. l. 2. c. 2. §. 2. 3. The Confession of the Egyptians themselves related by Diodorus,* 1.87 seems clearly to intimate, and prove our Assertion. For in that they refer their Philosophie originally to Isis, Osiris, Mercurie,* 1.88 &c. it is very probable that these feigned names were originally given to the Patriarchs, especially to Joseph, by the Egyptians, who being un∣willing to own the Hebrews, as Authors of their Wisdom, gave these borrowed names unto Joseph, &c. according to the custome of that infant Age. Athan. Kircher. Oedipi Aegypt. Tom. 3. c. 1. makes Her∣m••s Trismegistus the Author of the Egyptians Hieroglyphick Philosophie. Yet so, as that we received the first Lineaments thereof from the Patri∣archs. His words are

Hermes Trismegistus contemplating this world composed of so great varietie of things, as a Scene distinguisht with most polite Images, he rightly supposed, that these creature-images were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Symbols of God, &c. And hence the first rudiments of Hieroglyphick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proceeded; which being adumbrated by the first Patriarchs, Adam, Enoch, Noah, C••am, and perfected by Her∣mes, sprang up unto the forme, by the stupendious architecture of Hi∣eroglyphicks.

That Mercurie called by the Grecians Hermes, could be no other than Joseph, has been already proved in the Storie of Joseph's Philosophie: as also Part 1. Book 2. Chap. 7. §. 10. of the Egyptian Theogonie.* 1.89 But Serranus (that great Philologist) in his Preface to Pla∣to, speaks more fully and expresly touching the traduction of the E∣gyptian Philosophie from the Patriarchs and Scripture Revelation. His words are these,

That the Egyptians retained many things from the Traditions of the Patriarchs, the ancient Historie of Moses demon∣strates: & that they derived many things from the clear fountains of the Scriptures, which yet they contaminated by their own mud (or fables) is no way to be doubted.

Thus Serranus: but of this more hereaf∣ter in the life of Pythagoras, and Plato.* 1.90 The like Hornius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 10. which see in what precedes of Joseph chap. 1. §. 9.

§. 9. To make good yet farther our assertion, touching the Tradu∣ction of the Egyptian Philosophie from the Jewish Church, we now shall endeavor to give some Artifiicial Argument, or Demonstration, from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or cause; by shewing what influence the Patriarchs, and

Jewish Church had on the Egyptian Wisdom, as well in its first rise, as af∣ter improvement. First, that the Egyptians were no way famous for Wisdom, or Philosophie, before the abode of the Patriarchs with them, is evident by their own concessions: for they confesse they owe all their wisdom to their Gods; Isis, Osiris; but principally to Mercurie, or Theuth, whom they call Hermes, &c. So Plato in Phae∣dro brings in Socrates relating,* 1.91 that the Egyptians wor∣shipped a certain God whom they called Theuth, who found out, and taught them all Arts and Letters, in that time, when Thamus held the Empire of Egypt. This Theuth is the same with the Egyptian Mercurie, of whom Iamblichus (most skilful in the Egyptian Theo∣logie) lib. de Myster. Aegipt. cap. 1. thus writeth:

The Egyptians report Mercurie to be the M••dera∣tor, and God of Wisdom, and Eloquence; and they declared that by him not only Letters were found out, and reduced into order; but also that the principles of all Learning were collected, and published, in many thousand books by him,* 1.92

Now that all the Egyptian Gods were younger than the Patriarchs, or at least but borrowed names given to them, is generally asserted by the Learned; especially that Mercurie, or Hermes was Joseph, or Moses. Carion in his Ch••oni••on lib. 2. of A∣braham, tels us, that after the great Famine in Egypt, Joseph altered the constitution, or forme of the Egyptian Kingdom (he having bought in all the Land, that belonged to the people) and erected a College for the Priests which was endowed,* 1.93 &c. His words are these,

After the Fa∣mine the forme of the Egyptian Kingdom was constituted, and Tri∣butes appointed, and Revenues for the College of the Priests; that so they might be conservators of Learning▪ And although the Know∣ledg of God was, after Joseph's death, changed, yet the Knowledge of the Celestial motions, and of the nature of things, was conserved in Egypt, throughout all the four Monarchies of the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and Romans, even unto the Barbarians of the Mahometans, almost 3000 years. Jacob saw the flourishing state of this Kingdom, which then had a pious King, with whom he had frequent confe∣rence, and who took care, that the true Doctrine should be propaga∣ted far and near, and in the famine afforded relief to many neighbo∣ring Nations.

Thus far Carion, or Melancthon. By which we see what care Joseph took, for informing the Egyptian Priests, in the Know∣leedge

of the true God, and sound Philosophie. The Scripture also makes an honorable mention of Joseph's care of, and provision for the Priests; as Gen. 47.22.* 1.94 by assigning them Portions, and setling their Lands. And as he took this care for their Bodies, and Succession in following Ages; so we cannot conceive, but that he took much more care for their Souls, and the Souls of the whole Kingdom, with which they were entrusted. Can we imagine that Joseph made such large provision for these Egyptian Priests, that so they might be the better qualified to serve the Devil, and Idol Gods? no; without doubt, his great designe was to lay a foundation, for the Knowledge and Worship of the true God, as well as, and much more than, for human Philosophie, and other inge∣genious Sciences) for the accomplishment whereof, he had an huge ad∣vantage, in that, having been an instrument to save the Nation, he had thereby gained the King's Ear, and Heart, who, if we may credit Carion, was piously inclined: and we may also, not without good ground, conjecture as much from Joseph's Instructions of, and Jacob's Conference with him. And indeed the unparalleld kindnesses he ma∣nifested to Joseph, his Father, and Brethren, argues some pious inclina∣tion in him. But this holy and great design of Joseph, in erecting a College for the Egyptian Priests, and making such ample provision for their Instruction in the Knowledge of God, and human Philosophie, after his decease determined in miserable superstition, and Idolatrie: so also Carion lib. 2. of the going out of the children of Israel out of Egypt, saies, That Egypt excelled in Arts, and Laws, and other Learning: Jo∣seph had planted a Church there; but after his death the Kings turned a∣side to Idols, and in the following times Egypt was full of Idols, and Magick Arts. Thus Carion: so Hornius as before Chap. 1. §. 9. Thus we have seen what foundation was laid by Joseph, and the rest of the Pa∣triarchs for Divine and human Philosophie, and its improvement in E∣gypt: unto which we have ground enough to conjecture, that Moses, by his writings, and Solomon by his, gave no small additional advance, as it has been already observed in its place.

§. 10. We now proceed to demonstrate, what improvement the Egyptian Philosophie, and Wisdom received from the Jewish Church, after the Babylonian Captivitie. When the Jews were carried captive to Babylon, we find that many remainders of them fled to Egypt, where we may presume they had their Scholes, as in Babylon; or at least some way of communicating their Knowledge to the Egyptians, who, with∣out

doubt, would be very inquisitive into their mysteries. And when Alexander upon personal conversation with the Jews, and observation of their Institutes, and Solemnities, began to have a kindnes for them, mul∣titudes of them were, by Alexander's favor, setled at Alexandria; where they had huge advantage to season that Fountain of Learning with Scripture Light, which immediately after their settlement, began to flourish; and being afterwards abundantly supplied with the Waters of the Sanctuarie, I mean with the sacred Fountain of the holy Scrip∣tures translated into Greek, this Schole of Alexandria proved the most flourishing in the world.* 1.95 For the greatest advantage that the Egyptians, and Grecians had, for improvement in Divine, and human Philosophie, was the Translation of the Hebrew Testament into Greek by the ap∣pointment; as it is supposed, of Ptolomeus Philadelphus King of Egypt; whereof Carion Chron lib 2. of the Kings of Egypt after Alexander, gives us this account.

Ptolomeus Philadelphus (saies he) reigning with peace in Egypt, and finding the profession of Sciences confined to the Priests, and the Egyptian Tongue,* 1.96 and Letters; he caused Learning to be translated into the Greek Tongue, and instituted Studies (or Colleges) at Alexandria; where it was, thence forward, common for all that would, to studie and learn: and the King called thither from all parts Learned men; he erected a copious Librarie, and searched after ancient monuments, amongst divers Nations. Wherefore Callimachus writ a book of the origine, and migrations of the Nations, and of the Buil∣ders of the ancient Cities, and their Laws; which book being lost, is of great detriment to Antiquitie. But when Ptolomie understood that the Jews had the ancient series of the Fathers, and saw that the Law of the Jews did mostly accord with reason, touching the unitie of God, and right manners he took care to have the books of the Jews translated into the Greek Tongue. By the labor and bountie of this King Ptolomeus Philadelphus, the Studies of Sciences were restored to mankind, and largely propagated. And it is written, that he was moved by the Counsels of the most learned Aristas, Strabo, and Demetrius Phalerensis, Callimachus, Apollonius, Aratus, Bion, Theocritus, Conon, and Hipparchus the Mathematician, who resided with him, &c. The Studies of the Sciences, instituted in the reign of Philadelphus, flourish∣ed greatly at Alexandria, in the reign of Eu••rgetes his son; who also was very bountiful towards the Jews. In his time Jesus the son of Syrach, be∣ing in Egypt, gathered his sentences; which are yet extant; which

(saies he) were written by his Grandfather, but augmented by him∣self, and translated into Greek. The reading of which is most profi∣table and sweet, &c. Thus Carion (or Melancthon, who added to him) by which it's apparent, what great advance the Egyptian Wisdom, and the Schole of Alexandria (which henceforward became the seat thereof) in its first constitution, received from the Scriptures, and Jewish Church.

§. 11. This Schole of Alexandria grew exceeding famous for its Li∣brarie (wherein was treasured up this rich Jewel of the Old Testament,* 1.97 in its Greek Version) whereunto Mark Antonie, out of Love to Cleopa∣tra, afterwards added the famous Librarie of Pergamus; so that this Schole was the great Nurserie of all Philosophie, and ingenious Sciences, in the first dawnings of the Christian Religion. For the sacred Scrip∣tures, as well as the Egyptian Philosophie, being translated into Greek, it proved an efficacious attractive to draw all the Candidates of Lear∣ing, and Philosophie hither. The head of this Schole in Origens time, was that great, and so much renowned Philosopher Ammonius,* 1.98 from whom all those Platonick Philosophers, who were stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the sacred Succession, derived their notions. Such were Herennius, Origen, and Plotinus, who were his Scholars; and Porphyrie, who was Scholar to Plotinus, as ••amblichus the disciple of Porphyrie. This Am∣monius, if we may believe Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 9.) and Je∣rom, lived and died a Christian, though Porphyrie endeavors to con∣fute this opinion. Certain it is, that his Philosophie which he communi∣cated to his Scholars, had much of the Scripture revelations mixed with it: so that the Platonick Philosophie, which we find in Plotinus, Porphyrie; Proclus, Hierocles, and the latter Platonists, owed not its ori∣ginal, as they would persuade us, so much to Plato, or Pythagoras, as to the Divine Revelation, which Ammonius was well versed in, and made the foundation of his Philosophie. Take this in the words of Dr. Owen, in his learned Treatise of Theologie lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 204.

After Am∣monius Alexandrinus the Coryphaeus or head of the Philosophers of his Age (whose Scholars were Origen, Herennius, and Plotinus the praecep∣tor of Porphyrie, as he of Iamblichus) had sowen in the minds of his Auditors, some seeds of the heavenly Doctrine, they, who, by rea∣son of their own inveterate prejudices, and the Worlds enmitie a∣gainst the Christian Religion, would not receive the same, desisted not however to manure and improve those seeds they had received,

but mixing of them with Plato's muddy Philosophie. Adde hereto, that some of them by reading our books, drew forth many no••io••s from those hidden mysteries of the Gospel. Of this number were Numenius, Proclus, Amelius, Plotinus, Herennius, Porphyrius, Iambli∣chus, Hierocles, Marinus, Damascius, and others; who, though they quitted not the curious speculations of the Platonicks, nor the Magick Inchantments of the Pythagoreans, yet they mixed many sparks of the heavenly Truth with them.

More of this hereafter. Book 3. ••. 4. §. 5.* 1.99

§. 12. There was also, in the first planting of the Gospel, a famous Church of Christ in this Citie of Alexandria, whence this Schole, as we may justly presume received much Light, &c. To which purpose, Morelius in his Treatise of Church Discipline Lib. 3. c. 14. pag. 260.

St Mark, saies he, having performed the office of a Teacher in the Church of Alexandria, the charge of the Schole was af∣terwards given first to Panthenus, then to Clemens Alexandrinus, and after him successively to Orig••n, Heraclus, Dionysius, Athen••dore, Malcion, and Didymus, who reached to the year 350. The which Do∣ctors gave an admirable advance to the Church. The Towne was for this reputed as the universal Schole of the Church. The truth is, Phi∣losophie and Curiositie corrupted this Schole, and by consequent the Church, which is greatly to be heeded, because these two evils are na∣tural to Scholars, who contenting not themselves with the simpli∣citie of the Gospel, would fain adorne it with the ornaments of human Eloquence, and Philosophie; and from a rage to learne, would faine mount higher than their Teachers, &c. Hence the same Mor••lius lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 87. shews how the Arian, and Pelagian Heresies were hatched out of the vain philosophizings in this Schole of Alexan∣dria, which at last proved the dissipation and ruine of the said Schole, and Church.

Thus have we gone thorough the whole series of the Egyptian Philosophie, with endeavors to demonstrate, that it received not only its Primitive Foundation, but also its continued advance and improvement in all Ages from the Divine Oracles seated in the Jewish, and Christian Churches.

CHAP. II. Of the Phenician Philosophie, its Traduction from the Jews.

The Phenicians traduced Philosophie themselves, and deriv'd it into Greece, and other parts, from the Jews. Of the Phenician Philosophie, and its propagation to the Grecians. Of Sanchoniathon, and the ori∣ginal of his Philosophie from the Jews. Porphyrie's Testimonie of San∣choniathon's traducing his Philosophie from Jerombalus, Priest of the God Jao, i. e. Gideon; or some Jewish Priest. Sanchoniathon's Mythologick mode of philosophizing from the Jewish Church. The Matter of his Philosophie from the Jews: His 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Theogonie, or Genealogie of the Gods. Beelsamen from heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 1.16. Eliun from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ilos from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Eloeim from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Baetulia from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Israel from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of Angels, and the Soul from Gen. 2.7. Sanchoniathon's Physiologie: His Chaos from Gen. 1.2. Ereb. from Gen. 1.5, &c. Mot, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Gen. 1.2. The Greek Philosophers con∣currence herein. Sanchoniathon's Geographie. Sanchoniathon's Natural Historie continued by Mochus the Physiologist, who was the first Founder of the Doctrine of Atomes, which he makes to be the first principle of all things; which he received by some Jewish tradition from the Historie of the Creation Gen. 1. of Addomenus. Vossius's account of the Tra∣duction of Phenician Philosophie from the Jews, as the Ionick and Ita∣lick from the Phenicians.

§. 1. WE now proceed to the Phenicians, their Philosophers,* 1.100 and Philosophie; with its Traduction from the Jewish Church, &c. And to make the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,, or way to our demonstration more clear, we must reflect on some considerations, laid down in our for∣mer Discourse of Philologie, touching the Origination of these Pheni∣cians from the old Cananites, who, being expelled Canaan, by Joshua, came and seated themselves on these Maritime Coasts of Palestine (cal∣led by them afterwards Phaenicia) West of Judaea: whence, being too populous for this narrow Countrey, they transplanted Colonies, and with them Human Philosophie, and other Sciences, into Greece, Afri∣ca, Spain, and the chief parts of Europe; especially such as bordered

on the Midland Sea, of which see more Part 1. of Philologie B. 1. chap. 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. I shall only adde a Quotation, or two, out of the Learned Ludovicus Vives, and Bochart, which will greatly conduce to the con∣firmation, and illustration hereof. Lud. Vives speaks though in a few words, fully to our purpose) thus.

The Phenicians, saies he, for lucre's sake, passed in their Ships thorough the whole world, whither they traduced Knowledge, and Philosophie from the Jews.

* 1.101This great Bochart does more copiously explain, and demonstrate in the Preface to the second part of his Geographie, stiled Canaan fol. 9.

From what we have said, it clearly appears, that the Grecians were greatly exceeded by the Phenicians, as well in the skill of Navigation, as of Geographie. For the Phenicians began long before the Grecians, to view the world. And indeed, this was almost the only Studie, which was innate to this Nation, even from their Origine, to sail throughout all parts of the world, and plant Colonies; whereunto they were incited, either from the thirst of Glorie, or the irksomnes of their own Countrey, or the desire of Empire, or Curiositie (the ••nquisitor of natures secrets) or the unsatiable desire of Lucre. Thence they, amongst them who first ventured their persons at Sea, were so much admired by posteritie, that they were, for this noble exploit, numbred amongst their Gods. Such were Saturne, and Astarte; whom Sanchoniathon describes, circuiting the Earth, &c.

The like the same Bochart mentions fol. 6, 7.

Therefore, saies he, if these monuments of the Phenicians were now extant, there would thence accede great light to sacred and profane Historie (we might adde al∣so Philosophie) and that great hiatus, or gap, which is betwixt Mo∣ses and the Grecians, would be made up: We should also learn ma∣ny things touching the ancient Inhabitants of the Earth, and the migration of the Nations. But time having long since consumed, to the great dammage of Learning, these Monuments we have no∣thing remaining of the Historie of the Phenicians, but a few frag∣ments scattered here and there in the writings of the Grecians, and Romans, &c.

* 1.102§. 2. And more particularly touching the Phenicians skill in Philo∣sophie, especially the Mathematicks, we have a good account in Bochart, part 2. of Canaan cap. 8. fol. 410. thus.

This was pecu∣liar to the Phenicians, to direct their course by the inspection of the Stars. So Strabo lib. 16, The Sidonians are reported to be Masters of

many, and of the best Arts: moreover they were skilful in Astronomie, and Arithmetick, which they acquired at first from the Art of Calculation, and Navigation.

Plinie lib. 5. cap. 12. saies,

That the Nation of the Phenicians gained a great glorie for their invention of Letters, Astronomie, Navigation, and Militarie Arts. Thence the Cynosura was so called by the Phenicians.

And that Arithmetick was greatly in use amongst the Phenicians, by reason of their Mer∣chandise, and traffique, is generally affirmed by the Learned. That they were also well skilled in Natural Philosophie will hereafter appear, in what is mentioned of Sanchoniathon, and Mochus the Physiologist.* 1.103 But the greatest excellencie of the Phenicians consisted in their Mechanick Arts (which belong to Experimental Philosophie) of ma∣king Glasse, mixing Purple, weaving fine Linne, &c. Whereof we have a full account in Bochart his Phaleg. lib. 4. cap. 35. His words are these:

God indulged the Inhabitants of Tyre, and Sidon (the chief Cities of Phaenicia a sharpe vivid ingenie, flexible to all things: A∣rithmetick, and Astronomie flowed from them to the Grecians. And (not to mention the modern Phenicians) Mochus began to philoso∣phize of Atomes at Sidon before the Trojan Wars, And Abdemonus the Tyrian was bold to provoke, or engage King Solomon by his que∣stions proposed to him. But their chief repute was for Mechanick Arts. At Tyre the mixture of Purple, at Sidon Glasse making, and the Texture of fine Linnen (thence called Sindon) of the smallest thread, are reported to be first invented. And Solomon, in his Epi∣stle to Hiram King of Tyre, greatly commends the skill of their Car∣penters 1 Kings 5.6.* 1.104 For thou knowest that there are none among us, that can hew Timber like unto the Sidonians. Hence it is, that Homer cals them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, manifold, or universal Artists. And if there were any thing more excellenly wrought in garments, or vessels, that was usually attributed to the industrie of the Sidonians.

Thus Bo∣chart of the Phenician Learning.

§. 3. The Phenicians being thus renowned for ingenious Arts,* 1.105 and Philosophie, the Grecians were very ambitious of commerce, and cor∣respondence with them: For besides the Phenician Colonies, and with them the Alphabet translated into Greece by Cadmns, and other Phe∣nicians (of which before Part 1.) the first and chiefest of the Greci∣an Philosophers had recourse to Phenicia, to furnish themselves with Philosophick Principles, and Contemplations: Vossius (de Hist. Graec. l. 3.

pag. 375. edit. 2.) proves that Thales was (though a Milesian by birth) originally a Phenician; who is said to have learned Astrologie from the Phenicians, especially the Cynosura (or constellation of the lesser Bear) which was first observed by the Phenicians, who sailed thereby; and thence Vossius derives Cynosura from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a collection of light. Also that Thales received his opinion, of water to be the first matter, from the Phenician 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Slime, will be evident hereafter. That Pherecydes was in like manner of a Phenician extract (though born at Syra, one of the Cyclades) and much versed in the Phenician Mysteries; from whom he borrowed his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Generation of the Gods (conteined in 10 books) also his invention of the Heliotrope, and My∣thologick Philosophie, will appear in the Storie of his Philosophie.

So likewise Pythagoras, the Disciple of Pherecydes (as it is generally supposed by the Learned) borrowed his Symbolick Philosophie from the Phenicians, and Egyptians. Iamblichus in the Life of Pythagoras cap. 13. tels us, that Pythagoras made a voyage to Sidon, where he conferred with the Prophets, the Successors of Mochus the Physiologist, and with the Phenician Priests; and was initiated into all the Mysteries of Byblus, and Tyre, &c. And Grotius on Mat. 7.6 assures us, that Pythagoras brought his Symbolick Philosophie, either out of Egypt, or Syria, where his Master Ph••recydes was, and as some think, Pythagoras himself. The like will hereafter be evinced of Plato, who makes frequent mention of his Phenician 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or fables &c. I shall adde for the Confirmation hereof the Testimonie of Learned Bochart in his Preface to Canaan fol. 12. That I may (saies he) adde to these somewhat of the Sciences, and Arts which flourished amongst the Phenicians, in that age, in which the Grecians were Barbarians, or very little instructed: whence it came to passe, that the most ancient Grecian Philosophers had Phenician Masters; neither have a few of Phenician words both Philosophick and Mechanick crept in∣to the Greek Tongue. That Democritus, and after him Epicurus recei∣ved their Philosophick Contemplations of Atomes from Mochus the Phe∣nician Philosopher, will appear in his Storie.

* 1.106§. 4. As the Grecians derived the choicest parts of their Know∣ledge, and Philosophie from the Phenicians; so these, as it is more than probable, received theirs from the Jewish Church: For indeed, Phenicia was but the great Mart, which receiving Philosophick Tradi∣tions from Judea, transported them into Greece, and other parts. Thus much has been already hinted out of Ludovicus Vives, whose words are

these, Phaenices quaestus gratia totum orbem navigiis peragrabant, unde scientiam, & philosophiam traduxerunt a Judaeis. And Grotius, in his Annotations on Mat. 24.38. speaks fully to this purpose thus, Quod ex Phaenicum Theologia veteres Philosophi hauserunt, & ex illis Poet••, Phae∣nices ab Hebraeis hauserant. What the ancient Philosophers drew from the Theologie of the Phenicians, and the Poets from them, the Phenicians drew from the Hebrews. Yea we are not without probable grounds for this conjecture, that whereas the ancient Grecians, Plato, and others, men∣tion the Phenicians, and Syrians as the Authors of their Mythologick Traditions, they, under these titles, comprehended also the Jews. For it is apparent (as was before mentioned) that the Jews were, by rea∣son of their vicinitie, often stiled Phenicians, and Syrians. So in He∣rodotus, those Ph••nicians, who were circumcised after the Egyptian manner, are the same with the Hebrews, and Lucian does use the Phenician, and Hebrew names promiscuously. Yea in the Scripture Dialect, the Hebrew is called the Language of Canaan, or Phaenicia: so Esa. 19.18. which proves that there was a great affinitie, and corres∣pondence betwixt the Phenicians, and Hebrews, both in Names, Lan∣guage, and Sciences, as before Part 1. B. 1. C 3, 4, 5, &c.

§. 5 But to proceed to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the manner how,* 1.107 and chief Instru∣ments, by whom the Jewish Mysteries, and Philosophie were traduced into Phaenicia. How near neighbors the Phenicians were to the He∣brews, what a great cognation, or rather Identitie, there was betwixt their Languages, and what constant commerce there was betwixt these two nations, even from their first constitution, not only in external, but also mental commodities, is sufficiently known to all, who are verst in the first rudiments of Antiquitie. Yea the Scriptures fully in∣forme us, touching this great affinitie, and correspondence 'twixt the Phenicians, and Jews, not only in Solomon's Reign, but before, and af∣ter. Our main work will be to treat particularly of the two great Phenician Philosophers, Sanchoniathon, and Mochus; with some in∣quirie, and discoverie, how they traduced their Philosophie, which was chiefly Mythologick, and historick, from the Historie of Moses, or some Jewish Traditions.* 1.108

§. 6. The first great Phenician Philosopher (from whom the Greci∣ans traduced their chiefest philosophick Traditions) we shall mention, is Sanchoniathon, a person indeed of great Antiquitie; who,* 1.109 as Bo∣chart conceives, writ before the Trojan War. P••rphyrie, and Suidas

make him contemporarie with, if not more ancient than, the Tr••jan War.* 1.110 Ger. Vossius tels us, that Greece had no Writer, but who was much younger than Sanchoniathon. Theodor••t, out of Porphyrie, explains his name thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sanchoni∣athon, who according to the Phenician dialect, is Philalethes, i. e. a l••ver of truth, or a Philosopher; for so Plato defines his Philosopher to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo cals him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sanchonea∣tho, which, word for word, signifies, the Law his Zele; or a Zelot of true Learning.

For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 San, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 curtaild, signifies, amongst the Phe∣nicians Doctrine, Law, or Canon Law. Hence the same Phenician Ci∣tie is sometimes called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Judg. 1.11, 12. Josh. 15.15, 16. Ki∣riath Sepher i. e. the Citie of Learning, and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Ci∣tie of Learning, or of the Law, as Jos. 15.49. Kiriath Sannath. The Chaldee renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Citie of the Archives, where their Learning was lodged: answerably whereto, the Greeks translate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Citie of Letters. The radix 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 firstly signifying to whet, or sharpen; thence in its borrowed notion, to teach exquisitely. So that Sanchoniathon seems to have received his Name, or Sirname ra∣ther, from the time, wherein he began to applie his mind to Learning, thereby to signifie that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Candidate of Truth. So in like manner Roman. 16.15. we read of one called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phil••logus, which, as Grotius on the place supposeth, was a Sirname given him, from that he addicted himself to the Studie of Philologie, or human litera∣ture.

* 1.111§. 7. That Sanchoniathon was a person greatly versed in the Philo∣sophie, or rather Mythologie, of those Ages, is generally concluded by the Learned, both Ancient, and Moderne. Philo tels us, that San∣choniathon was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.112 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Physiologie of H••rmes: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Egyp∣tian Theologie; which, saies Bochart, without doubt, he took out of the books of Taautus. So Philo assures us, that, with great diligence, he sear∣ched 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Cosmogonie of Taautus. This Taautus, whom the Greeks call Hermes, is said to have written 42 books as A∣strologie, of Geographie, of Medicine, of Politicks, of Th••ologie, of Religi∣on, &c. The Catalogue of which Books is given us by Clemens Alexan∣drinus Strom, lib. 6. The great difficultie will be, to discover who this Taautus, or Hermes was, whence Sanchoniathon received his Physiologie,* 1.113 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,* 1.114 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 hu∣mors, and interests. Hence it is, that we find mention of so many Jupiter's, and Hercules's, &c. So that those blind prejudiced Hea∣thens, 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 San∣choniathon'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 men∣tion made in many places by Philo, Josephus, Porphyrius, and others: some call him a Berytian, as Porphyrius; others a Tyrian, as Athenae∣us; Suidas saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sanchoniathon the Tyrian Philosopher writ memoir••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;* 1.115 which we shall endeavor to make good. 1. From the confessions of his friends, and followers. 2. From his manner of phi∣losophizing; 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ammanim, Aben Ezra on Lev. 26 30. expounds Temples made for the worship of the Sun. And so indeed a∣mongst the Hebrews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 amma signifies the Sun. 'Tis possible un∣der 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 Mi∣nister of the true God, is openly acknowledged by Porphyrie, who was his own Countrey-man, a Tyrian (being called in the Tyrian Tongue Malchus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and therefore best able to know;* 1.116 as also a great admirer of Sanchoniathon, but bitter enemie of the Christians, and so, as we may presume, would not mention willingly any thing, that might tend to the honor of the Christians God. Yet this Por∣phyrie plainly confesseth (in his lib. 4. against the Christians)

That Sanchoniathon, besides the help he had from the Commentaries of the Cities, and from the monuments or memoires of the Temples, had for his assistance in the composing of his historie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

So Euseb. Praeparat. Evang. lib. 10. cap. 3. and Bochart Can. l. 2. cap. 17. Ger. Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib. 1. cap. 1. gives it us in these words,

Greece has none, who is not much younger than Sanchoniathon. Porphyrie saies, that Moses, and Sanchoniathon give the names of persons, and places alike; and that Sanchoniathon drew his Historick Observations, partly from the An∣nals of the Cities; partly from the books kept in the Temple, which he received from Jerombalus, Priest of the God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

That this can refer to no other, but some Jewish Priest seems most evident.

1. If we consider who this Jerombalus was, by whose memoires, or Traditions Sanchoniathon is said to have so much profited himself. I

am not ignorant, that the Learned differ in their conjectures here∣abouts: but none seems to me more probable (whatever Dr Stilling∣fleet objects to the contrary out of Jos. Scaliger) than that of Learned Bochart, who by Jerombalus understands Gideon. His words are these,* 1.117

Jerombalus is the same with Jerubbaal, as the Learned have for∣merly observed.

Now it is most known, that Jerubbaal is the Sirname of Gideon. as Judg. 7.1. compared with Judg. 8.35. Suidas saith

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which is expresly mentioned Judg. 6.32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 let Baal plead against him.* 1.118 Gideon might be called the Priest of Jao, because he was Prince, or Judge of those, by whom Jao, the true God, was worshipped.

That which augments the suspicion is, that presently after Gideons death, the Is∣raelites

worshipped Baal Berith, or Beryti, from the Citie called Be∣rytum, whence Sanchoniathon sprang. So Judg. 8.33. and made Ba∣al Berith their God. The like Judg. 9.2, 4. i. e. the Idol of Berith, or the Berytian Citie. Whence it is most likely, that Gideon making a League, or having frequent Commerce with some Berytian per∣son of great fame, it gave the occasion of this piece of Jewish Idola∣trie, otherwise unknown: for we find not the name Baal Berith mentioned elsewhere. Nonnus teacheth us, that this Town of Beryth or Berytum, received its name from Beroe, the Daughter of Venus, and Adonis, who was worshipped in those parts for a Goddesse.

Thus Bochart. Certain it is, from the Scriptures above mentioned, that those of Berith or Berytum, where Sanchoniathon lived, had a great commerce, or correspondence with the Jews, in, or immediately up∣on, Gideon's time: and as the Jews received from those of Berith their Idol Baal Berith, so we may also suppose, that they communicated to these Phenicians, some of their own Scriptural Traditions, out of which Sanchoniathon composed his Historie. Lastly the Transmutation of Jerubbaal, Gideons name into Jerombaal, or Jerombalus (from whom Sanchoniathon is said to receive the cheif materials of his Historie) is most easie, by the exchange of one of the B•• into M, viz: Jerobbaal into Jerombaal.

2. Whoever this Jerombalus was, from whom Sanchoniathon is said to have borrowed the chief materials of his Historie, yet certain it is,* 1.119 if we may credit Porphyrie, he was a Priest of the God Jao. i. e. of Jeho∣vah the true God. For the Greeks seldom expresse the ineffable name of God, by any other word. So in the Oracle of Clarius Apollo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let him be thy greatest God, whose name is Jao. So Diodorus lib. 1. saies that Moses amongst the Jews owned the God called Jao, as the Author of his Laws. And the Gnosticks in Irenae∣us lib. 1. cap. 34. reckon up seven names of God, whereof Jao is the second And Jerom in his commentaries on. Psal. 8. reads it Jaho; which seems little differing from the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jah; as Bochart Can. lib. 2. c. 17. see more Part 1. B. 2. C. 1. §. 8.

* 1.120§. 9. Farther, that Sanchoniathon traduced the main of his Philoso∣phie from the Jews will be evident, if we consider the manner of his philosophizing; which was Historick, or rather Mythologick, answe∣rable to Moses's manner of philosophizing. For the whole of his Histo∣rie seems to be but some mythologick fragments, or fabulous traditions of what Moses more nakedly, and purely laid down, as it will be more fully evident, when we come to treat of the Matter of his Philosophie. Touching Sanchoniathon's Historick manner of philosophizing, we find a good account in Bochart Can. lib: 2. cap. 2. fol. 783.

Sanchoniathon writ, before the Trojan Wars, his Historie of the Phenicians, even from their first Origine, in the Phenician Tongue. Philo Byblius, who lived under the Emperor Adrian, rendred the same Historie in∣to Greek.* 1.121 Eusebius has preserved for us a famous fragment of this Version; wherein many Phenician things occur, not unworthy of our commentation.

Thus Bochart. Suidas, who makes Sanchonia∣thon to have lived about the time of the Trojan War, speaks to the same purpose. So Porphyrie lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; speaks thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Phenician Historie is full of those who sacrificed; which Sanchoniathon writ in the Phenician Tongue. And Philo Byblius interpreted him in 8 books. As Sanchoniathon's mode of philosophizing was historick, cor∣respondent unto Moses; so likewise mixed he many mythologick, or fabulous Stories, and Symbols with his writings; wherein he seems to af∣fect an Imitation of the Jewish manner of expressing their mysteries, by Types, and figurative Symbols. And indeed this ancient symbolick, mythick, or fabulous mode of philosophizing, so common not only a∣mongst the Egyptians, and Phenicians, but also amongst the first Grecian Philosophers, Thales, Pherecydes, Pythagoras, and Plato, seems to be wholly taken up by Tradition from, and in imitation of the Jewish Church, their manner of expressing their Rites, Mysteries,

and other pieces of Wisdom. So Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The ancient manner of philosophizing was, as the Hebraick, and Enigmatick; for they chose a short manner of speech (by Symbols) which is most apt for admonition, and most profitable. In this mythick, symbolick mode of philosophizing, the Phenicians (as the Egyptians) those Jewish Apes, couched not only their Secrets of Nature, and Theologick Mysteries, but also their Moral Precepts, and Examples of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and other He∣roick Virtues. Hence the Greek Poets first, as Homer, Orpheus, &c. and then their chief Philosophers, both of the Ionick, and Italick Sects, derived their mythologick, and symbolick mode of philosophizing, as here∣after.

§. 10.* 1.122 We proceed now to the matter of Sanchoniathon's Philoso∣phie, which will give us a farther demonstration, that it was traduced from some Scriptural, or Jewish Traditions. Touching his Metaphy∣sicks, and Theologie; Sanchoniathon treats of God, his worship, &c; of Angels, and of the Soul. That Sanchoniathon writ of the Phenician The∣ologie, Theodoret Therapeut. Serm. 2. assures us, out of Porphyrie, in these words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sanchoniathon the Berytian writ the Theologie of the Phenicians. And Porphyrie greatly admires Sancho∣niathon, &c. Suidas also tels, that besides the Institutes of the Phenici∣ans, Sanchoniathon writ also of the Theologie of the Egyptians. Now this Theologie, of which he treated, consisted chiefly in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or origination of the Gods, and the Sacrifices, or worship they gave un∣to them. As for his account of the original of their Gods, it is evi∣dent, that they received their Names, and Attributes, the chiefest of them, from some Scriptural Relation, or Tradition of the Jews, which will easily appear by a brief enumeration. The chiefest of the Phenici∣an Gods, was the Sun, called by Sanchoniathon Beelsamen:* 1.123 in the Phe∣nician, and Hebrew dialect, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, the Lord of Heaven. So Philo Byblius, out of Sanchoniathon's Theologie of the Sun (Euseb. praepar. lib. 1.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This they say is God, whom they repute the only Lord of Heaven, calling him Beelsamen, which is amongst the Phenicians Lord of Heaven. This seems to be but a corrupt Tradi∣tion of Gen. 1.16.* 1.124 where 'tis said, that God made the greater Light to

rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: whence the Phenici∣ans stile the Moon Belsisama, the Queen of Heaven: because, as the Sun rules by day, so the Moon by night. But Sanchoniathon (in the fore quoted Euseb. praep. lib. 1.) proceeds to give the extract of his Gods, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by these was produced Eliun called the most high. Eliun in the Phenician, and He∣brew,* 1.125 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elion, is one of the names the Scripture gives unto God, and signifies the most high: So that we cannot rationally doubt, but that Sanchoniathon borrowed this Iaol-God from some Scriptural re∣lation. Then he addes that this God Eliun begat the Heaven and Earth; which seems evidently to be taken from Moses's words Gen. 14.19, 22.* 1.126 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To the most high God, that pro∣duced the Heaven. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also to produce, as the LXX ren∣ders it Zach. 13.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so it is rendred Gen. 4.1. Then Sanchoniathon proceeds thus, The first born of the Sons of Heaven, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.127 was Ilos, who also was called Kronos, or Saturne. Ilos is ap∣parently from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 El, a name of God, which the Phenicians gave to their Idol Saturne. So Damascius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Phenicians, and Syrians name their Saturne El. Whence the Grecians call the Sun (which was the Phenician Saturne) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.128 Then it follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The companions of Ilos (Phaen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eloah) i. e. Saturne are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elohim, as if one should say the Saturnes. Thus Sanchoniathon. By which it seems evident, that he had not only some Tradition of the God of Israel, his several names 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but also some broken fragments of the Trinitie, which he here seems to expresse under his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Hence the Platonists seem to have traduced their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.129 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as hereafter. It follows; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The God Ʋranus (i. e. Heaven) excogitated or imagined the Baetulia, when he framed the living stones. That these Baetulia, or stones, which the Phenicians worshipped, were taken up by them in imitation of Jacob's anointing the stone, and consecrating the place, where he had received a vision, is very probable, if we consider Gen. 28.18. where 'tis said, he called the place Bethel, and Gen. 31.13. I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the stone. And if Bochart's conjecture hold true (as it seems probable) Sanchoniathon's original of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i, e. anointed stones. So that the Trans∣laror transporting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anointed, read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 living.

That these Baetulia, which the Phenicians worshipped, had their rise from Jacob's consecrated stone at Bethel, is generally asserted by the Lear∣ned Jos. Scalig••r on Eusebius, &c. as elsewhere. Part 1. B. 2. C.

§. 11. To these pieces of Sanchoniathon's Theologie,* 1.130 translated by Philo Byblius, Eusebius addes a place, or two, out of Porphyrie, his book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in which the same Saturne is, by the Phenicians, cal∣led Israel. His words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.131 &c. Saturne, whom the Phenicians call Israel, &c. This Saturne is said also to have an only son by the Nymph Anobret, whom he called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jeud, and sacrificed. So Sanchoniathon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He sacrificed his only son, speaking of Saturne. And that all this is but an imperfect Tradition of Abraham his resolution to sacrifice his own son Isaac, is evident. For the name Jeud, Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehid, is the E∣pithet given to Isaac Gen. 22.2.* 1.132 So Anobret is properly given to Sa∣rah: for the Phenician, and Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Anobret or An∣nobret signifies one conceiving by grace, which is rightly said of Sarah Heb. 11.11. only what Abraham did in intention only, Porphyrie and Sanchoniathon make Saturne to do actually: which 'twas the policie of Sathan to make them believe, thereby to induce following Ages to offer their sons to Molech, or Saturne; which was the great Idol of the Phenicians. Porphyrie in his lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tels us, that the Phe∣nician Historie, composed by Sanchoniathon, was full of such kind of sacri∣fices, &c. which, it is very evident, the Phenicians at first traduced from the Jews, as the J••ws not long after received the same Idola∣trous, and inhuman mode of sacrificing their sons to Molech, from the Phenicians. So much for Sanchoniathon's Theogonie, and Theolo∣gie, which gave foundation to the Grecian Mythologie about their Gods.

§. 12.* 1.133 Sanchoniathon (according to Philo Byblius's Version cited by Euseb. praep. lib. 1.) has other pieces of Metaphysicks, which seem to be borrowed from Scripture relations. He makes mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which Bochart interprets of the Creation of the Angels. Also the first men are by him said to be made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Colpia, which he attributes to the wind, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Col-pi∣jah, 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,* 1.134 is his Physiologie, or Natural Historie of the worlds o∣rigine, 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 parti∣culars of Sanchoniathon's reports. In the beginning of his Historie (according to the Version of Philo Byblius, quoted by Eusebius) we find,* 1.135 in the beginning of things there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a spirit of dark air, which he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. according to the Phenicians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chauth Ereb, night, or evening darknes: which seems to be taken from Moses's words Gen. 1.2.* 1.136 and there was darknes, &c. The word Ereb is taken from v. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and it was Ereb; i. e. evening. Whence H••siod 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Varr•• thus imitates, Erebo creata fuscis crinibus nox, te invoco. That the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies sometimes the same with the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even∣ing; see Bochart Canaan lib. 2. cap. 2. Or it is possible, that San∣choniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be borrowed from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

* 1.137It follows in Sanchoniathon thus: From the Commixtion of the spirit with the Chaos, there arose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or (as B••chart conjectures) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From the Commixtion of the spirit with the Chaos, was produced Mot, which some call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that is, matter, or slime: what Phi∣lo Byblius translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.138 the Phenicians write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 M••d: it being very common with the Greeks to change the Hebrew ד into τ so in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by them derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 amongst the Hebrews, and Phe∣nicians signifies that matter, out of which all things were at first made: which the Arabians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (whence 'tis possible the Latin materia came) from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Therefore Sanchoniathon, having called that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 slime (or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first matter) addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of this [matter] was produced the whole seed of the Creation, and the generation of the whole: which is as as much as if he had said, This Mot was the first Matter of all things. For al∣though the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mod be not found in Scripture, yet we have the thing fully expressed Gen. 1.2. and 'tis possible also the Jew∣ish 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with the spirits mixing with them, from Gen. 1.2.5.* 1.139 I conceive, is sufficiently evident: whence H••siod's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Plutarch, and Or••heus's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (slime) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; also Thales his opinion of water being the first matter. And Plato's first matter, which he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c, as Aristotle's first matter being ingene∣rable, incorruptible, indefinite, without forme, but capable of all formes, &c. which are but broken fragments of Gen. 1.2.

§. 14. That Thales, Pythagoras,* 1.140 and Plato concur with Sanchonia∣thon, and they all with Moses, about the first matter of the World, will be farther evident, if we consider their several expressions, with their agreement amongst themselves, as also with Moses's words. Thales held water to be the first matter of all things (whence Pindar's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) which is the same with Sanchoniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. mixture of mud, and water together: which Orpheus also makes to be the Principle of the Universe, and it is the same with Sanchoniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Philo Bybli∣us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This Mot, or Ilus of Sanchoniathon i. e. mud, slime, or fluid matter, which Thales cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, water, Pythagoras, and Plato call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (by •• inversion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that is, matter: all of which a∣grees with Moses's words Gen. 1.2.* 1.141 And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters: i. e. all at first was but mud, slime, and water, or fluid matter. So Paulus Fagius, from Kimchi, renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 matter, which fluid matter was agitated, or moved by the Spirit of God; so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Chrysostom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a vivifick ener∣gie; according to Psal. 33.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence Plato, Thales, Pytha∣goras, Heraclitus ascribe the Original of Individuals, to the various a∣gitations, or motions of this fluid matter, viz: as moved by the spirit of God, so the Phenicians called this motion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a dark, and blustering wind, or spirit: see Stillingf. Orig, Sacr. book 3. cap. 7.

§. 15. Sanchoniathon also was not a little versed in the Chronologie,* 1.142 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.

* 1.143§. 16. Sanchoniathon's Natural or Mythologick Historie was con∣tinued 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodotus's Phenician name, as Bochart con∣jectureth, was Elnathan or Nathaniel. But the most renowned of these three was Mochus, whom Bochart conceives to be, in the Phenician stile, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maacha, taken from Compression. Josephus Ant. l. 1. cap. 4. shuts up his Historie touching the long-lived Antidiluvians, with this Epiphonema.

And Mochus, and Hestiaeus, and Hieronymus the Egyptian (who prosecuted the Egyptian storie) consent to these things I affirme.

Bochart Can. lib. 2. cap. 17.

§. 17. Concerning Mochus we find this mention in Is. Casaubon his notes on Athenaeus lib. 3. cap. 36.

Mochus, saies he, is named a∣mongst the Authors of the Phenician affairs by Tatianus, in his last book,* 1.144 which place it is worth our while to transcribe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Ger. Jo Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib. 3. pag. 390. Addes to Casaubon thus:

Mochus the Phenician committed to writing the af∣fairs of his Countrey in the Phenician Tongue. Athenaeus in lib. 3. makes mention of him; where Cynulcus thus bespeaks Ʋlpianus the Tyrian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to their Citizens Syniaethon (i. e. Sanchoniathon) and Mo∣chus, who writ of the Phenician Affairs. Casaubon lib. 3. Anima••v. in Athen. cap. 36. saies, I remember not that Mochus is to be found elsewhere: and peradventure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the name of some Tyri∣an, who in his own Countrey was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mosche, or according to the custome of writing Moses. Thus Casaubon. And truly that Mo∣schus

is a Phenician name I learnt also one of Strabo lib. 16. where he makes men••ion of Moschus a Sidonian, and that he was the Author of the opinions of Atomes; also that he was more ancient than the Trojan War. Neither is any thing in Athenaeus to be changed, for (which occurred not to that excellent man Casaubon) there is menti∣on made of this Author, not only once, amongst Ecclesiastick writers: as in Josephus lib. 1. Antiqu▪ cap. 8 (or according to others 50) where you read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Al∣so Manetho the Egyptian writer, and Berosus the Chaldean Historiogra∣pher, and Mochus, Hestiaeus, and Hieronimus the Egyptian, who prosecuted the Phenician Affaires, consent with us. Also we have a famous place touching Mochus, in Tatianus his oration against the Pagans pag. 217. in Orthodoxogr. which is also cited by Eusebius lib. 10. de praepar. Evang. (pag. 289 Edit. Rob. Steph.) And Georg: Cedrenus transcri∣bing Josephus (almost in the beginning of his Compendium pag. 10.) does in like manner make mention of Mochus amongst the Phenician Historiographers.

Thus Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib. 3. pag. 30.

§. 18. And that Mochus was a famous Philosopher,* 1.145 as well as Historiographer, is evident, from the mention we find concerning him in lamblichus, of the life of Pythagoras cap. 13. where he saies, that Pythagoras, being at Sidon, conferred with the Prophets, Successors of Mo∣chus the Physiologist, &c. By which also we see what piece of Philoso∣phie Mochus was chiefly verst in, namely in Physiologie, or Natural Phi∣losophie, which was the main Philosophie, these first Ages, and Philo∣sophers thirsted after. This Thales brought out of Phenicia, &c. And in brief, this kind of Physiologie, which the Phenicians, and the Grecians so much delighted in, was indeed no other, than a Natural Historie, or some broken fragments of the Historie of the Creation, delivered by Moses Gen. 1, &c. Thus much I was assured of by learned Bochart, upon oral conference with him, to whom proposing some Queries, touching this Mochus, he answered me, that Mochus lived before the Trojan War, and was contemporarie with Sanchoniathon, as Strabo af∣firmes; calling him upon a mistake, Moschus; and that his Philosophie was nothing else, but the Historie of the Creation, the same with that of Sanchoniathon. As for other particulars touching Mochus, the original of his name from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Maacha, &c, he referred me to his Canaan

lib. 2. c. 17. Strabo lib. 16. and Athenaeus l. 3. c. 36. with Casaubon. That Mochus did really traduce his Physiologie, or natural Historie from the Historie of the Creation, written by Moses, will be farther evident, if we consider the main Principle for which he was renowned amongst the Ancients, viz. the doctrine of Atomes. So Strabo lib. 16. makes mention of Moschus the Sidonian, who was the Author of the opini∣on of Atomes, &c. The same B••chart Phaleg. lib. 4. cap. 35. having made mention of Arithmetick, and Astronomie, being derived from the Phe∣nicians to the Grecians, addes thus:

that I may be silent as to latter Philosophers,* 1.146 Mochus began to philosophize of Atomes at Sidon, be∣fore the Trojan War, &c.

Hence Democritus borrowed his Notions of Atomes, as Epicurus from him; and that the whole Doctrine of A∣tomes to be the first principles of the Ʋniverse came from Moses's Hi∣storie of the Creation, see Comenius's Physicks, of Materia prima. cap. 2.

§. 19. Bochart Phaleg. lib. 4. c. 35. makes mention of another Phenician Philosopher, Abdomenus the Tyrian,* 1.147 who, by his questions, was so bold as to provoke King Solomon to disputation, &c. But I shall confirme this discourse of the Phenician Philosophie, and its Traducti∣on from the Jewish Church with the observation of Learned Vossius de philosophorum sectis lib. 2. cap. 10. §. 24,* 1.148 &c.

The Philosophie of the Phenicians (saies he) is very famous: and in as much as that Na∣tion was most like to Judea, they had a mighty advantage of Learn∣ing many things from the Jews: some things also they gained by Tradition. For the Phenicians springing from Sidon, the son of Ca∣naan, the Nephew of Cham, descended also from Noah. They u∣sed the help of their Priests in writing Historie, as Josephus lib. 1. contra Apion. Who also quotes some things out of the Annals of the Tyrians. Concerning their Theologie, Sanchoniathon the Beryti∣an writ in the Phenician Tongue, who was more ancient than the Trojan War, as Porphyrie lib. 4. contra Christ. &c.

Thence §. 25, &c. he addes,

To this Nation the Grecians owe their Letters: whence they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Also they attribute Arithmetick to these Phenicians, because they excelled in Merchandise; to which the Knowledge of Numbers is greatly necessary. Ochus the Persian Philosopher was also a Phenician. Thales likewise, who was the first founder of the Ionick Philosophie, had his original from the Phenici∣ans. Also Pherecydes the Praeceptor of Pythagoras, who was Con∣temporary

with Thales, and Author of the Italick Sect, drew his contemplations from the hidden books of the Phenicians. Also Zeno, the Prince of the Stoick Sect, was of a Phenician extract: for Cittium a Town in Cyprus, where he was borne, was peopled by a Phenician Colonie. Then he concludes §. 31. But if we acknowledge the Phenici∣an Philosophie, how much more justly must we Christians acknowledge the Jewish? especially seeing the Phenicians, without all peradven∣ture, traduced many things from the Jews their neighbors, as also the Egyptians. And hence it is apparent why the most Ancient Phi∣losophers delighted so much in brevitie, and symbolick Learning. The Ancient mode of philosophizing was Hebraick, and Enigmatick.

Thus Vossius. We may adde hereto that of Hornius Hist. philos. l. 3. c. 14.

Joh. Serranus makes Plato to speak many things, which he un∣derstood not, drawn out of the Phenician Theologie. So Scaliger Exer. 61. §. 3, which opinion seems very probable to me. For as to the Phenicians, they were given to Mercature, familiar to the Gre∣cians: and they sent frequent Colonies into various parts of the world. Also their Theologie was well known: from which Musaeus, Linus, Orph••us, and other old Theologists drew most of their notions. Nothing hinders therefore, but that Plato might attain to a more in∣timate Knowledge of their Theologie, whereunto Pherecydes had be∣fore opened the door, who also, as they say, brought some of their commentaries into Greece. But now the Phenicians had many things common with the Hebrews, drawn either from daily conversation with their Ancient Fathers and their Posteritie, or else from the in∣spection into, and reading of Moses; whereof they, being not igno∣rant of that tongue, might partake. Thence therefore Plato drew those things which rendred him so admirable to all Posteritie.

§. 20. And as there were some broken beams,* 1.149 or Traditions of the Law, and Old Testament Light conveighed from the Jews to the Pheni∣cians, and thence to the Grecians; so in like manner the Gospel in the first publication thereof, shone, with bright raies on Phaenicia: For the Woman of Canaan, whose Faith Christ so much applauded, was a Phenician, And, upon the dispersion 'tis said Acts 11.19. They which were scattered abroad upon the persecution, that arose about Steven, travailed as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none, but the Jews only. By which it is apparent that there were Jews inhabiting amongst the Phenicians (and it is not improbable, but that

there were some scattered thither even at the first Babylonish Captivi∣tie) as also in Cyprus (where were Colonies o•• the Phenicians and Jews) to whom God in his Providence ordains the Gospel first to be preached (as the Jewish Traditions of old) that so it might thence receive the more speedy conveighance into the Westerne parts, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Britannie, &c. with which parts the Phenicians had frequent Commerce, and Trading; as it has been largely proved Part 1. of Phi∣lologie book 1. chap. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

CHAP. IIII. Of the Chaldaick Philosophie, and Philosophers.

The Advantages the Chaldaick Philosophie might have from the Church of God, Noah and his family, Shem, Abraham, &c. The Chaldeans famous for Astronomie, which was communicated to them, by Church Tradition delivered by Abraham, &c. Gen. 1.16. The People of God much taken up in contemplation and admiration of the glorie of God, shining in the Heavens, Ps. 136.4, 5, 6, 7. This gave foundati∣on to Astronomie. How Natural Astronomie degenerated into Judi∣cial Astrologie, from an Idolatrous admiration of the Celestial bodies, as Gods, Rom. 1.19, 20, 21. The Jewish Teraphim, and Popish Agnus dei answered to the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Images dedicated to the Sun Judg. 17.5. The Chaldaick Theologie lay chiefly amongst the Zabii, or Sabeans. Balaam one of the Zabii. The wise men, or Ma∣gi Mat. 2.1. of these Zabii. Many Zabian Rites mentioned in Scrip∣ture, as Job 31.26. beholding the Sun, thence Sternutation a Pagan Rite. So Job 31.27. kissing the hand, is bowing unto, and adoring the rising Sun, The Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eternal fire, which was a Symbol, whereby they worshipped the Sun, as Lev. 36.30. from the opinion that the Sun was fire. The Judaick Scholes in Babylon, and other parts of Chaldea.

* 1.150§. 1. THe Ancients were wont to distinguish Philosophie into Barba∣bick and Grecian: by Barbarick, is usually understood that,

which was taught out of Grece, and Italie, in Egypt, Phaenicia, Judea, Chaldea, &c. This by general vogue is held to be the more Ancient. Thus Diogenes Laertius prooem; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is affirmed by some that Philosophie had its beginning from the Barbarians. Which Isaac Gasaubon in his Notes on this place thus explaines,

And of the Grecians, those who were best natured, and most ingenuous have alwaies thus thought. And those Ancient de∣fenders of our Religion against the Gentiles, have so defended the truth on this part, and so broken the pride, and arrogance of those who were otherwise minded, that none may doubt of it. There are at hand those who have written on this Argument, Tatianus, Clemens, Theo∣philus, Eusebius, and others.

So Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 1.* 1.151 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philosophie a thing variously useful, in times past flourished amongst the Barbarians, shining from Na∣tion to Nation, till at last it came to the Grecians. Austin lib. 8. de civit. Dei cap. 9. gives us an account of these Barbarian Nations, who were reputed skilful in Philosophie; where having made mention of the two great Sects of the Grecian Philosophers, the Ionick and Italick, he addes,

And if there be found any others of the other Nations, who are reputed wise men, or Philosophers, the Atlanticks, Lybicks, Egyp∣tians, Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls, Spaniards.

Here Augustin makes no mention of the Phenicians, and Jews, who, I think, were mainly understood by the Ancients, under the name of Barbarick Philosophers. But of this we have already discoursed; as also of the Egyptians: we shall proceed therefore to those, who remain of the Barbarick Philosophers; and begin with the Chaldeans, who were great∣ly famous for their skill in Astronomie, and Astrologie (which as the Learned suppose, they were masters of, before the Egyptians) for their improvement wherein, they had great advantages,* 1.152 not only from the situation of their Countrey, which lay plain, but also from the Church of God; which after the Floud was first planted, and seated amongst them; and furnished not only with Divine, but also Human Know∣ledge. For Noah and his familie, which was then the seat of the Church, living before the Floud, had the advantage of gathering up all the Wisdom of the old World, and conveighing of it, by Tradition to their Posteritie, especially to such as were of the Holy Seed, who, as we may presume, would be most curious in searching into, and inqui∣ries

after the great works of God, both as to Creation, and Providence: amongst whom we may reckon Abraham, who is said to teach the Chaldeans Astonomie.

* 1.153§. 2. But to proceed gradually in our Discourse: First that the Chaldeans had a great reputation for the Antiquitie of their Philoso∣phie, we have the Testimonie of Cicero lib. 1. de Divinat. Where he saies,* 1.154

that the Chaldeans were the most ancient kind of Doctors.

And particularly, that they taught the Babylonians, and Assyrians Philoso∣phie, we have for it the Autoritie of Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and of So∣tion, in his books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if we may credit Laertius. So Diodorus tels us,* 1.155

that the Egyptians received their Philosophie from the Chaldeans.

Now the great piece of Philosophie the Chaldeans were at first famous for, was Astronomie, and Astrologie. So Strabo lib. 12, and 15. Hence Pythagoras is said to derive his Knowledge of the Stars from the Chaldeans, as Porphyrie,* 1.156 in the life of Pythagoras. Whence also the name Chaldeans passed in the Roman Empire for A∣strologers. And Quintus Curtius lib. 5. tels us,

that Alexander entring Babylon, whereas others approving themselves otherwise, the Chaldeans shewed the mo∣tions of the Stars, and the stated vicissitudes of times. Wherefore as Simplicius in Arist. lib. 2. de Coelo affirmes) Aristotle, that great Inquisitor of Nature, gave it in command to Callisthenes his Kins∣man and Disciple, who travailed with Alexander into Asia, that he should send him Commentaries of such things, as the Chaldeans had observed touching the Celestial Bodies. And Callisthenes sent him observations of two thou∣sand years. Tullie tels us, they had much convenience for such Astro∣nomick observations by reason of the plain situation of their Countrey.

So Vossius de philos. sect. l. 2. c. 1. §. 9.

Neither is it to be wondred, saies he, if persons, so ingenious, were so well skilled in the Knowledge of the Stars, who inhabiting a large, and even Countrey, could alwaies behold the face of the Heavens: neither is it more to be wondred if those first Chaldeans observed so many things, who in Aristotle's time gloried in the experience of 2000 years.* 1.157

§. 3. But though it may be granted that these Chaldeans had some advantage for the improvement of their Astronomick Skill from the convenience of their Countrey, which lay on a level; yet have we

both Authoritie and Reason to judge, that the original of this their Art was more Divine. That the Chaldeans received their skill in Astrologie from Abraham was afore (chap 1. §. 8. of Abraham) asserted, and proved out of Berosus, Eupolemus, Josephus, and Vossius: so Lud. Vives on Aug. de civ. Dei l. 8. c. 9. asserts the Traduction of Philosophie from the Chal∣deans to the Egyptians, by Abraham. The truth of which assertion will be more evident, if we consider the original causes of this Astrono∣mick Science. We need no way doubt,* 1.158 but that Noah had been fully instructed by Church-Tradition, from his Godly predecessors Methu∣selah, Enoch and Seth, touching the Creation of the World by God; and particularly touching the excellent fabrick of the Heavens, the Nature of those Celestial Bodies, their Harmonious Order, and Motion; that the Sun was made to governe by Day, and the Moon by Night, as Gen. 1.16. and Psal. 136.7, 8.* 1.159 that these Celestial had a mighty in∣fluence on all Sublunarie Bodies, &c. These and such like considerati∣ons, which greatly conduced to the enhanceing the Wisdom, Power,* 1.160 and Goodnes of God, in his works of Creation, and Providence, we may not doubt, were very frequent, by Church-Tradition, in the Hearts and Mouths of those Sons of God, before and after the Floud. And it is the opinion of some, (which is not without probable grounds) that the whole storie of the Creation, written by Moses, was conveighed down even from Adam to his time, by a con∣stant uninterrupted Tradition to the Holy Seed, and Church in all A∣ges. And indeed if God vouchsafed to any the manifestation of his glorious works of Creation, and Providence, to whom can we suppose it should be, if not to his darlings and friends, the faithful and holy Seed? who both could and would best improve such contemplations, for their Makers glorie, and most faithfully hand them over to posteri∣tie. Thus God himself gives Abraham this Character Gen. 18.17.* 1.161 Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do? 19. For I know him, that he will command his children, &c· God gave Abraham the Know∣ledge of things not only past and done, but to come; because he knew Abraham would make the best improvement, and conveighance there∣of to his posteritie. And thus we may conceive how Abraham having the Knowledge of Gods glorious works of Creation and Providence, especially as to the Celestial Bodies, their Natures, Order, Harmonie, Government, Motions, Influences (which takes in the whole of true Astronomie, and Astrologie) communicated to him partly by Church-Tradition,

partly by the blessing of God upon his own meditations and contemplations (if not also from some Divine Inspiration even of this Natural Knowledge) could not but conceive himself in dutie obli∣ged to communicate the same, not only to his own Posteritie, but also to his Kindred, and Countrey men the Chaldeans.

* 1.162That the people of God were, in the infant state of the Church, much ravished with holy contemplations of the Glorie of God, that shone so brightly in those Celestial Bodies, their Order, Government, Motion, and Influence, is evident, by many Philosophick, yet gratious Me∣ditations we have to this purpose in the Psalms: as Ps. 19.1. The Heavens declare the glorie of God, &c. to the end. So Psal. 136.4. To him who alone doth great wonders: and v. 5. To him that by Wisdom made the Heavens, &c. 7. To him that made great lights. 8, 9. The Sun to rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night, &c. So it is said of Isaac, he went out into the field to meditate; where he could no sooner open his eyes,* 1.163 but contemplate the wonders of God, in those Celestial Bo∣dies. Thus were these holy men Abraham, &c. ravished with the ad∣miration (which as Plato, and Aristotle assure us, was the first cause of all Philosophie) of the Glorie of God, that shone so brightly in those Celestial Bodies, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, their admirable natures, positions, conjunctions, regular motions, and powerful influences, which is the summe of Natural Astronomie, and Astrologie; which was, as we have endeavored to prove, communicated to the Chalde∣ans, by Abraham or Shem, &c.

* 1.164§. 4. This Astronomie, and Astrologie, which the Chaldeans (accor∣ding to the common presumption) received from Abraham, did soon by their holding the truth in unrighteousnes (as Rom. 1.18, 19, 20 21, 22.) degenerate into that Black Art (deservedly so called, because from Hell) of Judicial Astrologie, or Divination; which was thence called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chaldaick Art: the original of which was this; (as we find it Rom. 1.20, 21.) These Chaldeans, besides the Traditions they received from Abraham, and the rest of the Patriarchs, touching these Celestial Bodies, their glorious natures, order, situations, regular motions, and governments, as Gen. 1.16. they themselves, by their own Astronomick observations and experiments, contemplating a mighty Beautie, and Ornament in the Heavens, a regular course in the Motions of the Stars, an excellent Harmonie and Order in the distan∣ces and conjunctions, and a powerful influence descending from them

on sublunarie Bodies, the more they contemplated these glorious creatures the more they admired them; 'till at last their admiration determined in adoration of them, as Gods. Thus was that Scripture fulfilled Rom. 1.21.* 1.165 they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkned. That this was the original of their Zaba∣isme, or worshipping the Celestial Bodies, is gathered from Deut. 4.19.* 1.166 And lest thou lift up thine eyes to Heaven, and when thou seest the Sun, &c, shouldst be driven to worship them. When they grew vain in their imagi∣nations, no wonder if such a glorious sight of their eyes, was followed with the Idolatrie of their foolish hearts. Now this Phaenomenon be∣ing granted, that the Stars were Gods, the Hypotheses of Judiciarie Astrologie easily followed. So Maimonides More Nevoch. p. 3. c. 29.* 1.167 speaking of these Chaldeans, saith,

that they had no other Gods but the Stars, to whom they made Statues or Images, which derived an influence from the Stars, to which they were erected, and thence re∣ceived a facultie of foretelling things future.

These images the Greeks called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and were much the same with the Teraphim, they being both exactly made according to the positions of the Heavens.* 1.168 So Gro∣tius saies, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Teraphim Judg. 17.5. were Images made with figures; according to the position of the Stars; which also the Idola∣trous Jews made use of for divination, as Zech. 10.2. whence the Ephod accompanies the Teraphim Judg. 8.27. And this Idolatrous mode of Divination continues yet to this very day amongst some, who are pre∣tenders to this Judicial, or rather Satanick Astrologie. For they make Figures, and Images, which they pretend to answer to the forme of the celestial bodies: thence they persuade the foolish people, that these Images receive influence, and virtue from the Celestial Figure. (near of kin whereunto is the Agnus Dei amongst the Papists) All of which Magick trumperies are but imitations of those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Ta∣lismans, so much in request amongst the Chaldeans, and other Idolaters: of which see Plotinus Enead. 4. lib. 3. cap. 11. where he unfolds the whole Mysterie of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Images, and their manner of Divination by them; which, upon the supposition of the Chaldeans, that the Stars are Deities, might admit of some probable pretext, but without this Hypothesis of allowing a Divinitie to the Stars, I cannot see what shadow of Reason those pretenders to Judiciarie Astrologie can have to salve their Phaenomena. See more of this Owen de Idololat. l. 3. c. 7.

§. 5. This leads us to the Theologie of the Chaldeans, which com∣prehended

a chief part of their Philosophie.* 1.169 So Diodorus Siculus lib. 3. tels us,

That the Chaldeans were most skilful in Astronomie, Divination, and sacred Offices.

This their sacred Philosophie, or Divinitie was chiefly studied by, and preserved amongst their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zabii, who, according to Scaliger's account, were the most Easterne Chaldeans: which he ga∣thers from the origination of the word Zabii from Saba the Son of Chus.* 1.170 Salmasius thinks these Zabii were the Chaldeans, inhabiting Mesopotamia. If so, it is very probable that Balaam that famous Ma∣gician, or Diviner, was one of these Zabii. For Mesopotamia seems to be Balaam's Countrey, thence Numb. 22.5.* 1.171 Pethor, where Balaam lived, is said to be by the river, i. e. saies the Chaldee Paraphrase, Eu∣phrates. That Balaam was a Magician, or Conjurer is evident from the whole of the Storie.* 1.172 Thus Stillingfleet Orig. sacrar. lib. 1. chap. 3. To which he addes these words,

Hence we may conclude, that these Zabii were the same with the Persian Magi instituted by Zoreaster: which farther appears from the Magi,* 1.173 that were guided by the Star unto Christ, who are said to come from the East (i. e. Sabea, or Ara∣bia Foelix) with presents, which are peculiar to that Countrey.

That Balaam was a Zabean, and of these Zabii, or wise men mentioned Mat. 2.1, 2. may be gathered from what Deodate observes on that place v. 2. viz.

that this Star was the signe that the King of the World should be born in Judea, which perhaps might come to their notice, by the Pro∣phecie of Balaam Numb. 24.17. continued amongst them, &c.

* 1.174§. 6. Concerning these Zabii, Maimonides tels us, that the under∣standing their Rites would give light to many obscure passages of Scri∣pture: I suppose he means such as relate to the Original of Idolatrie or the Worship they gave to those Planetarie Deities: for, saith he, they had no Gods, but the Stars, to whom they made Statues (or pillars which the Greeks stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and Images 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We find one Rite or Ceremonie of this Zabaisme, or Planetarie Worship Job. 31.26, 27. If I beheld the Sun when it shined,* 1.175 &c. This holy man (who, as 'tis supposed, lived amongst these Zabii about Joseph's time (as Jerome) when this their Idolatrie was come to some maturitie) speaks openly of this Pla∣netarie Worship, then so common. And the first part of this Zabaism, he so industriously a moves from himself, is Beholding the Sun when it shined: Not the simple beholding of it, that's only a Natural Act of our Natural Sense, and hath no more of Moral Evil in it, than the Natural Shine of the Sun beheld by it: But beholding it with such an Eye, as secretly steals away the heart from the Worship of the Creator, affecting the Soul with,

and carrying it out in an Idolatrous Adoration of that so glorious a Creature (as in some it did, to such an height,* 1.176 that Plato saies Socrates underwent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Exstasie in worshipping the Sun) for so it follows Job. 31.27. And my heart hath been secretly en∣ticed. Job shews here that the original Seat of this Zabaisme was the Heart: for by long contemplation, and admiration of the eyes the heart was drawn away to worship those Celestial bodies as before. So it followes, or my mouth hath kissed my hand, i. e. adored the Sun: for kissing the hand and bowing to the Sun was a main ceremonie they used in their worship. So the worship of Christ the Sun of Righteousnes is, under that ceremonie of kissing, commanded Ps. 2.12. And Hos. 13.2. the worship of the Calves expressed by that ceremonie reproved. There were other parts of Zabaisme, or Star-worship, namely Images and Fire; of which we find some mention in Scripture: so Lev. 26 30.

God threatens to destroy their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Images of the Sun, as some, but rather their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

their hearths where they kept their perpetual fire, for these are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies both the Sun, and Fire. Hence from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (q. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and the Latin Caminus a Chimney, or Furnace▪ So in like manner the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies the Light of the Sun, is used also for fire (as the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is by Plato used for both fire and light) whence some derive Ʋr in Chaldea,* 1.177 which was the Seat of this Idola∣trous worshipping the Sun by Fire, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Light. Now the reason of this piece of Zabaisme, or worshipping the Sun by Fire, seems this. These Zabii, or Chaldean Philosophers were possessed with this o∣pinion (which afterward was taken up by many of the Greek Philoso∣phers (that the matter of the Sun was Fire,* 1.178 which 'tis possible they might take up from some broken Tradition, touching the Creation of those greater Lights, as Gen. 1.16. And the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that signifie the Sun, and its Light are used also to expresse Fire. Plato in his Timaeus cals the Sun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an heavenly Fire: and Job. 31.26. cals the Sun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which also signifies Fire, thence Ʋr in Chaldea was so called because it was the Seat of their eternal fire, and the Stoicks of old held that the Sun was Fire. So Grot. on 2 Pet. 3.7. and Comenius in his Physicks. Thus the French Conferences, par les beaux exsprits tom. 1. conf 6. so Willis de febribus saies the Light is but a greater flame more dilated. And Ames. Medul. Theol. l. 1. c. 8. thes. 50. Subtilissi∣ma illius massae parte sursum evocata, facta suit lux i. e. ignis lucens.

That the Sun is of an ignite fiery nature was generally believed a∣mongst the ancient Philosophers; particuarly by Thales, Plato, Hera∣clitus, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Theophrastus, Anaximander, Anaxago∣ras, Philolaus, Empedocles, Democritus, Cleanthes, Zeno, Chrysippus, and others, as we intend to prove in what follows of Plato's Physicks, of which see more Part 1. B. 3. C. 3. §. 9. And that the Sun, and Fire agree, not only in name, but also in nature, I am apt to think, is the more probable conjecture, if we compare their properties, influences, and effects, which are very near akin, if not the same. However we have sufficient ground to conclude this to be the reason why these Zabii worshipped the Sun under this Symbol of Fire. Moreover Maimonides tels us that Abraham had his conversation amongst these Zabii. That he lived in the Countrey of Ʋr in Chaldea, the Scripture assures us; whence he wanted not opportunitie of communicating Knowledge in these and other things, to these Chaldeans as before. Batricides attri∣butes the original of the Religion of these Zabii to the time of Nahor, which disagrees not with what has been laid down. I shall conclude this with the words of Learned Owen de Ortu Idol. l. 3. c. 4, pag. 187.

Sabaisme consisted in the worship of the Sun, Moon, and Stars: Helle∣nisme added the Daemon-worship; the adoration of Images [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and pillars [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was common to both: the beginning of Idolatrie was in Sabaisme or the worship of celestial bodies.* 1.179

§. 7. Besides the Zabii, there were other Sects of these Chaldeans: for some were called Orcheni, others Borsippeni. They were also di∣stinguished by other names, as it often happens among Sects who have different apprehensions of the same things: of which see Strabo lib. 16. Amongst the Chaldeans, who writ in Greek touching Astrologie, Bero∣sus gained the greatest repute, especially amongst the Greeks. Of whom Plinie lib. 7. cap. 37. gives this character. Berosus was famous for Astro∣logie; to whom, for his Divine predictions, the Athenians gave a golden tongue, which was placed publickly in their Schole, as Vossius de philos. sect. l. 2. c. 1.

* 1.180§. 8. Besides the advantages, which the Chaldeans had from the first Patriarchs, Abraham, &c. without doubt, they received many Scripture Traditions, and much light touching the origine of the Uni∣verse, &c. from the Jewish Doctors, and Scholes, which were setled at Babylon, in the time of their Captivitie. That the Jews had Scholes in Babylon, Deodati has well observed on Psal. 137.1. according to the French thus,

Being near the Rivers of Babylon] He has regard to cer∣tain

Townes in Chaldea, mentioned in Histories, which were assigned to the captive Jews for their abode, in the which they had their Syna∣gogues, Scholes, and places for the service of God; which were nigh the River Euphrates, &c. thus Deod.

To which Stillingfleet orig. sa∣cr. l. 1. c. 3. addes,

that In order to the spreading of sacred Scripture Traditions, the Jewish Church, which before the Captivitie was as an enclosed Garden was now thrown open, and many of the plants re∣moved and set in forrain Countries, not only in Babylon, where even after their returne were left three famous Scholes of Learning Sora, Pompeditha, and Neharda, &c.

By which it is evident what mighty advantages the Chaldeans had from the Jewish Church and Scholes for improvement in their Philosophie, at first received from the Patriarchs, Abraham, &c. And indeed whereas it's said that Pythagoras, and De∣mocritus, with others travelled into Chaldee, to acquaint themselves with the first principles of Philosophie, and that they received much of their Philosophie from the Chaldeans, why may we not by the Chalde∣ans understand the Jewish Church, and Scholes which were then setled in Chaldea, and under that Empire.

CHAP. V. Of the Magi, Gymnosophistae, Druides and other Barbarick Philosophers.

Of the Persick Philosophie preserved by the Magi, who were instituted by Zoroaster, with the origination of his name, &c. Of the Indian Gym∣nosophists, both Brachmanes, and Germanes. The Phrygian Philo∣sophers. The African Philosophers, both 1 Atlantick or Lybick. 2 E∣thiopick. The European Barbarick Philosophers, 1 In Scythia. 2 In Thracia. 3 In Spain. 4 Britannie, and Gallia, who were called Dru∣ides from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Oke; in the Celtick Tongue deru, and in the Brittish drew. The Druides first in Britannie; thence they translated their Sect and Discipline into Gallia. Their Academies, Degrees, Privi∣ledges and Studies. Their Philosophie Natural, Moral, Medicine, Ge∣ographie, Astronomie, Magick, Their mode of philosophizing sym∣bolick; which they learned from the Phenicians, with their distinctive

habits. Their Theologie, touching God, and the Souls immortalitie. Their Ecclesiastick Discipline, and Worship, by human sacrifices. Their names Taronides, Bard, Euates. Their Oke Religion from Abra∣ham, &c.

§. 1. HAving dispatched the Jewish, Egyptian, Phenician, and Chal∣dean Philosophie, we now proceed to the remaining Sects of the Barbarick Philosophers, both Easterne and, Westerne; and shall be∣gin with the Persians,* 1.181 who had a considerable repute for their Philoso∣phie, from whom the Grecians received many things, especially such as referred to their Gods. Thus Porphyrie in the Life of Pythagoras, tels us,

that as Pythagoras received his Arithmetick from the Phenicians, his Geometrie from the Egyptians,* 1.182 his Astrologie from the Chaldeans, so also what appertained to the worship of the Gods, and to other Studies, which regard conversation, he learned from the Magi, or Persick Phi∣losophers.

So Plinie lib. 34. c. 37. testifies, that Democritus had re∣course to them. Laertius tels us

that Pyrrhus, the head of the Scepticks, and companion of Anaxarchus, had conversation with them.

And Philo∣stratus 5. de vita Apollonii informes us,

that Apollonius Tyanaeus (that great Magician, who is by the Heathens extolled above Christ for his miracles) in his travels into India, made some stay in Persia, partly to visit the King, and partly to consider their Wisdom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, studied by their Magi: with whom he conversed twice every day; and be∣ing asked his judgement concerning them, he answered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they are wise men, but comprehend not all things.

So Vossius de phi∣los. sect. l. 2. c. 1. §. 7. These Magi were the Interpreters of Human, and Divine Laws; and of so great reputation among the Persians, that as Cicero lib. 3. de Nat. Deor. writes, no one could attain to the Persian Empire, but he, who had been instructed in the Science, and Discipline of the Magi; who taught 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and instructed their Kings in the mode of Government. So Apuleius, Apolog. informes us, that Magick is taught among the chief Regal Affairs; neither was it per∣mitted to any among the Persians rashly to undertake the office of a Magus, no more than that of a King. Neither were these Magi lesse prevalent in the Affairs of their Gods. Plato joins both their politick, and sacred capacitie together, Alcibiad. 1, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [sc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Magick is a Ministerie of the Gods: it teacheth also things that appertain to the Regal Office. Lucian de Longaevis, saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Apollo∣nius Tyanaeus Epist ad Euphrat. saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Magus is a Minister of the Gods; which Porphyrie interprets, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wise about sacreds, and ministring in the same. To which agrees that of Laertius lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Among the Persians the Magi, were Authors of Philosophie, who im∣ployed themselves about the worship of the Gods. The like Suidas, who cals these Magi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.183

§. 2. That the Magi were the Authors, and Preservers of the Per∣sick Philosophie, is affirmed by Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Sotion in his books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As Laertius. These Magi are said to be instituted by Zoroaster. So Lud. Vives in Aug. civit. l. 8. c. 9. Thus Hornius Histor. philos. lib. 2. c. 6.

Zoroaster therefore was the first most illustrious Do∣ctor of Magie in Persia: neither did he deliver this Art by oral Tra∣dition only, but also in large Writings, according to Plinie, and Ari∣stotle. For he writ concerning it an hundred thousand Verses; which Hermippus is said to illustrate by his Commentaries. There are yet extant certain, Geek Poems, which passe under the Inscription of Zoro∣aster's Chaldaick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and are not unlike to Theognes's Sentences, yea in many things they resemble much the Sacred Scriptures. But Beza,* 1.184 and others justly suspect that these are but the spurious Comments of some Semi-Christian.

Concerning the origination of Zoroaster's name, there are various opinions, but none more probable than that of Learned Bochart, who derives the name from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contemplari and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Astrum, q. d. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for which Dinon in Persicis cals him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Soroaster, who is reputed the Founder of the Persick Phi∣losophie, and Worship, was indeed but the Promoter of it: for the main of the Persian Rites and Wisdom, wherein their Magi were instructed,* 1.185 were traduced from the Zabii, or Chaldean Philosophers, with whom they agreed in the chief points of their Idolatrie, viz. in the worship of the Sun by Images, and kissing their hand, as Job 31.26, 27. also in their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or hearths, where they preserved their eternal fire, the Symbol of the Sun, Lev. 26, 30. as before chap 4. §. 6. So Stillingfleet orig. sacr. book 1. c. 3.* 1.186 Hence probably the Rites of the Zabii are the same with those of the Chaldeans and Persians, who all agreed in this worship of the Sun, and of Fire, &c. Neither had the Persians only their Magi,

but also the Medes,* 1.187 Parthians, and other neighbor Nations; as Lucian de Longaevis, and Plinie cals the Arabian wise men Magi. One chief Philosopher amongst the Persians was Ochus the Phenician, who, as we may presume, instructed them in the Phenician, and so in the Jewish Wisdom. See Suidas in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

* 1.188§. 3. Austin, de civ. l. 8. c. 9. makes mention of the Indian Philoso∣phers, and Lud. Vives on that place addes thus,

The Indians had their Philosophers, whom they called the Brachmanes, of whose Life, and institutes Philostratus, in the Life of Apollonius, has given us many things, as Strabo, and such, who have written of the things done by Alexander.

So Apuleius Florid. 15. The Brachmanes are the Wise men among the Indians. And Bardisanes Syrus in Euseb. lib. 6. praepar. Evang. cap. 8. gives us a more full account of them thus:

Among the Indians, and Bactrians there are many thousand of men called Brachmanes· These, as well from the Tradition of their Fathers, as from Laws, neither worship Images, nor eat what is animate: they never drink Wine, or Beer: they are far from all Malignitie, atten∣ding wholly on God.

These Brachmanes some derive from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Barac,* 1.189 he praised, or worshipped: Others make the name to be com∣pounded of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ab rec the Father of the young King, as Onk••los and Rabbi Judas. Some of the Ancients make several Sects, or Societies of these Indian Philosophers, namely the Brachmanes, Gymnosophistae, Sa∣manaei and Calani. The chief of the Brachmanes, and Samanaei is by Philostratus lib. 3. de vita Apollon. Tyan. called Iarcha. The Head of the Gymnosophists is, by Hieronymus, contra Jovin. named Buddas. But Vossius de philos. sectis l. 2. c. 1. tels us that the common Appellative of these Indian Philosophers was Gymnosophists, as Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Sotion in libris 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to Laertius; as also Strabo, Clemens, Apul••ius,* 1.190 Solinus, &c. These Indian Gymnosophists were of two sorts some were called Brachmanes, as before, others Germanes. And a∣mongst the Germanes some were called Hylobii, because they lived in Woods, for that's the import of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To these the name Gymnosophists properly belonged. See Strabo l. 15. and Cle∣mens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1. Amongst the Brachmanes there was one named Buddas Preceptor to Manes the Persian, who was the Founder of this Sect, as Suidas, &c. These Brachmanes held a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Transmigration of Souls into Beasts,* 1.191 especially into Oxen. They held also the worlds Creation by God, and his Providence in governing of it. So

Strabo lib. 15. of these Brachmanes saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. They agree with the Grecians in many things viz. touching the worlds production, and destruction, and that God is the Creator and Governer of it: which opinions of theirs, Owen questions not, but they had, by ancient Tradition, from the Church of God. Owen Theol. l. 1. c. 8. Hence, as we justly conjecture, from this cog∣nation 'twixt these Indian Philosophers, and the Jews in some Divine Dogmes, sprang that mistake of Clearchus the Peripatetick, and Me∣gasthenes, who thought the Brachmanes and Calani to be the same with the Jews. Of which see Euseb. l. 9. praep. c. 3. Amongst the Greeks, who resorted to these Indian Philosophers, we may reckon Democritus, so Aelian lib. 4. Var. Histor. and Laert. Also Pyrrho the Head of the Scepticks is said to have conversation with the Gymnosophists in Indiae as Laertius. Apollonius Tyanaeus, that great Pagan Antichrist, is said to have spent much conversation among these Indian Philosophers. Eu∣sebius contra Hieroclem l. 5. brings him in thus characterizing of them:

The Indians, contracting Philosophie for the greatest advantage, com∣prehend it in the Divine and sublime Nature. These truly I have greatly admired, and esteem them blessed, and wise.

By which it ap∣pears that their Philosophie was mostly Theologick. Apulcius Florid. l. 5. saies,

that the Philosophie of the Brachmanes was composed of ma∣ny severals: viz. what were the documents of Souls, what the ex∣ercitaments of Bodies, what the parts of the Mind, what the turnes of Life, and what were the Torments, and Rewards, which the Gods appointed to all, according to their Merits.

§. 4. Amongst the Asiatick Philosophers we might reckon the Phry∣gians,* 1.192 who had also their Philosophie, which had been better known to us, if Democritus's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Laertius makes mention of lib. 9. were extant. Concerning their Theologie see Diodorus Siculus, and Eusebius: so Vossius.

§. 5. We now proceed to the African Philosophie;* 1.193 and passing by the Egyptian, of which we have already treated, we shall begin 1. with the Atlantick or Lybick Philosophers, of which Lud. Vives, in Au∣gust. civ. l. 8. c. 9. thus speaks;

The Atlanticks inhabit the places in Africa bordering on the Ocean, whose ancient King was Atlas, the brother of Saturne, and son of the Heaven, who being a great Astro∣nomer (whence he was said to bear up the Heavens) taught his son Hesperus, and others of his kindred, and people, the same Art: from

whom this Science of Astronomie crept into the inner Lybia; where also Hercules philosophized.

By which it seems most probable that the Atlanticks, and Lybicks received their Philosophie from the Phenici∣ans; for Hercules, as its well known, was a Phenician; and so, I doubt not, was Atlas. Also Laertius, in his Preface makes mention of Atlas the Lybian, amongst the ancient Philosophers. And Diodor. Siculus l. 4. reckons up some fables concerning the Gods, which these Atlantick Philosophers held. Atlas is said to bring Astronomie out of Lybia into Greece, whereof Orion is said to be the first Author in Baeotia, whence the Star Orion received its name: so Carion. Chron. lib. 2. But Bochart makes Atlas the same with Enoch as before chap. 1. §.7. V••ssius tels us (de philos. sect. l. 2. c. 2.)

That the Lybick Philosophie came from Atlas, especially Astrologie, whence Atlas is said to hold up Heaven with his shoulders, and the mountain called Atlas received its name from him, &c. Plin. l. 7. c. 56,

* 1.1942. The Ethiopians also had their Philosophers called Gymnosophists, so Jerom l. 4. in Ezech. cap. 13. makes mention of these Ethiopian Gym∣nosophists, who received both their Name, and Philosophie from India, as Philostratus in the Life of Apollonius lib. 6. Touching the Ethiopick Philosophie, and its Traduction from the Mosaick, we have this particular account in Hornius, Histor. Philosoph. lib. 2. c. 8.

Touch∣ing the Philosophie of the Ethiopians, little is mentioned by Antiquitie; and what has been mentioned, is well nigh all lost, by the iniquitie of the times. But this is certain, that they received all their Divine, & Hu∣man Dogmes from the Egyptians. Whence their very names were con∣fused. For the Romans called the Ethiopians Egyptians; because indeed they descended from Egypt. Moreover there is no doubt to be made of it, but that they drew somewhat of more sound Wisdom from Moses.

* 1.195§. 6. Amongst the European Barbarick Philosophers we shall first mention the Scythians (who according to their ancient bounds lay part∣ly in Asia, partly in Europe) of whom August. Civit. l. 8. c. 9. makes mention, and Lud Vives on that place speaks thus.

The Scythians in times past philosophized and contended with the Egyptians touching their Antiquitie.* 1.196 They are a people stout, simple, and just, ignorant of vice, and malice, and got that by their natural ingenie, which the Grecians could not attain unto by all their magnifick and illustrious Sciences: see Justin l. 2.

* 1.197§. 7. But we passe on to the Thracians, who had anciently a great

repute for Philosophie, which some think, they owed to Zamolxis a Thracian (whom some make the servant of Pythagoras) but others de∣rive their Philosophie from the Grecians, as Laertius lib. 8. What the Philosophie of the Thracians was, may be known by the Doctrine of Orpheus, who was a Thracian. Many Anciently writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Poems according to the Doctrine of Orpheus, of which see Suidas in Orpheus's Philosophie (delivered in Poesie) which was chiefly Moral, and Theo∣logick; for by his Musick, and Rhetorick, he had so great a power on the Thracians, to civilize them, as that he was said to have drawn Trees and Beasts. Justin Martyr cals him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first master of Polytheisme, or multiplicitie of Gods; which he brought from Egypt, with many superstitious Ceremonies and Ʋsages, and set them up amongst the Thracians, and Macedonians, &c. see more in our relation of Orpheus Part 1. B 3. C. 1. §. 5.

§. 8. But to come to our Westerne Philosophers;* 1.198 and firstly the Spa∣niards; of whom Aust de Civ. Dei l. 8. c 9. makes mention; and Lud. Vives on him speaks thus.

In Spain, before the veins of Gold and Silver were found out, and Wars begun, there were many Philosophers; and the people lived holy and quiet lives, being every where govern∣ed by such Magistrates, as were men most excellent for Learning and Probitie: Their affairs were transacted according to Justice, and Equitie, not by the number of Laws: and if any were written, 'twas principally amongst the Turdetans, in the most ancient times. There were scarce any quarrels or controversies amongst the people: and all the disputes were touching Emulation of Virtue, the nature of the Gods, the reason of Nature (or Natural Philosophie) of good manners (or Morals) which their Learned men, on stated daies, publickly dis∣puted of, the women also being present. But when the mountains, bigge with metals, brought forth Gold, and Silver, men began to ad∣mire this new matter. Hence the Phenicians, who sailed far and near, for lucre sake, traded here, and drew multitudes of men, from Asia and Greece hither, who taught us the Grecian, and Asiatick Vices: there remain yet some few fragments of our Antiquities in Greek and Latin, whence I hope in time to illustrate the Origine of my Nation.

Thus Lud. Vives. That the Phenicians brought into Spain, with their Colonies, not only the Phenician Letters, but also Sciences, and Philosophie, we have reason to believe by what has been before as∣serted out of Bochart, &c. Part 1. B. 1. C. 5.

* 1.199§. 9 We shall conclude this Discourse of Barbarick Philosophie with that in use among the old Britains, and Gauls, whose Philosophers are by Hornius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 12.* 1.200 reduced to two Sects, the Bardi, and Druides. The Bardi were an inferior sort of Philosophers, and for the most part Poets, according to that of Lucan. l. 1.

Plurima securi fudisti carmina Bardi!

Who notwithstanding, as the ancient Greek Poets, arrogated to them∣selves no smal reputation for Wisdom. But the Druides were accoun∣ted the more worthy, yea almost Divine Philosophers, and obtained no small Autoritie among the people. These Druides, who in ancient times philosophized amongst the old Britans and Gauls, and were in∣deed a peculiar and distinct Sect of Philosophers, differing from all the world besides, both in their mode of philosophizing, as also in their Re∣ligious Rites,* 1.201 and Mysteries: yet we may not doubt, but that they re∣ceived much of their Philosophie, as well as Theologie from the Ph••ni∣cians, who traded amongst them, as before. As for the name Drui∣des, Plinie l. 16. c. 44. deduceth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from an Oke:

For, saith he,* 1.202 the Druides have nothing more sacred than an Oke. Even now, they of themselves chose groves of Okes; neither do they per∣forme any Sacreds, without that leaf; so that hence they seem to be called, according to the Greek interpretation, Druides.

Bochart (Canaan lib. 4. c. 42.) assents to this Origination of Plinie; to which he addes

Neither is it to be wondred that the Druides were so called from this Greek name, when as an Oke amongst the Celtae, was called Deru. The Britains in England write drew (so Drewstenton in De∣von) and our Countrey men deru.

That Drewstenton, and names of like sound, came from these Druides, 'tis not without probabilitie Vossi∣us de Orig. & Progr. Idolotr. l. 1. c. 35. thinks that the name Druides ought rather to be fetcht from the Celtick name deru. So Dickins••n. Druidum origo p. 35.

I assent most to them who fetch the Druides from the Celtick name Deru, i. e. an Oke; which the Cambro-Bri∣tains or Welch to this day call Drew. And I am so far from believing that the Druides were so called at first from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that I rather think 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was formed out of the Celtick deru.

* 1.203§. 10. This Sect of the Druides began first in our Countrey of Bri∣tannie; and hence it was translated into Gallia. Thus Caesar de Bello Gall. lib. 6. Their Discipline, saies he, was first found out in Britannie, and thence translated into Gallia, according to the common opinion. The

like Bochart acknowledgeth. Can. l. 1. c. 42. These Druides instituted their Academies, for the promoting of Learning, in Groves;* 1.204 in which tbey had their Scholes filled with studious youth; so Caesar, also Mela l. 3. c. 11. They spent twenty years, before they were admitted to the degree of Doctor. That which allured them to studie,* 1.205 was the ma∣ny privileges of their Students, and the great Authoritie their anci∣ent Doctors obtained. So Caesar lib. 6. tels us, that the Druides were exempted from War, and paying Tribute. The which privileges are still continued in our Ʋniversities. As for the method of their Studies, the same Caesar tels us, they were wont to get by heart a great number of ver∣ses. They affected various, and almost all kinds of Philosophie. Stra∣bo l, 4. relates, that, besides the Science of natural causes, they were also exercised in Moral Philosophie. And Plinie lib. 3. c. 1. makes them to be skilled in Medicine, and Magick. Touching their Skill in Moral Phi∣losophie or Ethicks, Diogenes Laertius, in the Proeme to his Book, gives us this account; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉·* 1.206 And they say the Druides were wont to philosophize enigmatically, that the Gods were to be worshipped, that no evil was to be done, that fortitude was to be embraced. By which also we learn, that the mode, or manner of their philosophizing was sym∣bolick, or enigmatick; which, we need no way doubt, they learned from the Phenicians (as these had it from the Jews). Hence their famous symbolick Image of Hercules Ogmius, who was a Phenician, as Bochart proves at large Can. l. 1. c. 42.

The Gauls, saies he, called Hercules Ogmius, as Lucian in Hercul. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ogmion, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agemion, a stranger, so in the A∣rabick: Namely because Hercules came from Phaenicia, or Africa, or the Gades, and after his many and great Labours arrived amongst the Gauls; thence his picture in Lucian Hercul. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. a decrepit bald old man, Gray, and wrinkled, as old Mariners, &c.

Farther,* 1.207 that these Druides were skilled in Geographie, Astronomie, and Natural Phi∣losophie, we have the testimonies both of Caesar, and Mela. Caesar Com∣ment l. 6. speaks thus of them: They dispute, and teach their Scholars ma∣ny things touching the Stars, and their motion; also concerning the Magni∣tude of the Ʋniverse, the nature of things, the force, and power of the Im∣mortal Gods. Mela lib. 3, cap. 2. saies, that the Gauls have their Ma∣sters of Eloquence, and Wisdom from the Druides. These professe they know the magnitude, and forme of the earth, and world▪ they teach many Noble

persons of their Nation privately. One thing which they commonly teach is, that Souls are eternal.

* 1.208As for their habit, it was (as in our Universities) distinctive and pe∣culiar, thereby to gain the veneration of the people. In their sacred Offices they used a white Vestment (answerable to the Jewish Ephod) as we are informed by Plinie lib. 6 cap. ultimo.* 1.209 They also gave them∣selves to the studie of Eloquence▪ so M••la l. 3. as before. Caesar addes farther concerning these Druides, That they learnt by heart a great num∣ber of Verses: Therefore some of them continued twenty years in studie. Neither did they conceive it meet, to commit their studies to writing, where∣as in other affairs, both publick, and private, they used the Greek Let∣ters.

* 1.210§. 11. But these Druides had a special vogue for their Theologie, wherein they taught many things peculiar, and some things excellent, as Owen Theol l. 3. c. 11. particularly they asserted the immortaltie of the Soul▪* 1.211 so Strabo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the like Caesar. The Dru∣ides held also a Metempsychosis, or Transmigration of Souls, which some conceive they received from the Pythogoreans, as these derived it from the Jews, as Selden Jan. Anglor. l. 1. p. 22. Strabo also tels us, that they held the World should be at last destroyed by Fire: which, without doubt, they had from some Jewish or Phenician Tradition. They taught also that one God was to be worshipped, as Origen on Ezech. 4. This one God was the Sun; to whom the Moon was added, which was worshipped by the Women.

§. 12. As for their Ecclesiastick Discipline; they being many, re∣duced themselves unto a Hierarchie, under one President, who ruled them all. So Caesar, and out of him Selden Jani Anglorum l. 1. p. 18. The Druides have one presiding over them, who holds the supreme Autoritie a∣mongst them. This being dead, he that excels most, succeeds in his Digni∣tie; but if there be many equal, they choose by suffrage. And to strengthen this their Imperial Autoritie, they made use of a politick religious ex∣communication, as Caesar, and Grotius, de Imper. summ. p••test. of excom∣munication. Thus Selden, Jani Angl. p. 17. (out of Caesar)

If any private person or people amongst them▪ submit not to their Decree, they excommunicate him from their Sacrifices. This is amongst them the higehst punishment. They, who are thus interdicted, are esteemed in the number of the most impious, and wicked; all separate from them, they avoid any conversation, or discourse with them, lest they

should receive dammage from their Contagion. Neither is the Law open for such, neither is any Honor given to them.

The same Caesar tels us, that they had so much Autoritie amongst the people, that they de∣termined almost all controversies, both publick and private. So Selden Jan. Angl. lib. 1.

They determine all controversies, both publick and pri∣vate. If there be any crime committed, if any murder done, if there be any controversie about inheritance, or bounds, the same decree, and constitute rewards and punishments.

Hence we may gather whence the mysterie of iniquitie gathered much of its power.

§. 13. As to Rites and Worship,* 1.212 the main Sacrifices of the Drui∣des was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Human Sacrifice: whereof there were 2 sorts, the one private; when any sacrificed himself, or another,* 1.213 for some others safety: the other publick, not unlike that which the Phenicians offe∣red to their Molec; from whom, we have reason enough to persuade us, these Druides received this, as other Rites. By reason of these cru∣el inhuman human Sacrifices the Romans endeavored, though in vain, to take away all their superstitious worship; as Strabo de Gallis lib 4. Owen Theol. l. 3. c. 11. We have a good, though brief account of these Druides in Lud. Vives on August. Civ. l. 8. c. 9.

There were, saies he, amongst the Gauls, the Druides, as Caesar l. 8, who were Priests, Po∣ets, Philosophers, and Divines; whom they called Saronides, as Dio∣dorus l. 6. They had also their Diviners, to whom the people referred their affairs. Neither was there any Sacrifice performed without a Philosopher, i. e. one skilled in the Divine Nature: by whose advice all things, at home and abroad, were administred. That the Druides were Philosophers, Strabo l. 4. relates.

That the Saronides were the same with the Druides Bochart (Can. l. 1. c. 42.* 1.214) proves out of Diodo∣rus l. 5. These Philosophers, and Divines, saith he, were in great venerati∣on amongst them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whom they call Saronides: which name has the same origination with that of the Druides, namely from an Oke; which anciently was by the Greeks called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus Plinie lib. 4: c. 5. And Hesychius cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Okes having an hi∣atus, by reason of their antiquitie. So Callimachus in his hymne on Ju∣piter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.215 where the Scholiast renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. Okes. Caesar l. 6. comprehends all the wise men of the Gauls under the name of Druides: so Cicero 1. de Divina∣tione. But Strabo divides them into 3 sorts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Bardi, the Euates, and the Druides: the Bardi, addes he, were

Singers, and Poets: the Euates, Priests, and Physiologists: the Drui∣des (especially so called) to Physiologie added Moral Philosophie. The like Marcellinus lib. 15. as Vossius de Philos. sect. l. 2. c. 3. §. 6.

* 1.216§. 14. Now that the Druides derived much of their Philosophie from the Mosaick Historie is farther evidenced from that of Learned Dickinson, Druidum Origo (at the end of his Delphi Pheniciz.) pag. 36.

Farther, thou mayest demand whence this Oke Religion (of the Drui∣des) sprang? namely from the Okes of Mamre: under which, in times past, those holy men (in whose hands the administration of Divine Service and Worship was) lived most devoutly: the shadow of which Okes afforded an house to Abraham, and a Temple to God. This I sucked from the Dugs of Truth, namely from the sacred Scriptures▪ Abraham dwelt (saith the Hagiographer Gen 13.18.* 1.217) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in, or (as the Arabick has it) among the Okes of Mamre. Which the Lxx renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.218 and ch. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Under which Oke he fixed his Tabernacle, erected an Altar, and of∣fered to the Lord Calves, Goats, Rams, and other Sacrifices of like kind;* 1.219 and performed all Sacerdotal Offices. Yea under this tree he entertained God himself,* 1.220 together with Angels. He here had conference with God, and entred into covenant with him, and was blessed of him. These are indeed admirable praeconia of Okes. Lo the Oke Priests! Lo the Patriarchs of the Druides! For from these sprang the Sect of the Druides, which reached up at least, as high as Abraham's time (for they report that the Druides Colleges flourish∣ed in the time of Hermio, who was King of the Germans, immedi∣ately after the death of Abraham). For because this holy man and Priest, Abraham lived under Okes, and enjoyed God for his com∣panion, performing worship to him, our Divines (the Druides) from this so famous example, chose Groves of Okes for their Religi∣ous Services, &c.

See more of the Druides, their Doctrine, and Rites, Caesar Com. l. 6. Strabo l. 4. Diodor. l. 5. Owen Theol. l. 3. c. 11.

BOOK II. The Original of the Ionick, but chiefly of the Italick, or Pythagorick Philosophie.

CHAP. I. The Traduction of the Grecian Philosophie from the Patriarchs and Jewish Church proved by Universal Consent.

The Grecian Philosophers recourse to Egypt, and Phaenicia. That the Grecian Philosophie was originally traduced from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures, is proved by Testimonies. 1. Of Heathens, and Greci∣ans themselves, Plato, Numenius, Hermippus. 2. Of Jews, Aristo∣bulus, Josephus. 3. Of the Fathers, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Mi∣nucius Foelix, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Theodoret; as also Joh: Grammaticus. 4. Moderne Papists, Steuchus, Eugubinus, Ju∣stinianus on Joh. 1.1. 5. Forreign Protestant Divines, and learned men, Serranus, Julius and Joseph Scaliger, Vossius, Heinsius, Hor∣nius, Bochart, Grotius, Diodate. 6. The Testimonies of English Writers, Jackson, Usher, Richardson, Preston, Sir Walter Raghley, Owen, Hammond, Stillingfleet, Mede, Cudworth, Selden, Dickin∣son, &c.

§. 1. HAving finished our Discourse of Barbarick Philosophie,* 1.221 and Philosophers, we now proceed to the Grecian; which owes its original to the former. So much Plato in his Cratylus (and else where) acknowledgeth, that they received their Learning from the Barbarians, and Ancients▪ who lived near the 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 Phi∣losophie, 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, Ph••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 Mo∣chus: And Aristotle his Natural Philosophie of the first principles, mat∣ter, forme, and privation, &c. from Sanchoniathon's Historie of the Cre∣ation: 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 Chal∣dea, &c.

* 1.222§. 2. That the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chaldeans received their Philosophie from the Jewish Church and Scriptures; we have, in the for∣mer Book, endeavoured to prove, both as to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which might suffice to make good our position, on this supposition (which is u∣niversally granted,* 1.223 and shall be hereafter proved) that the Grecians received their Philosophie from these aforementioned Egyptians, Pheni∣cians, 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 Learn∣ing from the Barbarians, who were more ancient than themselves. These Barbarians, Clemens Alexandrinus, Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, Nice∣phorus, and Serranus understand to be the Jews (as before) whose name Plato conceled, thereby to avoid the envy of the people (who were pro∣fessed 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 Ʋnitie of God, as to his Essence, and pluralitie of per∣sons, 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 Ʋnitie of God, and Pluralitie of per∣sons, and Decrees, were traduced. Whence also Plato acknowledg∣eth, that the best, and surest course to prove the immortalitie of the Soul was by some Divine Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in his Phaedo. The like he acknowledgeth elsewhere, that he received his knowledge of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or providence governing the World, from the wise, i. e. as 'tis conceived, the Jews. And Serranus, in his Preface to Plato does confidently 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 an∣cient Christian Doctors have judged; though he industriously avoided the naming of the Jews, which was odious.

We have also the Testi∣monies of other Pagan Philosophers concurring herein; as that famous saying of Numenius the Pythagorean,* 1.224 what is Plato, but Moses Attici∣zing? Also that of Hermippus,* 1.225 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 La∣ertius in his Proeme to the Lives of the Philosophers begins with these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Some affirme that Philosophie had its origine from the Barbarians. That by the Barba∣rians must be understood (inclusively, if not exclusively) the Jews, is affirmed by Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Epiphanius, and o∣thers, 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;* 1.226 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 Peri∣patetick Philosophie, viz. that it depended on Moses's Law, and other of the Prophets. Josephus l. 1 contra Apion. saies of Pythagoras,* 1.227 that he did not only understand the Jewish Discipline, but also embraced many things

therein; Whence he gives this character of him, out of Hermippus, who writ his life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he was an Imitator of the Jewish Opinions. So the same Josephus Antiq. l. 11. c. 2.

brings in Demetrius Phalereus, commending the Law of Moses, and giving this reason, why their Heathen Poets, and Historians made no mention of this Law; because (saith he) it being holy, ought not to be delive∣red by a profane mouth.

Its true the Jews mixed with these their re∣lations many sigments, yet this notwithstanding is sufficiently mani∣fest hence, that they had a strong and fixed persuasion, that the Gre∣canick Philosophie was traduced from them and their Sacred Oracles; as Learned Selden has observed de Jure Nat. Hebrae. lib. 1. c. 2.

* 1.228§. 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 Ter∣tullian Apol. c. 17.* 1.229

who of the Poets, saies he, who of the Sophists was there, who did not drink of the Prophets fountain? Hence there∣fore the Philosophers quenched the thirst of their ingenie.

Thus Justin Martyr in his Paraenesis to the Greeks, sheweth, how Orpheus, Pytha∣goras,* 1.230 Plato, Homer, &c. borrowed many things from Moses: and he does industriously prove the Noveltie of the Grecian Philosophie, out of Polemo, Apion, Ptolemaeus Mendisius, Philocrates, and others. So Minucius in Octavius: The Philosophers, saies he, have imitated some shadow of interpolated Truth from the Divine predictions of the Prophets. So Clemens Alexandrinus, in his exhortation to the Gentiles, speaks thus:

O Plato what ever good Laws are afforded thee of God, &c. thou hadst from the Hebrews; and else where Strom. 1. he cals Plato the Philosopher, who derived what he had from the Hebrews, and he speaks this universally of the Philosophers, that before the coming of Christ, the Philosophers took part of the truth from the Hebrew Prophets, though they acknowledged not the same, but attributed it to themselves as their sentiments or opinions; and thence some things they adulte∣rated; and other things they did by a needles diligence unlearnedly, yet as seeming wise, declare; but other things they invented.

Thus Clemens. Eusebius tels us,* 1.231

that Pythagoras, and Plato translated the Learning of the Jews, and Egyptians into Greek.

The like Euseb. prae∣par. l. 9. c. 1.

The most Illustrious of the Greeks, were not altogether ignorant of the Judaick Philosophie: some by their Writings, seem

to approve their manner of life, others followed their Theologie,* 1.232 so far, as they were able.

Thus again Euseb. praepar. l. 10. c. 2. & prae∣fat. in lib. 5.

The Grecians like Merchants fetcht their Disciplines from else where. So Theodoret l. 2. de Curand. Graec. affect. saies that A∣naxagoras, Pythagoras, and Plato gathered many riddles, or dark sayings of God, from the Egyptians, and Hebrews.

The like is affir∣med of Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Augustin, and Jerom, as Justinianus in 1. Joh. 1.1. and Selden de Jur. Nat. Hebr. l. 1. c. 1. have observed. And Johannes Grammaticus (called otherwise Philoponus) speaks affir∣matively to this point:* 1.233 so de mundi Creatione lib. 1. cap 2. pag. 4. he tels us, that Plato, in expounding the production of the world by God, imi∣tates Moses in many things. The like he affirmes de mundi creatione lib. 6. cap. 21. pag. 24••.

what Moses, saies he, said of Man, that God made him after his own image, Plato translates to all things in the world, whence he stiled the world a sensible Image of the intellectual God.

But of this more in its place.

§. 5. As for Moderne Writers we have a cloud of witnesses,* 1.234 and those of the most Learned, and that both of Papists, and Protestants, who have given assent and consent to this our conclusion, touching the traduction of Grecian Philosophie from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures. Amongst the Papists we might mention Brietius, in his Geographie. Mariana on Genes. 1. also Ludovicus Vives upon August. de civ. Dei, & de veritate, &c. of whom else where: we shall at present content our selves with the Testimonie of one or two of the most learned amongst them. August. Steuchus Eugubinus, De Peren. Philosophia lib. 1. cap. 1.* 1.235 treating of the Succession of Doctrine from the beginning of the world, be∣gins thus:

As there is one Principle of all things, so also there has been one and the same Science of him at all times, amongst all, as both Reason, and Monuments of many Nations, and Letters testifie. This Science springing partly from the first origine of men, has been devolved through all Ages unto Posteritie, &c.

Thence he proceeds to shew the Modus, how this Philosophie was derived from hand to hand, in all Ages.

The most true Supputation of Times proves, that Methusalem lived, and might converse with Adam, as Noah, with Methusalem. Therefore Noah saw, and heard all things before the Floud. Moreover before Noah died, Abraham was fifty years aged. Neither may we conceive, that this most pious man, and his holy Seed would concele from Abraham (who they foresaw would prove most

holy, and the Head of the pious Nation) things of so great Moment, & so worthy to be commemorated. Therefore from this most true cause it is most equal, that the great Science of Divine and human Affairs should be deduced unto following Ages greatly overcome with Bar∣barisme, &c.

Thence having explicated how Philosophie was han∣ded down even to Moses's time, the same Eugubinus addes:

There∣fore that there has been one, and the same Wisdom alwaies in all men, we endeavor to persuade, not only by these reasons. but also by those many, and great examples, whereby we behold some Vestigia of the truth scattered throughout all Nations, which Moses in his books long since held forth to be beheld as in a glasse a far off.

So in what fol∣lows he saies,

That Sapience also, besides what the ancient Colonies brought with them, passed from the Chaldeans to the Hebrews, except what Moses writ, which passed from the Hebrews to the Egyptians, from these to the Grecians, from the Grecians to the Romans. For Abra∣ham was a Chaldean, in whose family the ancient Theologie, and the Traditions of the Fathers, whereof he was Heir (as it was most e∣qual) remained. All these things being reteined by Noah, and his Sons, were seen and heard by Abraham: he declared them to his Son, & Grandchild: from Jacob they passed unto posteritie. Whence also flowed the Pietie, and Sapience of Job, who in no regard came short of the Pietie, and Sapience of the Hebrews. Canst thou conceit, that he, who was most ancient, even in Abraham's daies, saw not Noah, and heard him not discoursing?

Hence the same Eugubinus cap. 2 having di∣vided Philosophie into 3 parts, the first conveyed by Succession from Adam to Moses; the second corrupted by the Philosophers, the third restored by the Sacred Scriptures: of this last he concludes thus:

At last the third kind of Philosophie shone forth, scattering by its Bright∣nes all the darknesses of the former, not conteining it self in one place, but by its beams filling the Universe, &c.

* 1.236Justinianus on the first Epistle of John c. 1. v. 1. having given us a large account of the Jewish Traditions, scattered up and down amongst the Pagan Philosophers, touching the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Word, concludes thus:

Truely many things have been taken up by the Philosophers, and Poets from Moses's Law, which they depraved, changed, and wrested: as touching the Chaos, the Giants War, the Floud; and many other things, as we learn out of Augustin de civ. dei l. 8. c. 11. and lib. 18. c. 37.

And it is likely that in the same manner they corrupted those

traditions, they had received touching the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his generation, & so taught, that those Persons differed in nature, which (according to the word of God) differ only in Hypostasis, or manner of subsisting, &c.

§. 6. But none have given a more full Explication, and Demon∣stration of this our Assertion, than the learned Protestants,* 1.237 as well Divines as Philologists, of this last Age. Amongst whom we may men∣tion P. Melancthon in his Preface, and additions to Carion. Serranus (that learned Philologist, as well as Divine) in his Preface to, and Anno∣tations on Plato almost every where asserts our conclusion; as we shall have frequent occasion to shew. The like doth Julius Scaliger, that great Philosopher, as well as Critick; and Joseph Scaliger his Son more fully in his Notes on Esebius's Chronicon, gives testimonie to,* 1.238 and proof of this Assertion. The same does learned Vossius in his excellent Treatise of Idolatrie;* 1.239 as also in that de Philosophorum sectis l. 2. c. 1, &c. as hereafter. Heinsius has a Discourse professedly on this Subject.* 1.240 But Learned Bochart (that rich Antiquarie,* 1.241 and Philologist) has given an in∣comparable advance, and light to this Notion, from whom, I thankful∣ly 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;* 1.242 as on Mat. 24.38. but especially in his book de Veritate Religionis, as else where. Hornius Hist. Philos. lib. 3. cap. 1.* 1.243 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 fre∣quently, and so honorably mention, the Phenicians, Chaldeans, Egyp∣tians, 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 Dioda••e, Ami∣rault, and Daillè, &c. of whom in their place.

§. 7.* 1.244 To come to the Testimonies of our English Divines and learn¦ed 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 Asserti∣on,

touching the Traduction of Philosophie from the Scriptures, and Jewish Church. And withall gives account of the manner, how it was tradu∣ced; of which else where. Learned and pious Ʋsher asserts the same of Pythagoras his Philosophie,* 1.245 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,* 1.246 and Authoritie of the Scriptures, as before. Sir Walter Ralegh,* 1.247 in his Historie of the World (Part 1. Book 1. Chap. 6. §. 7.) affirmes Catego∣rically

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 Plato∣nick Philosophie.

Owen in his learned Discourse of Gentile Theologie (which I must confesse,* 1.248 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 Sa∣crae,* 1.249 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 Home∣rus 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,* 1.250 in his elaborate book de Jure Nat. Hebrae. lib. 1. cap. 2. where, saies he,

Touching the fa∣mous 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 E∣nigmatick Philosophie, and its traduction from the Jewish Types, Sym∣bols, and Enigmes. 3. Of the Metaphorick, and Allegorick mode of philosophi••ing by Plato, and its descent originally from the Jews. Mat. 13.3. The Matter also of Mythologick Philosophie from Gods sacred Word, and Works. The Causes of Mythologick Philosophie. 1. Ig∣norance of the Hebrew. 2. Of the Matter of their Traditions, or Jew∣ish Mysteries. 3. Of the Forme of Jewish Doctrines. 4. Of the Tra∣ditions. 2^d Cause was Admiration of the wonders of God brokenly re∣ported 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 ha∣tred. A general Conclusion that all Philosophie, even Aristotle's it self, as to its Matter, was traduced from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures.

§. 1.* 1.251 THat the Grecian Philosophers received the choisest of their Phi∣losophick Contemplations from the Jewish Church, and Divine Revelation, we have already endeavored some inartificial demonstra∣tion, as to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thereof: we now proceed to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to demon∣strate 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 mat∣ter and forme, they traduced it from the Jewish Church.

§. 2. That the first Grecian Philosophie was Mythologick and Sym∣bolick, will be easily granted by any versed in those Antiquities.* 1.252 So Diodorus Siculus lib. 4. makes mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an anci∣ent Mythologie, which he also calls, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, old fables; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mythick Historie. This Aristotle, in the Proeme to his Me∣taphysicks, cals Philomythie: for, saith he, a Philosopher is in some sort 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Philomyther, or Lover of fabulous Traditions. Strabo lib. 11.

makes mention of this ancient 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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) in∣to these severals, 1. Mythologick strictly taken, or Parabolick. 2. Hi∣eroglyphick, Symbolick, or Enigmatick. 3. Metaphorick, and Alle∣gorick: 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 fabu∣lous narration, or feigned storie: the Symbolick is the wrapping up of Natural Principles, or Moral Precepts under certain Symbols, Hiero∣glyphicks, sensible Images, or obscure Enigmes and Riddles: Metapho∣rick, and Allegorick is the expressing things, either under a naked sin∣gle Similitude, which belongs to Metaphors; or by a Series of Meta∣phors, which belongs to Allegories, &c. see Diodate on Mat. 13.3.

* 1.253§, 3. To begin with Mythologick Philosophie, strictly so taken, called, in Scripture Phrasiologie, Parabolick, which was, as to order of time, the first, taken up by the Grecian Poets, and after embraced by some of their Philosophers. The chief Grecian Poets who traded in this kind of Mythick, or Fabulous Philosophie, were 1. Orpheus; who is supposed to have been the most Ancient of the Poets, and equal with their Gods; insomuch as he is said to have sailed among the Argo∣nats, with Hercules, and the Tyndarides; as Lactant. l. 1. c. 5. They say he was a Thracian by birth; but his Philosophie he gained in Egypt as Euseb. l. 2. praep. c. 1. They report also, that he was very famous for Musick, wherein he so greatly excelled, as he mollified not only Men, but the brute beasts also by his singing. But others give a more ratio∣nal account of this fable, namely, that congregating men, who were dispersed here and there, and lived as beasts in the fields, he drew them to a more civil forme of life. so Horat. in Arte Poetica.

Sylvestres homines, sacer, interpresque Deorum, Caedibus, & Victu faedo deterruit Orpheus, Dictus ob hoc lenire Tigres, rapidosque leones.

There were Contemporaries with Orpheus, Musaeus, Arion, and Am∣phion. Of Amphion 'tis said, that having received an Harp from the Muses, he fitted his verses, composed with great suavitie so exactly thereto, as that the stones ran 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of their own accord, &c. Which Thucydides lib. 1. thus unriddles:

Orpheus and Amphion a

little before the Trojan War, drew men out of the Wood, unto Hu∣manitie, or a more civil conversation.

By which it appears, that Or∣pheus's Phhilosophie was, as to the Matter of it, chiefly Ethick, and Theologick. Thus of Orpheus himself. Orpheus's followers writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Poems according to Orpheus's Doctrine, which were partly Moral, partly Theologick; but wholly Symbolick, or Fabulous, so Proclus in Theol. Plat. l. 1. c. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Orphicks delivered their Philosophie by Symbols or Fables.

2. Homer also was a great Inventor, and Propagator of this Mytholo∣gick Philosophie. So Democritus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Homer having obtained a nature inspired by a Divine Afflatus, or Spirit, framed a beautiful Structure of divers verses. Plutarch l. 2. de Homero, sheweth, how the seeds of all Arts, Physicks, Medicine, Politicks, Ethicks, Eloquence, Militarie Discipline, &c. are to be found in Homer, Alcidamus, a noble and ancient Orator, cals Homer's Odyssea, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a good glasse of human life. These Poemes of Homer were in great estimation with many of the latter Philosophers, who received much of their Philosophie thence. So Zeno, the Head of the Stoick Sect, writ five books of Homerick Questi∣ons: Yet some of them were not so well pleased with Homers mode of philosophizing, in as much as it had so many Fables, and so much obscu∣rity mixed with it. Thence Plato in his Alcibiades, concludes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Novices in Philosophie ought not to fall upon Homers Poems, least they should fancie this Hero writ fables. The Egyptians say, that Homer was in Egypt: others suppose him to have been born in Egypt: and that he imbibed there his choicest Notions, from the Jewish Doctrine originally, if not immediately, we have proved Part 1. B. 3. C. 1. §. 6. of Homer. 3. Hesiod philosophized much in Oeconomicks, as also in Natural Philosophie; as of the first Chaos, &c. We find this character of him in Velleius lib. 1.

Hesiod lived about 120. years after Homer. He was very famous for his elegant Wit, and the most soft sweetnes of his Verses. He was most desirous of ease and quiet, &c.

see more of him, and the Traduction of his Philosophick Poems from the Jewish Church, Part 1. B. 3. C. 1. §. 7. of Hesiod. 4. Phocylides, Theognes, Museus, and Py∣thagoras writ much in Moral Philosophie. 5. Empedocles, Nicander, A∣ratus philosophized in Naturals. As 6. Solon and Tirtaeus in Politicks. But all the ancient Poesie was fabulous, & obscure, so Maximus Tyrius orat. 7.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because all Poesie does obscurely hint a thing.

* 1.254§. 4. These ancient fabulous Greek Poets having received from Egypt, and else where, many broken Traditions, touching the seve∣ral Names, and Works of God, the Origine of the World, with other Mysteries, wrapt up in the bosome of the Scriptures, and Jewish Church, they made it their busines to disguise these oriental Traditi∣ons, by clothing them with a new Grecian dresse, of many fabulous narrations; with which they were so disfigured, as that they could never recover their old face. Thus Jackson on the Scriptures folio 29.

continually, saith he, whilst we compare ancient Poets, or Stories, with the book of Genesis, & other Volumnes of sacred Antiquitie; these sacred books give us the pattern of the waking thoughts of ancient times. And the Heathen Poems, with other fragments of Ethnick Writings (not so ancient as the former) contain the Dreams, and Fancies, which suc∣ceeding Ages, by hear-say, and broken reports, had conceived con∣cerning the same or like matters. For any judicious man from the con∣tinual, and serious observation of this Register of truth, may find out the Original at least, of all the Principal Heads, or Common Places of Poetick Fictions, or Ancient Traditions, which cannot be imagined, they should ever have come into any mans fancie, unles from the imi∣tation of some Historick Truth, or the impulsion of real events stirring up admiration.

Thus Jackson.

* 1.255§. 5. This Mythologick Philosophie begun by the Poets, and after taken up by the most Ancient Philosophers, had it not been mixed with so many ridiculous, and Idolatrous Fables, might have been of much use in those first Ages, even amongst the Heathens, as well as in the Jewish Church, whence it received its origination. For under these sensible Formes, and Images (suited to that infant state of the world) were conteined many lively examples of, and strong incentives unto, Virtue: Hence Basil saies of Homer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. all Homers Poesie is but the commendation of Virtue, &c. Of the same use were Esep's Fables, and the Fables of Philostratus. On∣ly the Elder Poets of Greece had such unworthy Fables of their Gods, as also so much obscurity in their Traditions of Natural Experiments, and Moral Precepts, as that the Wiser Philosophers, who followed, thought it most expedient to reject this mode of philosophizing, and to begin upon a new foundation, namely, some more immediate Traditi∣ons from the Easterne parts, with which also they mixed some Fabu∣lous, or Symbolick conceits of their own.

§.6. After the Mythologick, followed the Symbolick, or Enigmatick mode of philophizing amongst the Grecian Philosophers,* 1.256 especially those of the Italick Sect, Pythagoras, &c. who, though they rejected the multi∣tude of obscure and absurd fables, taken up by the Elder Poets; yet, were they not without their Symbols, Enigmes, and Emblemes, or Cor∣poreal Images, which are but branches of Mythologie considered in its general Idea. Such were the Enigmes, and Fables so common among the Ancients, whereof we have a collection extant ascribed to Esop, which yet were not (at least) originally his, as Quintil. lib. 5. cap. 11.

These Fables (which albeit they received not their origine from Esop; (for Hesiod seems to have been their first Author) yet are they celebra∣ted chiefly under his name) are wont to lead the minds of rustick, and unskilful persons, who are more easily taken with things feigned, and finding a pleasure in them, do more easily assent, and consent to them.

Dius in the Phenician Historie relates

that Salomon proposed Enigmes to the King of Tyre, which could not be solved, but produced many concertations; till at length he found Abdemon a Tyrian young man, who solved many of them Josephus Ant. 5. c. 2.

We read also of Amasis an Egyptian King, who disputed by Enigmes with the Ethiopian King. Al∣so in the Oriental parts it was a received custom among the Nobles, having staked down their wager, to contend by Enigmes or Riddles; and he that could not solve what was proposed, lost his wager. Which custom Plutarch, in Convivio Sapient. mentions; and we have some Vestigia of it, in the Historie of Sampson, and Salomon: Whence even in the Sacred Scripture we find the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Enigmes, attributed to such Philosophick Placits, of which of old the most Learned among the wise men oft disputed, as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c 6. This mode of philosophizing Pythagoras principally addicted himself unto. So Porphyrie,* 1.257 and Iamblichus attributed unto him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Symbolick mode of teaching, or as Proclus in Theol. Plat. l. 1. c. 4. observes in general of the Pythagoreans, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Py∣thagoreans study to deliver Divine things by Images, i. e. by corporeal Images; Emblemes, and short Enigmatick Symbols, or Sayings, whereby they shadowed forth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Affections and Morals of the Soul. Neither did these Pythagoreans only expresse their moral precepts thus, but also couched their most sacred mysteries

both of God and Nature under these, and such like figures, numbers, and enigmatical propositions, which they all founded on these Principles: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sensible Formes are but Imitates, or Ima∣ges of Intellectuals: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, man is the most imitating creature. That Pythagoras traduced these his Sym∣bols (if not immediately, yet) originally from the Jewish Church, we need no way doubt. So Clemens Alexandrinus l. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the old mode of philosophi∣zing was Hebraick and Enigmatick. This way of philosophizing by E∣nigmes and Problemes was common among the Jews in the time of the Judges, as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 2. c. 13. observes,

They were ex∣ercised, saith he, now and then in the solution of hard Problemes, such were those which Sampson in his Nuptials proposed.

It is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which you may translate either an Enigme, or Probleme: of which see more what precedes B. 1. C. 2. §. 7. Such also were Salomon's Proverbs, for the most part, and all the Jewish Types, which indeed were but Symbols, or corporeal Images of things spiritual. Or if we will not grant, that Pythagoras received his Symbols immediately from the Jews, yet we may without danger conclude he had them from the Egyp¦tian Hieroglyphicks: as hereafter.

* 1.258§. 7. Another mode of philosophizing amongst the Grecians was Metaphorick, and Allegorick; which also is a Species or kind of My∣thologick Symbolick Philosophie. For, as Aristotle in his Rhetorick ob∣serves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Metaphor is but an Image, or shadow of a thing; And an Allegory is but a continued metaphor, or taking the fi∣gure of a true Historie, but in a metaphorick sense, to represent things moral or spiritual;* 1.259 whereby it is differenced from a Parable or Fable, which is but a feigned storie, to represent something moral; as also from a Symbol and Enigme which is more short, and obscure; yet do they all accord in the general Idea or Notion of Mythologie. Now this Metaphorick Allegorick mode of philosophizing, was chiefly em∣braced by Plato, who conceled the most of his more sublime Traditions, and contemplations under Metaphorick, and Allegorick Shadows, and Figures, with w^ch he likewise mixed many Fables, and Parables. So in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Dialogue of Love (which seems to be an imitation of Salo∣mon's Song) we find many Allegorick Figures; as that of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is conceived to be but a Symbolick Tradition of Adam and Eve, & their Creation) &c. And that Plato received this Allegorick mede of

philosophizing from the Jewish Church, Serranus (in his Preface to Plato) makes to be the common persuasion of all Learned Christians, of which more in the storie of Plato's Philosophie. That the Spirit of God makes great use of Parables, Symbols, Enigmes, Metaphors, and Allegories for the unfolding of Heavenly Mysteries, any, that acquaints himself with the Scriptures, cannot be ignorant, as Mat. 13.3.* 1.260 'tis said, Christ spake many things to them in Parables, &c. where Diodate asserts,

that this was a fashion of teaching used amongst the Jews, fol∣lowed by our Lord, and very profitable to make the truth to be un∣derstood, and to insinuate the apprehension thereof into the mind of the Auditors, by a well appropriated similitude, taken from a feign∣ed story, &c.

And as this parabolick, symbolick mode of expressing heavenly Mysteries was so frequent amongst the Jews, so we may, on good grounds, conclude, that the Grecian Philosophers traduced their like mode of philosophizing, from this sacred fountain originally, if not immediately.

§. 8. Having demonstrated,* 1.261 how the Mythologick and Symbolick mode or form of philosophizing amongst the Grecians was derived from the Jewish Church, their Parables, Types, Allegories, &c. we now pro¦ceed to the matter of the Grecian Mythologick Philosophie, to demon∣strate its traduction from the Jewish Church and Scriptural Traditions. And to make this evident, we must recollect (what has been oft hint∣ed) that the Elder Poets (as well as Philosophers) had generally re∣course to Egypt, and Phaenicia, for the matter also, as well as for the forme, or mode of their Philosophick Mythologie. So Diodorus Siculus bibl. l. 1. tels us,

that the Poets, Orpheus, Musaeus, Melampus, and Homer, and the Philosophers afterwards, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. had gained most of their Wisdom out of Egypt.

And Carion, in his Chro∣nicon lib. 2. touching the ancient Learning of the Jews; saies,

that men write, that Linus brought Learning from Phaenicia into Greece: for the ancient Learning of Greece was some part of the Law touch∣ing Morals, known partly by Nature, partly by Tradition from the Fathers, as also the inquisition of herbs, and remedies, the considera∣tion of the Stars, and the description of the year; and in these Scien∣ces he (Linus) received the chiefest part, from the Phenicians, and Egy∣ptians, &c.

The same he affirmeth afterward of Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod; as also of Thales, and Pythagoras. Now this being granted, it is not diffi∣cult to conceive how these first Mythologists gained the chief materials

of their Philomythie, or Symbolick Philosophie. For here it was, in E∣gypt, and Phenicia, that these Grecian Philomythists got the skill of coining Wonders, and Fables in imitation of, and by Tradition from the wonders of Creation, and Providence mentioned in the sacred Scri∣ptures, and vouchsafed to the Jewish Church. For the report of Gods miraculous works in creating the World, and governing of it, especi∣ally his miraculous preservation of the Jewish Church, being by tra∣dition, soon communicated to the Phenicians, and Egyptians, who were next neighbors to the Jews; hence the Grecians derived the principal heads, or first lines of their Philosophick Philomythie; wherein, although by successive artificial imitation, the varietie grew greater, and the re∣semblance of Divine truth lesse, yet there still remained some chara∣cters, and footsteps of those Divine truths, and sacred Oracles, from whence they originally were traduced; as Jackson on the Script. fol. 57.

* 1.262§. 9. This Demonstration touching the Traduction of Mythologick Philosophie, both as to Forme, and Matter, from the Jewish Church, will be more evident, if we shall take a more particular view of the causes of it, which were very many, and great; as 1. Ignorance was a pregnant, and great cause of all that Mythick Philosophie, which gain∣ed so much upon the Grecians, as well as on the Egyptians, and Pheni∣cians. For when these dark, and purblind Heathens had received any broken Traditions touching the glorious Works, Wonders, Mysteries, and Truths of God reveled unto, and in his Church (the seat of his glorious presence) they being not able to apprehend, much lesse to comprehend the same, grew vain in their imaginations, and turned the glorie of God into a Lye, by mixing their own Fables with those fragments of Divine Revelation, which, by imperfect Tradition, were delivered over to them. Thus were their foolish hearts darkened, as Rom. 1.21.* 1.263 Now this their Ignorance of these Divine Mysteries was much greatned, 1. from want of skill in the Hebrew Tongue, and Idiome; whence they gave words of ambiguous Interpretation a sense far diffe∣ring from what was intended: also some words they understood in a literal, and proper sense, which, according to their genuine mind, and sense,* 1.264 ought to be taken improperly; of which many instances might be given, as that of Gen. 46.26. whence Bacchus was feigned to be born out of Jupiters thigh, &c. 2. Another thing, which greatly fed, and nourished the Ignorance of these Mythologick Philosophers, was

the sublimitie and greatnes of the Matters, concerning which they philosophized. So great was the confidence, or rather ignorance, of these first Grecian Sophists, as that they durst adventure to philoso∣phize on the deepest Mysteries of the Jewish Religion; which being not able, in any measure, to apprehend, they turned them into meer Fa∣bles. This might be largly exemplified in all parts of their Philoso∣phie: as, 1. In their Theologie; whence came their mythologick con∣templations of their Gods. Jao, Adonis, Saturne, Jupiter,* 1.265 &c. but from Hebrew Traditions of the true God, &c? Whence the Platonick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trinitie, but from some imperfect Scripture Traditions? whence Pla∣to's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but from that essential name of God Exod 3.14? as Austin long since observed: whence his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but from the Scripture Relation of Christ, if not Gen. 1.1. yet Prov. 8. where he is called Wisdom? hence also that Poetick Fiction of Minerva the Goddesse of Wisdom being produced out of Jupiters head: whence also Plato's Fable of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but from Gen. 1.2. The Spirit of God moving on the Waters? whence also the original of their De∣mons, and Demon worship, but from some broken Traditions touching the Jewish Messias, his Nature, and Offices? as elsewhere. 2.* 1.266 And as those fabulous Grecians were ignorant of the sublimer matters of the Jewish Religion, so also did they discover much Ignorance in Natural things; concerning which they had received some traditions. As Plato, having had some broken relation of Eve her being taken out of Adam's side, coined from hence, his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lastly whence all those Poetick and Fabulous Narrations of the first Chaos, the Golden Age, &c. but from corrupt traditions from Gen. 1, &c? 3.* 1.267 Ano∣ther spermatick principle, which bred, or Root, that nourished this Gre∣cian Ignorance, and consequently their Mythologick Philosophie, was the peculiar mode, and hidden forme, under wdich the Jewish Mysteries were couched. For God condescending to the Childish capacity of that Infant Church, clothed the sublime Mysteries of Salvation with terrene habits, sensible formes, and Typick shadows, or shapes, which the carnal Jews themselves could not understand; much lesse could those blind Heathens, who received only some broken traditions of them, penetrate into their Spiritual sense, and marrow; whence they turn∣ed all into Fables. All Types, Symbols, and Parables, though never so lively Images of things Spiritual, to those, who have Senses spiritually exercised in Converse with them, are yet but Riddles, and dark say∣ings

to such, as have not a capacitie to dive into their Spiritual import: whence Christ is said Mat. 13.13.* 1.268 to speak in Parables to the obsti∣nate Jews, that so they might not understand. 4. The last thing I shall name, as that, which added to their Ignorance, and thence en∣creased their Philosophick Philomythie, was the imperfection of those traditions which originally descended from the Jewish Church. For as Rivers the farther they are from the Fountain, the lesse they have of its original puritie, and favor; or as it is fabled of Argos's ship, that through long absence it passed under so many emendations, and alterations, as that at last there was no piece left of the old bulk: The like usage did these Jewish traditions find amongst those fabulous Grecians. For they passing from one Age to another, through the various Imaginations, Inclinations, Humors, and Interests of men, re∣ceived such strange alterations, and disfigurations, as that it was at last difficult to find any certain piece, or footsteps of the original Tradi∣tion. This is well observed by Learned Selden de Jure Nat. Hebrae. lib. 1. c. 2. fol 26.

Neither, saies he, is it a wonder, that we find not in the writings of the Greek Philosophers more expresse footsteps of the Jewish Doctrine, yea that there is scarce any thing occurring in them, which retaines the pure nature of the Hebrew originall: for the Sects of Barbarick Philosophers were so mixed in the Greek Sciences, as also the Greek Philosophie it self torn into so many pieces, and fractions, as that it was wholly disguised, &c.

* 1.269§. 10. A second cause (or prolifick root) of Mythologick Philosophie was Admiration, and this indeed follows naturally upon the former: for what is admiration, but the Souls contemplation of some novel, and rare matter, proposed to it, with desire to know the cause? or as o∣thers describe it, the state and disposition of the Soul towards things, that are new, and rare, and strange, of which we can give no reason: for wise men wonder not, because they see a reason, and have a comprehension of things. I hence Plutarch in his book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies of Pythagoras,

that he affirmed of himself, that he gained this by Philosophie, not to admire any thing: for Philosophie takes away wonderment, and ad∣miration, which flows from Ignorance.

So Aristotle Eth. l. 1. c. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· He, that is conscious of his own ignorance, admires what seemes above him. Now this being the genuine notion, and Idea of Admiration, to con∣template overmuch things above our capacities, especially if they are

strange and rare; hence we may easily gather, how soon those Grecian Mythologick Philosophers fell in love with the contemplation of those wonderful Experiments, and Issues of Divine Creation, and Providence, which were handed over to them by some broken Traditions. We have already shewed, how Egypt, and Phaenicia with other parts bor∣dering on the Jewish Territories, had received many imperfect frag∣ments, or broken Traditions touching God his Names, Attributes, and Works both of Creation, and Providence; especially of the wonders he wrought for his Church in Egypt, at the Red Sea, in the Wildernes, and after they came to Ganaan: also that they had some, though ve∣ry obscure, notices of the Messias, and his work of Redemption, &c. Now the Grecians travelling into those Oriental parts, to acquaint themselves with these hidden Mysteries, and Wonders, at first fell into a great Admiration of them, and anon set themselves to philosophize upon them in a mythologick mode, according to the fashion of th••se first Ages, Oriental parts. And this kind of Admiration was a genuine, yea the main, cause of all Philosophie, both Mythologick, and Simple, as is confessed by the chiefest Philosophers, Plato, and Aristotle; so Plato in his Thaeetetus informes us;

that this is the great Affection of a Philo∣sopher to wonder, neither had Philosophie any other origine but this:

the like Aristotle in his lib. 11. Metaphys. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. by reason of admiration men both now, and in times past began to philosophize.* 1.270 But Aristotle, in the Pro••me to his Metaphysicks, gives us a full and excellent account of the mode, or manner how all Philosophie, especial∣ly Mythologick, sprang from Admiration; which because it is so much to our purpose, I shall first give it at large: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Both now, and in old times men began to philosophize from admiration; at first indeed admi∣ring the more easie wonders, thence proceeding by little and little, they began to doubt of greater matters, as concerning the Origine of the Uni∣verse, &c. wherefore also a Philomyther (or Mythologist) is in some sense a Philosopher, for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a fable is composed of things wonderful, wherein we have an admirable account: 1. How all Philosophie sprang from admiration, first of the lesser works, and wonders of Providence [perhaps he means the wonders which God wrought in Egypt, the Wildernes, Canaan, and Babylon, which were of latter date,

and so yet fresh in their memories]. 2. Then saies he, they proceeded by little & little to doubt of greater Matters, a•• of the original of the Ʋ∣niverse, &c. Namely of the Creation of the World out of no preexi∣stent Matter; of the first Chaos; of mans first Production, and state in Innocence; of the Fall; of Noahs Floud, which they call Deucalions, &c. All which particulars are largely philosophized upon by Plato, in his Timaeus, of the Origine of the Ʋniverse. 3. Aristotle concludes, that every Philomythist, or Lover of Fables, is in some sense a Philosopher; for a fable is made of wonders. That is, as Jackson on the Scriptures (fol. 34.47. and elsewhere) well observes, All the principal heads of My∣thologick Philosophie, entertained by the elder Poets, and Philosophers, came not into their fancies by meer accident, but from the impulsion of real events, and wonders of God, which being delivered to them by tradition (originally from the Jews) stirred up Admiration in them. For the traditions of God's miracles being far spread, when Greece be∣gan to philosophize, they could not but admire the Wisdom, Power, and Majesty of God, that shone so greatly therein, which yet being no way able, for want of Divine Revelation, to apprehend, they turn∣ed all into Fables, and vain Philosophie.

* 1.271§. 11. A third Mother root, or cause of Mythologick Philosophie was Imitation; which indeed was the great sovereign principle that ruled and governed those Infant Ages, but its influence appeared in nothing more powerful, and particular, than in the Philomythie, and Symbolick Philosophie of the first Poets and Philosophers; who having had some broken Relations of the great Works of God in Creating▪ and Governing the World, were not only taken up in the contemplation, and admiration of them; but also grew ambitious of coining the like; which by an artificial kind of Imitation they were dexterous in, as Strabo observes, and Jackson on the Scriptures fol. 49. From this vici∣nitie of true wonders in Jury, or thereabouts, were the Medes, Persians, and Syrians so much addicted to fabulous narrations, and coining of Wonders. And Greece, as it received artificial Learning first from A∣sia, so did it drink in this humor with it. For the traditions of Gods Mi∣racles in Jury, and the Regions about it, having been far spread when Greece began first to tattle in artificial Learning, the Grecians, as Chil∣dren in true Antiquitie (as the Egyptian Priest told Solon) were apt to counterfeit the forme of ancient truthes, and misapply it to unseemly mat∣ters, or purposes, as Children will be doing in homlier stuff, which they

see their Elders do better in. Finally the same humor, which yet reigns amongst men, might possesse most of them: There is no famous event which falls out though it be but a notable jest) but in a short time is ascribed to a great many more, than have affinitie with it. In like manner did the re∣ports of sundry events, which either fell out only in Jury, or upon occasion of Gods people, fly about the world, some with cut, and mangled, but most usually with enlarged artificial wings; as if the same had been acted every where, or the like invented on every occasion. And fol. 57. he con∣cludes, that the principal, or first heads of the Grecian invention were de∣rived, for most part, from the Hebrews; although, by successive artificial imitation, their variety grew greater, and their resemblance of Divine truth lesse. Thus Dr Jackson. And that the main, if not the whole, of Mythologick, and Symbolick Philosophie was but a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or re∣flexe Image of Jewish Mysteries, and Discipline, traduced by Artifi∣cial Imitation, has been sufficiently proved by what was mentioned touching the matter, and forme of Mythologick Philosophie: Namely, as to its forme: Whence sprang the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks; the Phenician, and Grecian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Fables; Pythagoras's Symbols; and Plato's Allegories; but from the Jewish Types, Allegories, Enigmes, and Parables? and both the one, and the other founded upon that great Oriental Maxime, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Then if we con∣sider the matter of Symbolick Philosophie, it seems plainly to be taken up by traducti••n from, and in imitation of, some Divine work, or truth. Whence can we imagine that Pythagoras should receive his Insti∣tutes, and Ceremonies of Purifications, Washings, White Vestments, Sacri∣fices, with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or School▪ wherein were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perfect, as well as novices; but from the Jewish Ceremonies and Scholes, which he affected, to the utmost of his skill, to imitate? whence he was stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Jewish Imitator, or Ape. And as for Plato, Johan. Grammaticus de Creat. Mundi l. 1. c 2. tels us plainly,* 1.272 that he imitated Moses in his exposition of the World's Origine, as in many other things. And indeed none of the ancient Philosophers was better skil∣led in this kind of artificial Imitation than Plato; who had a luxuri∣ant, pregnant Fancy (which is the proper seat of Imitation) and a great dexterity, backed with much affection, yea ambition, to imitate the Easterne, particularly the Jewish, Wisdom. Neither was he only versed in the Practick part of this Art, but also in the Theory. For we find in his Works (and no where else, that I know of) excellent discourses

professedly treating of Imitation, 1. its subject, which he makes to be the Phantasie, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Touching the power of the imagination in order to imitation, see Les Conferences par les Beaux esprits Tom. 1. Confer. 5. de la ressemblance: 2. its object, which he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. se••sible Formes, or Images, re∣presenting some thing Moral, or Spiritual: 3. its effect, which he makes to be a shadowy dark truth. For, saies Plato Reipub. lib. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. an Imitator is but a Coiner of Idols, or Images: and these Images, he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Shadows of Truth; whence he addes, that imitation [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imperfect represen∣tation of Truth; wherefore he adviseth those, who would studie with advantage the Symbolick Philosophie (which he, and others before him had taught) not to fasten on the Fables, Allegories, or Symbolick Ima∣ges, wherewith Truth was clothed, but rather to attend unto the Truth it self couched under these Images, Shadows, or imperfect noti∣ces: 4. whence he laies down the great Benefits of Imitation in Na∣tural, and Moral Philosophie, for the colouring, and shadowing forth of Truth; as also in Oeconomicks, and Politicks: Examples and Patternes being the most powerful, because visible precepts: lastly he shews the sad abuse of it, by the fabulous Poets, in their feigned St••rie••, or Romances, and blasphemous Figments of their Gods; which gives us a clear Demonstration, what a mighty influence Imitation had upon the Grecanick Philosophie; Symbolick, and what followed: of which see more Plato Reipub. lib. 6. also lib. 10. and Serranus thereon.

* 1.273§. 12. 4. Another Seminal Principle, which had an influential Causality on this Mythologick, Symbolick Philosophie, was the Itch of Curiosity, or an eager inquisitive humor innate in those first Grecian Philosophers, which made them restles in their Inquisitions after some Knowledge, touching the first Principles of things, and the Supream Ʋniversal First Cause. This indeed was one first moving impulsive Cause of all Philosophie, whence it received its name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so it's defined by Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. an Appetition of Wisdom. For the Oriental parts, Phenicia, and Egypt (which bordered on Judea) ha∣ving first had some tasts of the Knowledge of God, the first Cause, his Names, Perfections, and Works, both of Creation, and Providence, by some imperfect Traditions from the Jews; this awakened the inquisi∣tive Grecians (who alwaies labored under an itch of curiosity, even unto Pauls time,* 1.274 as it appears Acts 17.21.) to make farther Search in∣to

these dark Mysteries concerning which they had received some ve∣ry broken, and imperfect notices. This inquisitive curious humor put Thales, Pythagoras, Solon, and Plato, with the Poets before them, upon their travels into the Oriental parts, to get more exact informa∣tion touching the first principles of Wisdom.

§. 13. 5. Another Master vein,* 1.275 which fed the Grecian Mytholo∣gick Philosophie, was Pride, in appropriating that to themselves which was done by, or belonged unto, others; thus did they appropriate the chief of God's names to their own Gods, Jupiter, Jao, Adonis, &c. so in like manner Noahs Floud was attributed to Deucalion, with multi∣tudes of the like Instances; and to make these their assumings authen∣tick, they disguised the traditions, they received in the Oriental parts, with many Fables, and Symbols, thereby to make them passe for their own.

6.* 1.276 Another fountain of their Philomythick Philosophie was the natu∣ral propension, and inclination of their hearts to Idolatrie. Hence sprang the Grecian Polytheism, Hellenism, and much of their vain Philosophie, for their imaginations being vain, and their foolish hearts darkned by Idolatrous opinions, and persuasions; hence they convert all those im∣perfect Traditions, they had received, touching the true God,* 1.277 and his Works, into fabulous narrations, which they appropiate unto their false Gods, &c.

7.* 1.278 We might also mention the Carnal Policy of the first Greek Phi∣losophers, as another spring of their Mythologie. For seeing the peo∣ple too much resolved to maintain these fabulous Gods, the Poets had commended to them, they conceived it their wisest course, to darken those traditions, they had received touching the true God, his Ʋnity, Nature, and Works, by Fables, Symbols, and Allegories; thereby to avoid the envy, and hatred of the people. And thus much indeed Plato seems ingenuously to confesse: for, saith he,

to assert many Gods is without shew of reason. Only we embrace them being impelled thereto, though without shadow of reason, by the Autori∣tie of our Fathers, and the severity, of Laws, &c.

Plato Timaeo.* 1.279 It seems he had not so much courage as his Master Socrates, who notwith∣standing these Obstacles declared himself plainly enough in the case.

§. 14. By all that has been mentioned touching the Matter, Forme, and Causes of Mythologick, or Symbolick Philosophie, I conceive we have given (so far as our Matter will bear it) a sufficient demonstration

of its traduction originally from the Jewish Church, and Scripture Re∣velation: And what has been affirmed of Mythologick Philosophie, and its Causes in particular, may also be applyed to all the Grecian Phi∣losophie in general; which, as it is evident, had the same Causes; name∣ly Ignorance, Admiration, Imitation, Curiositie, Pride, &c. Moreover it i•• evident that all the first Philosophers, Thales, Pherecides, Pythago∣ras, 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 Ma∣ster, 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 deriv∣ed 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 Traditi∣on, immediately from the Egyptians, and Phenicians; but original∣ly 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 Wa∣ter is the first Matter of the Ʋniverse, derived immediately from San∣choniathon his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which descended originally from Gen. 1.2. His other principles of Physiologie, viz. touching the Worlds pro∣duction 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 Phi∣losophie, or Natural Theologie from the Jews. His Demons thence also. His Scholars, and Successors, &c. Anaximander, Anaxime∣nes,

Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Democritus, Hippo∣crates.

§. 1. HAving discoursed at large of Philosophie in general,* 1.280 especi∣ally of Symbolick, and its Traduction from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures, we now proceed to the several Sects of Greek Philoso∣phers, 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 Gre∣cian 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 distin∣guished.

Themistius acquaints us,

that there came under his exa∣men, near 300 several Sects.

The first, and most Ancient Division of the Greek Philosophers was into the Ionick, and Italick Sects:* 1.281 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 Foun∣ders 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, Phy∣sicks, 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 Egypti∣ans, 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:* 1.282 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 re∣ceived 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 in∣quirie (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 Philo∣sophers, 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 preserv∣ed 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 Philoso∣phie 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 univer∣sal 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 tradu∣ced from the Writings of Moses, or the Jewish Church. Yea Mr. Stil∣lingfleet himself, in what follows in this same Section 3. gives us this in∣genuous 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.* 1.283 But to begin with Thales the Head of the Ionick Philosophie who was born at Miletus, the chief City of Ionia in the 31 Olymp. as Laertius informes us out of Apollodorus: yet others make him to be not a Milesian, but Phenician by birth. Pliny l. 2. saies, that he lived in the time of Alyattis; and Cicero lib. 1. de Divin. tels us, that he lived under Astyages: both of which Relations agree; in as much as these two Kings waged war, each against other: as V••ssius de Philosoph. Sectis l. 2. c. 5. Hyginus, in his Poetico Astronomico, treating of the lesser Bear, speaks thus:

Thales, who made diligent search into these things, and first called this [lesser Bear.] Arctos, was by nation a Phenician, as Herodotus saies.

Which well agrees with these words of Herodotus Halicarnassensis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· This was the opinion of Thales the Mil••sia••, by his Ancestors a Phenician: i. e. he was born at Miletus, but his Ancestors were Phenicians. So Vossius de Hist. Graec. l. 3. That Thales was of a Phenician extract, is also affirmed by Diogenes Laertius, and Suidas. So in like manner Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. lib. 2. cap. 1 §. 28.

Thales al∣so, saies he, who founded the Ionick Philosophie, drew his original from the Phenicians: Whether he travelled from Phenicia to Mile∣tus, with his Father N••leus, and there was made a Citizen, as accor∣ding to Laertius, some would have it; or that he were born at Mile∣tus, but of Phenician Parentage, as others rather incline.

By which it is evident, that he was of a Phenician Extract;* 1.284 whence he had no small advantages fully to informe himself in the Phenician, and Jewish Philosophie. Some say that Thales travelled into Phanicia, and brought thence his Knowledge of Astronomie, particularly his observations of the Cynosura, or the lesser Bear, as Plinie lib. 5. c. 17. That Thales tra∣velled into Asia, and Egypt, to informe himself in the Oriental Wisdom, he himself affirmes in his Epistle to Pherecydes.

§. 3.* 1.285 That the Grecian Philosophie owes its original to Thales is ge∣nerally confessed. For he, travelling into the Oriental parts, first brought into Greece Natural Philosophie, and the Mathematicks, Geo∣metrie, Arithmetick, Astronomie, and Astrologie. Whereupon he had that swelling Title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. wise man, conferred on him.* 1.286 About which time the same title was bestowed on six others, for their more than ordinary Skill in Moral Philosophie, and Politicks, viz. on Chilo

Chilo the Lacedaemonian, Pittacus the Mitylenian, Bias the Prienean•• Cleobulus the Lindian, Periander the Corinthian, & Solon the Athenian; who with Thales made up the seven wise men of Greece, of whom see Diogenes Laertius. The Wisdom of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was for the most part Moral, tending to the Government of Human Conversation, which they wrapped up in certain short Aphorismes, or Sentences, as it ap∣pears out of Quintil. l. 5. c. 11.

The Precepts of those seven men, may we not esteem them as certain Rules of Life? For the Art of Disputing obteined not as yet: but couching their Placits, under a few round words, they commended them as so many Religious My∣steries. Which at first began to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they con∣teined the Sentences of Wise Men touching the Precepts of Life, and Manners.

The like Euseb. 10. praepar. cap. 2. These Sentences, that they might have the greater Autoritie, and seem to be derived from God, rather than from men, were ascribed to no certain Author. Whence that famous Sentence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was attributed by some to Chilo,* 1.287 by others to Thales. Concerning Thales, Apuleius 18. Flor. gives this honorable Character.

Thales the Milesian, of those seven wise men mentioned, will easily be granted to have the preeminence. For he was the first Inventor of Geometrie amongst the Greeks, and the most certain finder out of the nature of things, and the most skilful Contemplator of the Stars; by small lines he found out the greatest things, the Circumferences of Times, the Flatus, or blowings of winds, the Meatus or small passages of the Stars, the miraculous Sounds of Thunders, the oblique Courses of the Stars, the Annual Re∣turnes, or Solstices of the Sun, the Increases of the New Moon, as the Decreases of the Old, and the Obstacles which cause the Eclipse. He truely, in his old Age, found a Divine account of the Sun; how often (i. e. by how many degrees) the Sun, by its magnitude, did measure the Circle it passed thorough: thus Apulcius: see more in August. de Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 2 and Lud. Vives.

* 1.288§. 4. Now to come to the particulars of Thales's Philosophie, there∣by to demonstrate, that the main therof was traduced immediately from the Phenicians, and Egyptians, but originally from the Jewish Church. The chief of Thales's Philosophie was Natural (which the Greeks called Physick) and that not obscure (as Aristotles) but plain, and familar. Hence Thales's Followers in the Ionick Schole were in a peculiar manner stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naturalists, because quitting the mode

of philosophizing in use among the other Wise Men, which was chiefly Ethick; as also that in the Italick Sch••le which was Theologick, they whol∣ly busied themselves in the Contemplation of things sensible & natural. In brief; Thales his Natural Philosophie was indeed no other than a Natural Historie of the Origine of the Ʋniverse, or (as Divines phrase it) of the Creation of the World, which, as we have sufficient reason to judge, he received from the Phenician Sophists, Sanchoniathon, and Mo∣chus, their Physiologie, which originally was derived from Moses's Wri∣tings, and the Jewish Church. And to make the Demonstration hereof firme, we must consider that in Thales's time, when Philosophie began to take place in Greece, the main 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or first great principle of Natural Philosophie, then in question, was touching the first matter of the Ʋniverse. For that the World had a beginning; and that this be∣ginning was from God, all the Philosophers, till Aristotle, generally as∣serted. So that this being a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a thing taken for granted;* 1.289 the great Inquirie was, about the first matter, out of which the World was formed. Concerning which Thales delivers his Judgement, that Water was the first Matter of all things. So Tullie de nat. Deorum lib. 1. c. 25. saies

that Thales affirmed Water to be the Beginning of things, and that God out of Water framed all things.

So Diogenes Laertius of Tha∣les. Thus Steuch. Eugub. de peren. Philos. l. 7. c. 12. Thence Thales the Milesian, according to the Theologie of Orpheus, and the Egyptians, pro∣nounced, that Water was the principle of all things. And according to the affirmation of Homer, this opinion was delivered by other Grecians before Thales. Pherecydes also held the same opinion, that Water was the first Matter of the World, which, as 'tis most p••bable, was traduced immediately from Sanchoniathon's Physiologie; for in the beginning of his Natural Historie (cited by Eusebius praepar. Evang. l. 10) he saies there was in the beginning of things a spirit of dark Air, which he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an evening chaos, or darknes. And that Thales's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Water,* 1.290 was the same with Sanchoniathon's Chaos, we have the Testimonie of Plutarch, who produceth the Authoritie of Hesiod touching his Chaos; & addeth, that the greater part of ancient Philosophers called water chaos, from diffusion (a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sundo) which will farther appear, if we compare it with what follows in Sanchoniathon:* 1.291

From the conversion of the Spi∣rit with the chaos, there resulted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (according to the Phenicians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) signifies matter, which he in∣terprets by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mud, or slime, or watery mistion, which indeed was but

the effect, or grosser part of that Water, which Thales makes to be the material principle of all natural bodies. So Orpheus, speaking of the first matter of the Ʋniverse saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of water slime was made. Which is a full explication of what Thales understood by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, water; and the same with Sanchoniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i e. slime, or mixture of mud, and water. And we have a good explication of the whole by the Scholiast, on these words of Apollonius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Earth of slime was made; where the Scholi∣ast affirmes that

the Chaos, whereof all things were made, was Wa∣ter, which setling became Slime, and the Slime condensed into solid Earth.

Thus we see how that Thales's Water, which he makes the first material principle of all things, was indeed the same with, or im∣mediately derived from, Sanchoniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. slime, or mixture of water and mud together, from which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Plato, and Pythagoras, seems little to differ. Now that Sanch••niathon, and Thales, who followed him, traduced these their sentiments of the first matter out of Moses's Historie Gen. 1.2.* 1.292 we have already demon∣strated (Book 1. Ch. 3. §. 13, 14, 15.) out of Learned Bochart, and others. But because Learned Stillingfleet (as before §. 1.) inclines rather to believe, that these first Philosophers received these their princi∣ples by universal Tradition from the first Ages, and not from the Jews, or Mosaik Writings. I shall adde farther. 1. The Confession of Sancho∣niathon, who said, that he received the materials of his Hist••rie, from Jerombalus the Priest of the God Jao: who certainly was some Jewish Priest (as before Book 1. Ch. 3. §. 8.) 2. Sanchoniathon makes men∣tion of Sydic, &c. which, without doubt, he received from the Jews. 3. Numenius an ancient Philosopher cites for this opinion of Thales, that water was the first matter, the very words of Moses Gen. 1.2. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters; as Porphyrie de Antro Nymph. Of which see Stanley on Thales. 4. That Thales received these Traditions of the Creation from Moses's Writings is affirmed, and demonstrated by Steuchus Eugubinus. de peren. Philosoph. l. 7. c. 12. where he shews how Thales subcribed to Moses, in his notions of the Worlds Creation, as in what follows, §. 5. 5. Yea Stillingfleet him∣self, in the following Section (Orig. Sacr. Book 3. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.) has these very words:

And thus we see, these 2 renowned Founders of the Ionick, and Italick Societies, both giving their concurring testi∣monie with Moses, as to the true Origine of the World, and not at

all differing from each other. Thales meant by his Water, the same with that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or mixture of mud, and water, which Orpheus, &c. speak of, as the principle of the Universe. And the Successors of Thales, Anaximander, and Anaxagoras expresse themselves to that purpose, which is the same with the Phenician 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which some call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some mud, or slime, which they say was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus we see, how Thales with the Phenicians, from whom he was derived (as Laertius tels us) and Pythagoras with the Egypti∣ans, and others concur with Moses, not only in the Production of the World, but in the manner of it, wherein is expressed a fluid mat∣ter, which was the material principle, as Gen. 1.2. upon the face of the waters: that is, all at first was but fluid matter, &c.

Thus Stilling∣fleet, which, I conceive, fully proves our Assertion; and overthrows his foregoing Hypothesis. That Thales, &c. received not these traditions from Moses's Writings, or the Jewish Church originally. 6. Vossius de Philos. Sect. l. 2. c. 5. §. 3. seems to refer this principle of Thales, that water was the original of all things, to the words of Moses Gen. 1.2. upon the face of the waters,

which, saies he, perhaps he learned from the E∣gyptians, and they from the Jews:

even so plainly asserting our con∣clusion: Yet I should think it most probable, that Thales had it from the Phenicians, and they from the Jews. 7. Lastly, Mariana in his Annotations on Gen. 1.1. assures us;

that from this place the Ancient Poets derived their chaos,

and other like things.

§ 5.* 1.293 Thales held also many other philosophick opinions touching the Worlds Origine, and perfection, which seem to be but traditions o∣riginally taken from Moses's Historie. 1. He held there was but one world, and that made by God the spirit, out of the foresaid Water.* 1.294 So Montaigne Essay l. 2. c. 12. Thales, qui le premier s'enquesta de telle Matiere estima Dieu un esprit, qui sit d' ••au toutes choses. This great Fundamental Principle, that the world was made by God, was generally received, and asserted by all the Philosophers before Aristotle, who was the first that opposed it, because seemingly contradictory to his Phae∣nomena, or purblind principles, as we are told by Plutarch de philos∣placit. 2.1. and Johan. Gram. de Creat. Mundi. 2.* 1.295 Thales held (as Diogen. Laert.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the world being God's workmanship, was exceeding beautiful, or good, and perfect; as Gen. 1.31. This beauty or perfection of the world, he made to consist in the admi∣rable disposition, and harmony, or order of every part, wherein he

was followed by Pythagoras, who for this reason called the world 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Plato, who saies, that God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. beautified, and orderly disposed every part of this Universe, with great symetry, and proportion answerable to his own eternal Idea, or forme, as in his Timaeus, of which hereafter. That Thales received this contemplation from Moses, is affirmed by Steuch. Eugub. De Pe∣ren. Philosophia l. 7. c. 2.

To which it is to be refer'd, that according to Laertius the same Thales pronounceth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The world is most beautiful because the workmanship of God. Doest not thou think that he subscribeth to the Mosaick Theologie? Moses saies, In the beginning God created. Graec. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made: which Tha∣les expresseth by the substantive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, designing thereby the same which Moses does by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

3. Thence Thales asserted the world was Animate, or a Living Creature: which also Plato held, calling the World 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Moses's words Gen. 1.2. supposing this world to be animate, or vivified by the Spirit, or Providence of God called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 4. Thales said, the night was elder than the day, according to the Scripture Phrasiologie Gen. 1.5.* 1.296 Thus Steuch. Eugubinus, de peren. Phil. l. 7. c. 12.

Thales being asked, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what first existed night or day? The night, saith he, was before any one day. Thou maiest not judge that he conceived any thing else hereby, than what Moses before delivered, and what the Latin Poet heard, from the same Grecians: but Thales, who, according to Laertius, went to the Egyptian Priests, to be instructed by them, had this passage from them.

This circumstance of the Creation was held also by Orpheus, and Hesiod, who (as Stanley affirmes on Thales) had it from the Phenicians: I suppose from Sanchoniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in all likelyhood was traduced from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 1.5. as Bochart Can. l. 2 c. 2.

* 1.297§. 6. Thales was in like manner well instructed in the Mathema∣ticks, especially in Astronomie, which he is supposed to have gained, partly from the Phenicians, and partly from the Egyptians: From the Phenicians he received, as 'tis said, the Invention of the Cynos••ra, or the Constellation of the lesser Bear, which he first brought into Greece. For that the Phenicians were the first Inventors, or observers of this Con∣stellation, Vossius endeavors to make good, from the word Cynosura, which he makes to be Phenician from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a collection of light, that they were the first, that found out the use of this Constellation, to saile

by (which has been ever since of great advantage to Mariners in their Navigations) I think, is generally granted. Yet it cannot be denyed, but that Thales received much emprovement, in his Astronomical Con∣templations, from the Egyptians. For he himself in his Epistle to Phe∣recydes confesseth, that he travelled into Egypt to confer with the Astro∣nomers. This Journey of his into Egypt is supposed to be the last he made; where having studied Philosophie, he returned to Miletus. That Thales was the first that brought Astronomie into Greece, we have the affirmation of Eudemus to confirme us. Laertius tels us,* 1.298 that Tha∣les was the first amongst the Grecians, who found out the calculation, or distinction of the year into its seasons, calling the last day of every moneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the 30^th day, which we have good ground to persuade our selves, he learned in Egypt; for there it was first in use, according to Herodotus lib. 2. The Egyptians, saies he, were the first, that found out the year, distinguishing it into 12 moneths, this they gathered from the Stars. But I think we have more probable conjectures, that the Egyptians received their distinction of the seasons of the Year, from the Jewish Church their Institutes, touching the Calculation of the Year, which I conceive were more ancient, than those of the Egyptians.* 1.299 Thales also brought out of Egypt the Science of Geometrie, which took its beginning there, from the constant occasions the yearly overflowing of Nile gave them of renewing the bounds of their Fields: Proclus on Euclia. 2.4. As in like manner he brought his skill in Arithmetick out of Phoenicia, which was found out there, in order to their Traffick.

§. 7. Thales also was the first of the Grecians, who made any Phi∣losophick Inquiries into the Nature, and Perfection of God.* 1.300 'Tis true Orpheus, Homer, Linus, and Hesiod had gotten from Egypt, and Phae∣nicia, some cloudy, and very obscure traditions of God, which they made much more dark, by the many fabulous, and unworthy narra∣tions, they mixed with them. But Thales delivered those traditions, he had received in the Oriental parts, touching God, in a more Phi∣losophick, naked, and simple mode. For as Diogenes Laertius informes us, he held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· That God was the most ancient of beings, because without generation. 2. That the World was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Work of God. 3. He asserted that God by his immu∣table Decree, and Providence governes the World (as Stobaeus) whence his opinion that the World was animated, i. e. by the Spirit, or Provi∣dence 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

of God acting therein; as Gen. 1.2. The Spirit, &c. 4. Tha∣les also (as Pythagoras, and Plato after him) held the Doctrine of Dae∣mons (mentioned Psal. 106.24. 1 Tim. 4.1.) which he asserted to be Spiritual Natures, or Substances, and a kind of midling made Gods, betwixt the immortal Gods, and mortal men: which traditions, some conceive, he had from Egypt: for that the Egyptians held these Dae∣mons in the same manner, Iamblichus de myster. Aegypt. acquaints us. So Mr. Bochart, in a Sermon at Caen, affirmed, that Joseph was reputed the first of these Egyptian Daemons. But I should rather think, that Thales had his Traditions of these Daemons, from Phaenicia, where they mostly abounded, under the common name of Baalim, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Belus one of the first Phaenician Kings, whence Jesabel, &c. and that the Phaenicians had their Baalim from some broken tradition, and in imitation, of the Jewish Messias his Mediatorship, &c. as elsewhere. That Thales the first of all the Grecian Philosophers, was of all the first, that treated Philosophically of God, and heavenly things, we are assu∣red by Tully; and so Minucius in Octavio saies, that Thales the Mile∣sian was the first of all, that disputed of heavenly things. Which Philo∣sophick Traditions, we need no way doubt, came (though immedi∣ately from the Egyptians, and Phenicians, yet) originally from the Jew∣ish Church.

* 1.301§. 8 Amongst the Disciples of Thales, we may reckon firstly Py∣thagoras, the Institutor of the Italick Sect, who, being but 18 years old, addressed himself to Thales, at Miletus, from whom he receiv∣ed the first Rudiments of his Philosophie, especially his Mathematicks; with instructions to addresse himself to Egypt,* 1.302 for farther progresse therein. But he that suceeded Thales in his Schole, was Anaximan∣der the Milesian, who in some things differed from his Master. For he held an Infinity of first principles, yea of worlds, and Gods born, &c. as Laertius in his Life, Plutarch de philos. placitis, Eusebius, &c. The Successor to Anaximander was Anaximenes the Milesian, who dy∣ed the same year that Croesus was taken captive by Cyrus, as Laer∣tius. Anaxagoras the Clazomenian succeeded Anaximenes, whom Justin Martyr cals the Atheist, following herein the Judgment of his adversaries, Cleon, &c. who thought him so, because he denyed the multiplicitie of their Gods. This Anaxagoras translated the Schole from Asia to Athens;* 1.303 where he taught Socrates, Euripides, and Pe∣ricles: his Successor was Archelaus the Athenian: as Vossius.

§. 9 Among those of the Ionick Sect, Chrysyppus, Empedocles,* 1.304 Heraclitus, Democritus, Protagoras, Polemon, Epaminondas, Hip∣pocrates, are by some reckoned. Empedocles was a person of a sharp Ingenie, but mighty greedy of fame; for he affected not only Adora∣tion while living, but after death also: wherefore, that he might be thought to have his abode among the Gods, he cast himself into the furnace of Etna. Heraclitus was of a great A••umen,* 1.305 but cloudy;* 1.306 whence he is stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He seems to have borrowed many things from the Jews, as elsewhere. Democritus glorieth in this, that he learned many things from the Barbarians, (by whom,* 1.307 as we have of∣ten hinted, we are principally, if not only, to understand the Jews) as Euseb. praep. l. 10 c. 2. Out of Democritus's Schole proceeded Pro∣tagoras, who turned ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as also to make Sale of Philosophie for money, which was of ill fame among the Ancients. Epaminondas,* 1.308 the Th••ban, is by Austin lib. 7. de civ. Dei, called the chief Philosopher, and Emperor. But none gained a greater name a∣mong the Ionicks after Thales, than Hippocrates;* 1.309 a person of a stupendous Acumen,* 1.310 and eruditi∣on. He it was, that first made that happy con∣junction 'twixt Philosophie, and Medicine. The manner how he attained unto his Medicinal Sci∣ence, they make to be this. There was in the Iland of Cous, where he lived, the Temple of Aesculapius, wherein were laid up the Cures of Diseases engraven on tables; as also rare Mo∣numents of Wisdom collected by former Ages: all these Hippocrates transcribed, examined, and perfected, so that the praise not only of the Restitution, but also of the Invention of Medicine is given to him. Although these all are by some reckoned Ionicks, yet some of them may be reduced to more particular Sects: as hereafter.

CHAP. IV. Pherecydes his Philosophie traduced from the Jews.

Pherecydes born at Syrus, was of Phenician original. The original of his Philosophie from the Phenicians, and Jews. He was the first that writ Philosophie in Prose: He yet retained the old Symbolick mod of Philosophizing: His Natural Philosophie, and Astronomie: His In∣vention of the Heliotrope from the Phenicians. His Theologie was chiefly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he received from the Phenicians, as also the im∣mortality of the Soul.

* 1.311§. 1. HAving dispatcht the Ionick Philosophie, as founded by Tha∣les, we now come to the first foundations of the Italick, began by Pherecydes; who, though he had not a Schole in Italy, yet in as much as he was the Praeceptor of Pythagoras, and led him the way to that Symbolick mode of Philosophizing, he afterwards taught in Ita∣ly; he may justly claim some commemoration amongst the first foun∣ders of the Italick Sect. So Vossius de philosoph. sect. l. 2. c. 1. §. 29. cals Pherecydes the Author of the Italick Sect. This Pherecydes is by Strabo lib. 10. called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (so Laertius, and Suidas) a Syrian, which is dif∣ferently understood by the Learned. For some make him to be a Syri∣an, i. e. a Phenician: but others, and that upon more probable grounds, call him a Syrian because born in the Iland Syros, or Syrus, one of the Cyclades, those lesser Ilands in the Egean Sea, near Delus. So Apuleius, and Suidas; whence Cicero 1. Tuscul. Quaest. cals him Syrus. This opinion I was confirmed in, by a conference with learned Bochart; who also gave me the ground of the difference; with this reconcilement, viz. Syra, or Syrus, where Pherecydes was borne, re∣ceived both its name, and people originally from the Phenicians, or Syrians (Phenicia being a part of Syria) whence Pherecydes might just∣ly be reputed a Phenician, if we regard his Ancestors; or perhaps he might be so esteemed by reason of his Philosophie, which he drew from the hidden Books of the Phenicians, as Suidas: of which here∣after.

§. 2 Pherecydes's fathers name was Badys,* 1.312 as Diogenes Laertius l. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or rather as Vossius will have it Babys: for so Strabo, and Suidas write it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He was borne, according to Suidas, in the 46^th Olympiad, who also distinguish∣eth him from Pherecydes Lerius the Historian, who lived in the 75^th O∣lympiad. So Vossius de Histor. Graec. lib. 4. cap. 4. Some, saies he, con∣found Pherecydes the Historian, with Pherecydes the Physiologist, and Theologue: This latter was of Syrus, one of the Cyclades, as Strabo lib. 2. Hesychius, and Suidas in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Laertius makes this our Phe∣recydes, the Philosopher, to have flourished about the 69^th Olympiad. Others make him more ancient. Tzetzes, Chil. 2. Hist. 55. saies, that he lived in the time of the Rich Croesus, about the 59^th Olympiad, and that he was Praeceptor to Thales the Milesian. But this account has no likelyhood; for Thales seems, at least, contemporary to, if not more ancient than Ph••recydes. Cicero 1. Tusc. quaest. saies, he lived in the Reign of Servius Tullius his Country man, &c. That Thales was more ancient than Pherecydes, Vossius de philosoph. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 1. proves from this, that Thales, according to Laertius, dyed in Olym∣piad 58, whereas Pherecydes flourished in Olympiad 60.

§. 3. As for the original of Pherecydes's Philosophie,* 1.313 some say he heard Pittacus, so Laertius: others, that he had no Praeceptor, but drew his Philosophie from the secret Books, and hidden Mysteries of the Phenicians: so Suidas in the Life of Pherecydes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The same goes, that he was Praece∣ptor of Pythagoras, but he himself had no Instructor; but that he exer∣cised himself in the hidden Books of the Phenicians, which he was possessor of. Thus Vossius de philosoph. sect. l. 2. c. 1. §. 19. Pherecydes also the Praeceptor of Pythagoras, who was contemporary to Thales, and the Author of the Italick Sect, drew his Philosophie from the hidden Books of the Phenicians. Yea some think him to be a Syrian, not from Syrus, one of the Cyclades, but from Syria, a famous Coun∣trey of Asia, whereof Phenicia is part.

Yea Ambrose lib. 1. Epist. 6. of Pherecydes speaks thus: seeing he drew his pedegree, as some con∣ceive, from the Jews, from their Discipline also he derived his Magiste∣rial Precepts. That he traduced his invention of the Heliotrope, and other parts of his Philosophie, from the Phenicians will be hereafter evident.

* 1.314§. 4. Touching the mode or forme of his Philosophie, it was deli∣vered in Prose, but symbolick, and mystical. That Pherecydes was the first that delivered his Philosophie in Prose, we have co••∣curring Testimonies from the Ancients, Strabo lib. 1. tels us that

Cadmus, Pherecydes, and Hecataeus were the first that writ in loose Oration, or Prose:

and so Porphyrie, as Suidas testifies, made this Phe∣recydes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Author of loose Oration, The like Apu∣leius in Floridis;

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.

* 1.315§. 5. Notwithstanding Pherecydes rejected the ancient mode of delivering his Philosophie in Poems, yet he still retained the old My∣thologick, 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 suf∣ficiently 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, symbolick, and cryptick, or enigmatick (wherein he was followed by the Pytha∣goreans) whence he was stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the darke cloudy Divine, as anon.

* 1.316§. 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.* 1.317 Pherecydes was very famous amongst the Ancients for his Astronomical Invention of the Heliotrope: whereas yet he was not in∣deed the first Inventor, but only a great Emprover of it, as great Bochart in a Conference informed me;* 1.318 viz.

That this Astronomical Experiment was brought into Syra (or Syrus) where Pherecydes liv∣ed, 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 under∣stand: as Vossius.

§. 7. But the main of Pherecydes's Philosophie was Theologick.* 1.319 So Laertius out of Theopompus acquaints us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he was the first amongst the Grecians, who writ of Nature, and of the Gods. Whence he was stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theologie, as Arist. Metaph 3. Pherecydes is supposed to be the first, that handled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theologick Mysteries in Prose. This Theologie of his consisted in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or a description, and exposition of the Generation, and Suc∣cession of the Gods. For the Grecians, after the introduction of Helle∣nism, supposed all their Gods to be generated. This his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Theologie, Pherecydes comprized in 10 books: enigmatick, and clou∣dy Discourses, full of Fables, and Allegories; which Isidore, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, supposed to have been taken from the Prophecy of Cham: but its much more probable, he traduced them from Sanchoniathon's 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.320 &c. there pas∣seth 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 fabu∣lous

Mythologists were with the materials of their own traditions. Touching this mystical Theologie of Pherecydes, see more in Diogenes La∣ertius 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.

* 1.321§. 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 Sy••us was the first that asserted the Souls of men to be immortal. Thus Tullie,* 1.322 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 mov∣ed by the novity of this Dispute, was transformed from a Wrestler into a Philosopher: so Montaigne Essais livr. 2. cap. 12. The opini∣on 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 Pythago∣ras traduced his Philosophie from the Jewish Church. The Story of Pythagoras's Life. His extract from Phenicia. Pythagoras flou∣rished 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 con∣verse

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 Cre••e. Pythagoras's com∣ing into Italie, and restoring many Cities to liberty, and unity by means of his Scholars; by whom he gave Laws to Italy. His Character, wherein appears his many eminent qualities, Natural, and acquired: his freedom from undue passions: his moderation in use of Creatures, care for his health, and husbanding his time: his aweful presence, and Severity, his contempt of honors, and contentation.

§.1. THe first Distribution of Philosophers into the Ionick, and Italick Sects, has already passed under some general consideration; with endeavors to demonstrate, that Thales, and Pherecydes, the two Heads of these first Sects, received the main of their Philosophie by tra∣dition originally from the J••wish Church. But we now proceed to a more particular reflexion, on the Italick Sect, in regard to its more pro∣per, and immediate Founder Pythagoras, who had his Schole in Italy (that part which was called Magna Graecia) where he vented his Phi∣l••sophie, which consisted mostly of Jewish Mysteries, and Traditions, as it will be evident by what follows. His Adherents were termed Pytha∣goreans, as those who followed Plato's Philosophie Platonicks: whence also there sprang up many other Sects of Philosophers, which gave oc∣casion to a second Distribution of Philosophers into their several Sects, as we have it excellently laid down by Ammonius (not he, who was head of the Alexandrian Schole, but the Scholar of Proclus) on Aristo∣tles Categories pag. 9. in these words.* 1.323 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· We must know that the Sects of Philosophers had a seven fold Denomination; either from the Head of the Sect, as the Platonicks, and Pythagoreans; or from the Heresiarchs Countrey, as the Cyrenaicks from Aristippus, and the Megaricks from Euclid; or from the place, wherein they taught, as the Academicks from Xenocrates, a••d the

Stoicks from Zeno the Citiean; or from their Judgment in philosophi∣zing, as the Scepticks; or from their manner of life as the Cynicks, of whom Antisthenes was Head: or from the End of their Philosophie, as the Voluptuous Epicureans: or from some Accident, as the Peripate∣ticks, from Aristotles walking, &c. Thus Ammonius: of which Sects we shall discourse in their order, beginning with the Pythagore∣ans.

* 1.324§. 2. As for Pythagoras (the Heresiarch of the Pythagoreans, as al∣so the chief Founder of the Italick Sect) that he traduced the main, or choicest parts of his Philosophie originally from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures, is a persuasion generally received by the Learned, both ancient, and modern, as well Pagans, as Jews and Christians. As for Pagan Testimonies,* 1.325 we have a famous Concession of Hermippus (quo∣ted by Josephus lib. 1. against Apion) a most ancient, and diligent Writer of Pythagoras's Life, who, in his first book of Pythagoras, affirmes plainly, that he did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, translate many of the Jewish Laws into his own Phi∣losophie: and he gives a particular mention of some Jewish opinions, which Pythagoras taught, viz. of the Soul, of Purification, of Excom∣munication, &c. to which he subjoynes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he was an Imitator of the Jewish, and Thracian opinions. Dio∣genes Laertius also affirmes, that he went to the Hebrews, as hereafter. So Strabo, that he went into Judea, and inhabited Mount Carmel, where the Priests shewed Pythagoras's Walks, even in his time. And Malchus (otherwise called Porphyrie) who writ also the Life of Pytha∣goras, saies

that he went to the Arabians, Hebrews, and Chaldeans, and that amongst the Chaldeans he had converse with Zabratus:

whom Selden makes to be Ezekiel, as hereafter. Amongst the Jews we have the Testimonie of Aristobulus,* 1.326 * 1.327 a Jew of Egypt, who is supposed to have been the Master of Ptolemeus Philometer mentioned in the Macca∣bees (2 Mac. 1.10.) who saies expresly of Pythagoras (as Clement A∣lexendrinus lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.) (or as others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pythagoras has translated many things from us, into his own Traditional Dogmes. So also Josephus (contra Apion. l. 1.) speaking of Pythagoras, saies, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

not only well skilled in our Discipline, but also embraced many things gree∣dily.

Amongst the Fathers,* 1.328 we have this Testimonie of Origen (lib. 1.

contra Celsum). 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It's said, that Hermippus in the first of his Legislators reports, that Pythagoras traduced his Philosophie from the Jews unto the Greeks; we have also concurring Testimonies of Modern Learned.* 1.329 Thus Aug. Steuch. Eugub, de peren. phil. l. 2. c. 2.

We have the Testimonie of all, that Pythagoras travelled into Egypt to hear their Priests: The like is said of Solon, Eudoxus, Plato: Strabo writes, that in his time the Priests could shew their very Walks. It is reported, that Pythagoras brought his Symbols from them, and that he was circumcised after the Egyptian (which we must understand of the Jewish) manner. That he was in Judea, and that he dwelt in Mount Carmel, is the report of Iamblichus; also that he travelled 22. years in Egypt, embraced their manners, and the Institutes of the Egyptian Priests, and desired Polycrates the Tyrant, that he would write to his friend Amasis King of Egypt, that he might participate of their Discipline, &c. To Steuchus Eugub. I subjoin our learned and pious Ʋsher in his Annals fol. 151. It may be proved (saies he) that Pythagoras conversed with the Jews, at Babylon; for as much as he transferred many of their Doctrines into his Philosophie, as Hermippus declareth in his first book of things concerning Pythagoras, cited by Jo∣sephus, and in his first book of Law givers, cited by Origen; which is likewise confirmed by Aristobulus the Jew (a Peripatetick) in his first book to Philometer; who moreover was induced by the same reason to believe, that the Books of Moses were translated into the Greek Tongue before the Persian Empire; whereas it is much more probable that Pythagoras received that part of his Learning from the Conversation he had with the Hebrews, thus Ʋsher.* 1.330

Lud. Vives that learned Philologist supposeth, that Pythagoras might have, whilst in Egypt, conversation with Jeremy the Prophet: That he traduced many things originally from Moses his Writings (as Plato after him) he affirmes with some confidence, in his notes on August. Civ. lib. 8. c. 11. Selden de Jure Nat. Hebr. lib. 1. c. 6. §. 5. proves this at large. Cassander in his Consult. on Art. 21. asserts the same. Grotius on Mat. 10.29. saies, that many of the Hebrews held Gods Providence about men, but not about Beasts; which Pythagoras may seem to have learned from the Hebrews, and to have taught the Grecians. And in his Votum, pag. 124. he saies, that Pythagoras lived amongst the Jews, as Hermippus te∣stifieth; and that he drew many of his Symbols from the Jews he af∣firmes

very positively, in his Annotations on Mat. 7.6. and Mat. 8.22. as hereafter. Vossius de philos. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 5. proves at large, that Pythagoras owes much of his Philosophie to the Jews. And Mr. Stillingfleet himself (the only learned man that I have met with seeming∣ly contradicting our Hypothesis) saies

I will not deny, but that Pytha∣goras might have had converse with the Jews in Chaldea, &c.

Orig. sacr. book 3. c. 2. sect. 2. But we shall endeavor to make good our As∣sertion [that Pythagoras traduced the main Principles of his Philoso∣phie from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures originally] from the ••¦rie of his Life, his Institutes, and Philosophie, both as to Matter, and Forme thereof.

* 1.331§. 3. We shall begin with the Storie of Pythagoras's Life, who is said to be a Samian; but whether he were born there, or elsewhere, is not certainly determined. Cleanthes (as Porphyrie de Vita Pythag.) saies, he was a Syrian of the Citie of Tyre in Ph••nicia (a part of Syria) whence making a Voyage to Samos (before Ionia) for traffick,* 1.332 at such time, as the Samians were much prest with famin, he supplied them with Corne; in acknowledgement whereof they made him free of their Countrey. Suidas saith, Pythagoras was a Samian by education, but a Tyrrhenian by Birth, brought over young by his father to Sam••s. So Aristoxenus makes him to be a Tyrrhenian, as Lud. Vives in August. Civ. l. 8. c. 2. and Grotius on Mat. 7.6.

Many, saies he, make him to be a Tyrrhenian; others a Tyrian, &c.

But the more general, and approved opinion is that of Iamblichus (de vita Pythag. cap. 2.)

that Pythagoras's Father was a Samian, descended from Ancaeus, who first brought a Colony into Samos; and that Pythagoras his Son was born at Sidon in Phenicia, but educated at Samos.

Which ever of these accounts we fix upon,* 1.333 it is evident, Pythagoras had a very great affinity unto, and so advantage from, the Phenicians, whereby to ac∣quaint himself with the Jewish Learning, and Mysteries.

* 1.334§. 4. Pythagoras is supposed to have been borne about the 3. year of the 53. Olympiad, and he flourished, as some think about, the time that Nebuchadnezar besieged Jerusalem an. mundi. 3360. or according to Laertius, about the 60. Olympiad. About which time the Jewish Garden, which had been before enclosed, was thrown open, and ma∣ny of the Plants thereof removed and set in forrain parts; in Babylon, Egypt, Phenicia, &c. By which means Pythagoras and the rest of the inquisitive Grecians had a mighty advantage to informe themselves in

the Jewish Wisdom, and Mysteries, touching God, his Names, and At∣tributes; the Production, or Creation of the World, and its first prin∣ciples, and all the Jewish Ceremonies. That Pythagoras went to Pheni∣cia, and thence into Egypt, where he stayed 22. years, and afterward into Babylon, where he continued 12. years, and had conversation with the Jews in those parts, I now proceed to make evident.

§. 5. Iamblichus (Vit. Pythag. cap. 2.) tels us, that Mnesarchus,* 1.335

the Father of Pythagoras, returning from Syria to Samus, brought up his Son in many excellent Sciences, committing him sometimes to Creo∣philus, sometimes to Pherecydes of Syrus. Diogenes Laertius saies, that Pythagoras's Father dying, he was committed by his Uncle Zoi∣lus to Pherecydes the Syrian, &c.

Augustin. Epist. 3.* 1.336 ad Volusianum saies,

That Pythagoras, hearing Ph••recydes disputing amongst the Greeks of the immortality of the Soul, was so moved with the novity of this Dispute, that he was changed from a Pugil, or Wrestler in∣to a Philosopher.

That Pythagoras first was a Pugil, Laertius lib. 8. relates, as Vossius de philosoph. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 8. The same Laertius (in the Life of Anaximenes) reckons Pythagoras amongst the Disciples of Thales.

For (saies he, out of Anaximenes's Epistle to Pythagoras) Pythagoras, being from his youth greatly enclined to an inquisition in∣to Religious Rites, and Mysteries, addressed himself to Thales at Mi∣letus, as to one, that could most advance him in this Enterprize.

From Thales he received the first Elements of his Philosophie. So also Iamblichus (de vita Pythag. lib. 1. c. 2.) tels us

that Thales entertain∣ed him very civilly, with admiration of his excellent naturals, which surpassed other Youths; and after he had given him such instructions, as he could, in the Mathematicks, he advised him to have recourse to Egypt, there to converse with the Priests of Memphis, especially those of Jupiter; from whom he himself had obtained those pieces of Know∣ledge for which he was accounted Wise. Amongst other things Thales advised him to emprove his time well, by reason whereof he abstained from Wine, and Flesh.

See more Stanly on Thales. Whence we may col∣lect how Pythagoras came by the first rudiments of his philosophick incli∣nations, and principles, namely from Thales, and Pherecydes; from the former we may suppose he received his Natural Philosophie, and Mathe∣maticks; from the latter his mystical and symbolick Theologie, as also his notions of the Souls Immortality, &c. which were derived originally from the Jewish Nation, as before▪ Vossius de philos. l. 2. c. 6. §. 9. saies,

that

Pythagoras heard in Greece, besides Pherecydes, Hermodamas, and Anaxi∣mander the Physiologist.* 1.337

§. 6. Pythagoras having learned of Thales to emprove his time, and inure himself to temperance, both as to the quantity, and quality of meats, whereby he acquired an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good habitude, and clear∣nes of mind, and an exact constant health of Body, he resolves upon travelling into the Oriental parts; thereby to informe himself touching the first principles of Wisdome, and sacred Mysteries. And the first Voyage he made, was unto Sidon in Phenicia; whereunto he was en∣clined,* 1.338 as well from a natural desire he had to the place, which he sup∣posed to be his own Native Countrey, as also that he might satisfie himself touching their Mysteries, and Philosophie. Here he had con∣ference with the Prophets, Successors of Mochus the Physiologist, with the Phenician Priests, and others; and was initiated in all the Mysteries of Byblus, and Tyre, and sundry of the chief sacred Institu∣tions in other parts of Syria, not undergoing these things out of superstition, but from his natural inclination and love to Wisdome, and fear, lest any thing worthy to be known, which was preserved amongst them, in the Mysteries of the Gods, might escape him. Thus Iambli∣chus c. 13.* 1.339 and Stanly out of him. That Pythagoras, whilst he was in Phenicia, had conversation with some Jews, is not unlikely; for their own Countrey being depopulated, many of them fled for refuge to their neighbours the Egyptians, Phenicians, &c. Yea that Pythagoras visited Judea, is affirmed by Strabo,

who affirmes that Pythagoras visited not only the Egyptians, Arabians, Chaldeans, but also penetrated into Judea it self, and inhabited Mount Carmel, where the Priests even in his time shewed the Walks of Pythagoras.

So Hornius Hist. philos. l 3. c. 11.

That Pythagoras, saies he, penetrated into Judea it self is affir∣med by great Authors, though all agree not to it.

However Iamblichus openly informes us, that he had conference with the Successors of Mo∣chus, who, as has be••n already proved, had his Philosophie from the Jews.

* 1.340§. 7. From Phenicia Pythagoras passed into Egypt, with recom∣mendation from Polycrates the Tyrant, to Amasis King of Egypt, who gave him Letters to the Priests, to whom he had recourse. In the first place he went to those of Heliopolis, who sent him to the Priests of Memphis: from Memphis he was sent to Thebes, where he was permitted to acquaint himself with all their Learning, which was never granted to any stranger before, as Porphyrie de Vita

Pythag. p. 5. So Vossius de philos. sect. lib. 2. c. 2. §. 2.

Pythagoras (saies he) was sent by Thales into Egypt,* 1.341 to confer with the Priests of Memphis, and Diospolis where he arrived in the Reign of Semneserteus, as Plinie, or of Amasis, to whom he was recom∣mended by letters from Polycrates the Samian Tyrant, as Laertius: Plutarch saies, he heard Oenuphis the Heliopolite, &c. Diogenes saith, whilst he lived with these Priests, he was instituted, and informed in the Language, and Wisdom of the Egyptians, and in their threefold kind of Writing, Epistolick, Hieroglyphick, and Symbolick; of which see Clemens Alexandr. Strom. 5. as before.

Laertius also addes, that

while he was in Egypt, he entred into the Egyptian Adyta, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and was instituted in things unexpressible touch∣ing the Gods.

Perhaps he means the Tetracty, and the other Jewish Mysteries, in which Pythagoras was instructed, of which hereafter. Clemens Alexandrinus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. saies,

he was Disciple to Sonchedes, a chief Prophet, or Priest of the Egyptians;

Diog. Laertius saies, that he learned the Egyptian Tongue. And Iamblichus (l. 1. c. 4.) saies,

that being thus acquainted with the Learning of the Egyptians,* 1.342 he gained the observations of many Ages; and, whilst he lived amongst them, was admired, and beloved of the Prophets, and Priests, with whom he conversed; by which means he gave himself exact infor∣mation concerning persons, and things; not omitting any person e∣minent a•• any time for Learning, or any kind of Religious Rites; nei∣ther leaving any place unvisited, wherein he conceived, he might find somewhat extraordinary. Now that Pythagoras had converse with the Jews, is more than probable.

Some incline to think he might have conference with Jeremy. So Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civ l. 8. c. 11. tels us,

that Jeremy went with the Tribe of Juda, and Benja∣min into Egypt, and dyed at Tanis; where he was worshipped by the Natives, for a present remedy against the stinging of Serpents. Eusebius placeth the beginning of Jeremy's Prophecie in the first year of the 36. Olympiad.

Then afterwards making mention of sundry Platonick Mysteries of God his infinite Essence,* 1.343 and Idea's traduced from Exod. 3.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he concludes thus:

Although I do no way doubt, but that Pythagoras himself learned these Mysteries in Egypt from the Sacred Volumnes; and the conference with Jeremy,* 1.344 rather agrees to him, than to Plato.

Though it is possible, Jeremy might be dead before Pythagoras came into Egypt. Yet we need no

way doubt, but that his fame was then living, which together with the great repute the Jewish Nation had for ancient Wisdom, Records, and Mysteries, could not but prove a prevailing motive, and quicken∣ing of Pythagoras's inquisitive humor, to make some inquisition into the Jewish Records, Rites, Wisdome, and Mysteries, contained in the sacred Volumnes, according to this positive affirmation of Lud. Vives. And indeed how can we rationally imagine, that Pythagoras, who was so greedy after oriental Traditions, Wisdome, and Mysteries; and so curious to pry into every corner of Egypt (where he staid 22. years) to examine all persons, and things, especially such as pretended to any ancient Records, Religious Rites, or Mysteries; I say, how can we ima∣gine, that he should passe by those multitudes of Jews, he met with in Egypt, without enquiry into their ancient Wisdom, and Records, which infinitely excelled those few broken Traditions, and corrupt de∣rivations, which the Egyptians had extracted from their sacred Foun∣tains? Yea Clemens Alexandrinus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. tels us,

that Pythagoras, to satisfie his curiositie in these his enquiries in Egypt, suffered him∣self to be circumcised, and so learned things not usually communi∣cated, concerning the Gods, and their Mysteries.

Now we know this Rite of circumcision was proper to the Jews, not used by Egypti∣ans.

* 1.345§. 8. Pythagoras, quitting Egypt, went to Babylon; of which Voyage Iamblichus l. 1. c. 4. gives this relation:

that Cambyses hav∣ing (in the 63. Olympiad) conquered Egypt, Pythagoras was taken prisoner by him,* 1.346 and sent to Babylon, where he conversed with the most eminent amongst the Chaldeans (I suppose the Zabii) as also with the Persian Magi, who entertained him very curteously, and gave him insight into their more hidden Mysteries, and Religious Rites of worship performed to their Gods, as also in the Mathematicks.

Thus Vossius de philosoph. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 4. treating of Pythagoras, saies,

out of a desire to get Learning, he was conversant with the Persian Magi, and with the Assyrians, or Chaldeans; as, besides others, Laer∣tius testifieth, who saith, that he was initiated in all the Grecian, and Barbarian Mysteries; and that he learned the Egyptian Tongue, and thence had conversation with the Chaldeans in Assyria, and the Magi in Persia.

The same Vossius saies (de philos. l. 2. c. 1.) that from the Chaldeans he learned Astronomie. Laertius saies, that he was most conversant with these Chaldeans. Now that by these Chaldeans, with

whom Pythagoras was so intimate,* 1.347 we may justly understand inclu∣sively (if not exclusively) the Jews, I think, will be pretty clear, if we consider that the Jews having lost their own visible state, and Nation, lived now under the Chaldean Government, and State; and so might passe amongst the Grecians for Chaldeans. And this will be farther evident, if we reflect on what is mentioned by Diogenes (cited by Porphyrie) of the Chaldeans, with whom Pythagoras conversed in Baby∣lon; amongst whom he particularizeth one Zabratus,

by whom he was cleansed from the defilements of his Life, and informed in ma∣ny things concerning Nature, and the first principles of the Ʋni∣verse.

This Zabratus (Selden de Jure Nat. Heb. l. 1. c. 2.) enclines to believe was Ezekiel: for he takes notice that Ezekiel, and Pythago∣ras flourished about the same time, betwixt the 50. and 52. Olympiad. The like is mentioned by Selden Syntag. 2. de Diis Syris cap. 1.

True∣ly the most accurate Chronologie teacheth us, that Pythagoras, and E∣zekiel flourished together, between the L. and LII. Olympiads. There∣fore the account of time hinders not, but that Nazaratus (who is said to be Pythagoras's Master) should be the same with Ezekiel. He also is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zabratus, who by Malchus in the Life of Pythagoras is called his Master, &c.

Godefred Wendelin as∣serts, that Pythagoras derived his Tetractie from the Jews; and par∣ticularly from Daniel, the chief of the Magi, who was then, when Pythagoras lived in those parts, about 70. years old. So Selden Syntag. 2. de Diis Syris cap. 1. affirmes, that Pythagoras had some rude notices of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Gods name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, which he called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tetracte. That Pythagoras had conversation with, and some traditions from, the Jews, whilst he was in Babylon appears farther, by what Diogenes in his Treatise of incredible things beyond Thule (quo∣ted by Porphyrie pag. 8.) affirmes of Pythagoras; that he went also to the Hebrews, &c. That Pythagoras visited Egypt, and Babylon, at those very times, when the Jews had their abode there, is affirmed by Eusebius lib. 10. praepar. c. 2.

They report, that Pythagoras was an Auditor, not only of Pherecydes Syrius, but also of the Persian Magi, and of the Egyptian Divinators, at that very time, when some of the Jews went to Babylon, and others of them to Egypt.

That there were a quantity, or great number of Jews in Babylon, when Pythagoras was there, is most evident: for suppose we fix the time of his being in Babylon after the Captivity of the Jews, and their Returne to Judea;

yet it is certain, there were great numbers of them never returned, but continued in Babylon, where they had 3. famous Scholes, or Ʋni∣versities, Sora, Pompeditha, and Neharda (as has been afore observed) which we cannot conceive, that Pythagoras, so curious an Inquisitor in∣to Antiquity, would passe by, without observation for 12. years space, for so long he continued in Babylon, according to Iamblichus. That,* 1.348 which gave Pythagoras the greatest advantage, and encourage∣ment to converse with the Jews in Babylon, was his skill in the Egyp∣tian Tongue (as Diogenes, and others assert) which indeed differed not in Substance, but only in Dialect, from the Hebrew, and Chaldee, as we have endeavored to prove out of Bochart, and others; so that we need not, with Aristobulus, suppose the Translation of Moses's books into Greek before the Persian Monarchie; for Pythagoras being skilled in the Egyptian, and, I suppose, also the Chaldean Tongue, having lived in Chaldea 12. years, might without difficulty, read Moses's Writings, at least have conversation, and conference with the Jews, who could, without doubt, (having lived so long in Chaldea) speake the Chaldean Tongue, &c. That Pythagoras really had conversation with the Jews at Babylon, and translated many things out of their Doctrines into his Philosophie, has been already proved by sundry Testimonies collected by Learned Ʋsher, as also by the concession of Stillingfleet; of which see §. 2. of this Chapter.

* 1.349§. 9. Pythagoras having spent 12. years at Babylon, in conversa∣tion with the Persian Magi, Chaldeans, and Jews, about the 56 year of his age he returned to Samos, where hee endeavored to instruct the Samians in that Symbolick mode of philosophizing, he had learned in Egypt, and other oriental parts, but the Samians, not affecting his ob∣scure, and enigmatick Philosophie, did not give him any great encourage∣ment to continue long with them, as Iamblichus de vita Pythag. l. 1. c. 5. Laertius informes us, that the occasion of his departure from Sames, was the Tyranny it lay under by reason of Polycrates his usurpation. So Vossius de phil. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 1. That Pythagoras was a great asser∣tor of the peoples Liberties (as Plato) but an inveterate enemy of Ty∣ranny, will appear in its place.

* 1.350§. 10. Iamblichus also (cap. 5.) acquaints us, that, before his go∣ing into Italy, he went to Crete to acquaint himself with the Laws of Minois, as also to Sparta, to gain Knowledge in those of Lycurgus, which then had the Vogue for great Legislators. Laertius tels us,

while he was in Crete, he had conversation with Epimenides, with whom he entred the Idean Cave. This Epimenides is by Apuleius in 2. Florid, stiled the famous Diviner, where also he addes, that Pytha∣goras made use of one Leodamas the disciple of Creophilus for his Ma∣ster; but Laert. l. 8. and Suidas call him Hermodamas. Casaubon thinks, that he might have heard Solon also, but Vossius gainsays it, Vossius de phil. sect. l. 2. c. 6. § 4.

§. 11. Pythagoras, quitting Greece,* 1.351 went into Italy (that part which was called Magna Graecia) and first arrived at Croto, where, by his graceful presence, Rhetorical Orations, and friendly complaisance, he gained the affections of the Citizens, both Magistrates, and others; as Iamblichus cap. 8. The same Iamblichus (cap. 6.) tels us, that, at the first Speech he made in Croto, he attracted many followers, in so much that in a short time he gained 600. Disciples. And that he had a general esteeme amongst the Romans, is evident by the Statue, they erected to him, at Rome; of which Plinie lib. 34. cap. 6. thus speaks: I find Statues erected to Pythagoras, and Alcibiades in the hornes of the Comitium. see Vossius philos. l. 2. c. 6. §. 28. &c. And indeed no won∣der, that the Italians had so great an esteeme for, and affection to Py∣thagoras: for he had been a great Instrument of delivering them from Oppression, and Sedition amongst themselves, as also of communica∣ting to them Good Laws (which he had from the Jews) and such a constitution of their Common Wealth, as tended most to the pre∣servation of Libertie, and Ʋnitie; the main pillars of any State. So Porphyrie in the Life of Pythagoras, pag. 14. and Iamblichus out of him l. 1. c. 7. informe us,

that whatsoever Cities Pythagoras in his travels through Italie, and Cicilie found in subjection one to another, he instilled into them, by his Disciples, a principle of Libertie. Thus he freed Crotona, Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum, and other Cities where his Disciples prevailed.

Yea indeed many of the most eminent Rectors of the Italian common wealths proceeded from Pythagoras's Schole, as Zaleucus, who gave Laws to the Locrians, and Charondas the Catanaean, who gave Laws to the Thurii, with other Legislators, of whom see Iamblichus l. 1. cap. 30. By means of which Pythagorean Laws, and Governors, these Cities were a long time well governed. Pythagoras wholly took away dissention. So Iamblichus. Some also say, that Numa Pompilius had his Laws from Pythagoras; but of this more hereafter.

§, 12. From Pythagoras's settlement, and Schole in Italie, the Ita∣lick Sect received its denomination. That part of Italie, wherein Py∣thagoras taught, was called Magna Graecia, which comprized Taren∣tum, Metapontus, Heraclea, Croto, and the Thurii. Pythagoras having lived at Croto 20 years, dyed in the last year of the 70. Olympiad, as Eusebius will have it. He had indeed an universal esteeme amongst all:* 1.352 but a particular reverence from his Scholars, who, as long as he lived, were wont to stile him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Theologue; but after his death they called him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the man. Iamblichus de vita Pythag. l. 1. c. 2.* 1.353 gives him this honorable character.

Pythagoras (saies he) after the death of his Father, grew up in Wisdome, and Temperance, being even from his youth generally honored by the most ancient. His graceful presence, and taking Discourse drew all persons to him; in so much that many affirmed him to be the son of some God. He be∣ing thus confirmed by the common vogue of all men concerning him, by the education given him in his youth, and by his excellent Natu∣rals, made himself dayly more deserving of these advantages; a∣dorning himself with Religious Exercises, natural Sciences, exemplary conversation,* 1.354 stability of mind, grave deportment, and with an ami∣able imitable serenitie. He was never transported by unlawful pas∣sion, laughter, emulation, contention, or any other disorder. He lived like some good Genius comeing to converse in Samos, whence he was stiled the Samian Comet.* 1.355

Iamblichus (chap. 13.) gives us a farther account of his Moderation in the use of creature comforts, and re∣freshments; of his exact Wisdome, and diligence to preserve a good ha∣bitude, and disposition of body, and mind: as also of his great care in redeeming, and emproving his time.

Pythagoras (saies he) having learned of Thales above all things to husband his time well, he did for that reason abstain from Wine, and Flesh; having before abstained from eating much, and accustomed himself to such meates, as were of more easie digestion; by which means he acquired an ha∣bit of watchfulnes, serenity, and vivacity of mind, and an equal continued health of body.

§. 13. To give a brief Abstract of what Diogenes Laertius does more at large relate touching Pythagoras.

He was (saith he) the first Institutor of the Italick Sect; all the others were called Ionick from Thales. Pythagoras, when young, was committed by his Uncle Zoi∣lus to Pherecydes a Syrian. When he was young, and most studious

of Learning, he initiated himself in the Barbarian, and Grecian Rites▪ and Mysteries. At length he went to Egypt, with commendatory Letters from Polycrates, where he learned the Egyptian Tongue; but he was most conversant with the Chaldeans, and the Magi. Af∣ter that he went to Crete, where he conversed with Epimenides. In Egypt he entered the Adytum, and was instructed in the ineffable my∣steries of the Gods. At his return to Samos, finding his Countrey un∣der Tyranny by Polycrates, he went to Croto in Italie: where he gave Laws to the Italians; and was honored by his Scholars.* 1.356 He is reported to have been of a most awful majestick presence, which made so deep an impression on such, as had conversation with him, that a young man being severely rebuked by him, immediately hanged himself; whereupon Pythagoras ever after forbore to reprove any:* 1.357 thus Laertius.

We have a good evidence of Pythagoras's contentati∣on, and contempt of wordly grandeur by his Epistle to Hiero, in an∣swer to an invitation he made him, to come and live with him.

My life, saies Pythagoras, is secure, and quiet, but yours will no way suit with me: a moderate, and self denying person needs not a Sici∣lian table. Pythagoras, wheresoever he comes, has all things suffi∣cient for the day; but to serve a Lord is heavy, and intolerable for one unaccustomed to it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 self sufficiency is a great, and safe thing; for it hath none, that envyeth or conspires against it. Whence that life seemeth to come nearest to God. Therefore write not to Pythagoras to live with you: for Physicians will not fall sick, to bear their patients company.

Stanlie Life of Pythagoras chap. 22.

§. 14. Apuleius Florid. 15. gives us this brief account of Pythago∣ras's

Travels, Instructors. and Philosophie: The common fame goes, that of his own accord he sought after the Egyptian Sciences, and learnt there of the Priests the incredible efficacies of their Ceremonies, the admirable changes of Numbers, the most exact formules of Geo∣metrie: but his mind being not satiated with these Siences, he thence goes to the Chaldeans, and hence to the Brachmanes, and Gymnoso∣phists. The Chaldees teach the Sideral Science, or Astronomie, the sta∣ted ambitus of the wandring Stars, and the various effects of both in the Genitures of men; also Medicine, &c. The Brachmanes also con∣tribute much to his Philosophie. Moreover Pythagoras embraced Phe∣recydes, who sprang out of the Scyran Iland, for his Master. It is said, that he studied Natural Philosophie with Anaximander: also

that he followed Epimenides of Crete, that famous Prophet, and Poet, for Science sake: also Leodamas, the Disciple of Creophilus, &c. To which we may adde that of Justin Hist. lib. 20. He went first to Egypt, then to Babylon to learn the motions of the Stars and the O∣rigine of the Ʋniverse. Whence returning he came to Crete, and Lacedemon, to understand the Laws of Minos, and Lycurgus, at that time most famous. With which being instructed he came to Cro∣to, where, by his Authoritie, he reduced the people fallen into Luxu∣ry, to the use of frugality. He enumerated the ruines of the Ci∣ties, which had been destroyed by the pest of Luxurie. He frequently taught the Women apart from the Men, and the Children apart from their Parents. And he gained thus much by his continual Disputation, that the Matrones laid aside their golden garments, and other or∣naments of their Dignitie, accounting Chastitie, and not fine Clothes, to be the true ornaments of Matrones: Thus Justin.

Pythagoras, the more effectually to forme, and shape the Manners of the Citie, fre∣quently explicated the practick part of Wisdom. Pythagoras leaving Croto went to the Metapontines, who had him so greatly in admira∣tion, as that after his death, they made his house a Temple, and wor∣shipt him as a God. Justin lib. 20.

CHAP. VI. Pythagoras's College, and Discipline from the Jews.

Pythagoras's 2. Scholes 1. common. 2. His private College, wherein were 1. Novices, their examen, and probation. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Intrin∣sicks, Phil. 3.12, 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. Tim. 3.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Disci∣pline of Pythagoras's College. Their consociation founded on Virtue as Exod. 19.5, 6. set forth by Salt, from Lev. 2.13. Numb. 18.19. Covenant by Salt what? Luke 13.26. Ezra 4.14. Mark 9.49. Of the Essenes, their Collegiate Life, and the Pythagoreans Symbolizing with them in 16 Particulars. The Pythagoreans a sort of Separatists Gal. 2.9. Their shunning worldly Pleasures, and Company: their Celibat, and Abstinenoes, as Col. 2.16, 21, 22. 1. Tim. 4.3. Their Purifications

and Festivals. Their white Vestments from Eccles. 8. Their perpetual Silence, and their concealing Mysteries. Their reverence towards their Elders. Their owning Providence, with their Devotion. Their day∣ly exercises, with morning premeditation, and night examination. Their Constancie, with their excommunication Mat. 8.22.

§. 1. HAving given the Storie of Pythagoras's Life, and Travels, and some account of his Conversation with Jews therein; we proceed to his Schole, Institutes, and Discipline; wherein we doubt not, but to make discovery of many Jewish Institutes, & traditions. Iam∣blichus, lib. 1. cap. 6. tels us, that Pythagoras, upon his settlement at Croto in Italy, drew unto him, by his perswasive Orations, many followers even unto the number of 600. persons, who were by him won, not onely to the embracing that Philosophie he professed; but also to submit to his Rules of Discipline, and that Collegiate mode of life, which he prescribed to them. For the more full understanding whereof, we must know, that Pythagoras had two severall Scholes, and thence two sorts of Disciples, as Porphyrie, Iamblichus, and Clem. Alexandr. have observed. For 1. he had his Homocoeion or common Schole, for all;* 1.358 which Clemens Alexandrinus (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1.) enterprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Church, where all sorts of hearers were admitted: where the Disciples that belonged to this Schole were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Auditors, or Pytha∣gorites, these learned only the chiefe Principles of Philosophie, without more exact explication. For these being either of more dull capacities, or else ingaged in civill affaires, had not Abilities, or leisure to addict themselves wholly to Pythagoras, and his Philosophie; wherefore he expounded to them only the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or naked Heads of Philosophie. Among these common hearers there were of all sexes, ages, and condi∣tions: men, women, adult, youth. The Citizens, and men of Croto he exhorted daily, and apart with a great splendor of Oration, to the stu∣dy of Vertue. The Matrons also, who were thence stiled, Pythagoricae, he instructed frequently, and apart in their duties, as also the children apart from their parents, as Laert. lib. 8. and Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 12.

2. Pythagoras also had his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 coenobium,* 1.359 which Laertius calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his Systeme; and Cassiodorus his College, as others his Family, and the Disciples, that belonged to this Schole, or College, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Genuine, as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mathematicians, because they being generally young, of quick apprehensions, and as willing, as also able, to

devote themselves to the study of Philosophie, Pythagoras expounded to them not onely the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.360 but also the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Causes, and Reasons of things; why it was so, and so, and why it could not be otherwise. These Mathematicians being of Pythagoras's College, Covent, or Fami∣ly, and by him instituted in the more full, and exact Reasons of things, and deeper points of Philosophie, were only esteemed and called genu∣ine Pythagoreans: the former acoustiques, or common hearers, being cal∣led only Pythagorites. To these two sorts of hearers Gellius l. 1. c. 4. addes a third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of naturalists. Yea the Author of the Pythago∣rean life addes more: of which see Photius cod. 249. Clemens Alexand. lib. 5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 V••ssius de Philos. Sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 18. Stanly of Pythag. Discip. Chap. 1.

§. 2 In Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Convent, College or Family there were also two sorts of Disciples; some were only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exoteriques, No∣vices or Probationers. Others were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intrinsiques, or Perfect. As for the Probationers or novices, Pythagoras, to render them capable of Philosophy, prepared them by a most severe Discipline, and made them passe a very strict examen. For Pythagoras studied very much to know, and understand men; what every mans Disposition was, what his natural capacity for Philosophy, and what his inclinations thereto were: neither would he admit any into his College, or Family, before he had made some Physiognomicall observations concerning the man; If upon exact observation of all circumstances, he found the per∣son to be of good naturals, and of an awakened understanding, then he brought him under an Examen touching his morals; whether he were of good manners, and had affectionate inclinations to Philosophy, &c. The person thus examined, and approved by Pythagoras, was admitted into his Society, or College as an Exoterique, or Probationer; as Iambli∣chus cap. 20. and Stanly of Pythagoras's Discipline chap 2.

§. 3. Now that Pythagoras traduced this part of his Discipline, as also the former relating to his Acoustiques,* 1.361 or Common auditors from the Jewish Church, seems very probable. For who knows not, that the Jewes had two sorts of Proselites? 1. Those of the Gates, i e. such as lived within their gates, and partaked of some common privileges; unto whom Pythagoras's common Disciples seem to answer: but secondly, there were Proselites of the covenant, or of Righteousnesse, i e. such as were incorporate into the Jewish Church, and so made partakers of all their privileges. Now in the admission of these, Maimonides tels us,

the Jewes were very strict and severe, as Ainsworth out of him on Gen. 17.12. [Bought with money.]

when a man or woman cometh to joyne a Proselyte, they make a diligent enquiry after such, lest they come to get themselves under the Law, for some Riches, they should receive, or for Dignitie they should obtain, or for Fear. If he be a Man, they enquire whether he have not set his affection on some Jewish woman; or a Woman her affections on some Young man of Is∣rael. If no such like occasion be found in them, they make known to them the Weightinesse of the Yoake of the Law, &c. to see if they will leave off. If they will take it upon them, and withdraw not, and they see, that they come of love, then they receive them as its written Ruth. 1.18. &c.

Thus Ainsworth. By which we see, how near Pytha∣goras comes to the Jewes in his strict, and severe examen, as to the Ad∣mission of Disciples, from whom we have some reason to perswade us, that he tooke the whole Idea, or Platforme of his Schole and College. Yea if we may believe Clemens Alexandrinus (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1.) Pythagoras himself was circumcised; and if so, we may suppose he was admitted as a Prose∣lyte, to partake of the Privileges, and Mysteries of the Jewish Church. And Porphyrie (pag. 2.) tels us, that he was cleansed from the polluti∣ons of his life past by one Zabratus, who according to S••lden was Eze∣kiel. Or if not a Proselyte of the Covenant; yet we may with safety sup∣pose him to be a Proselyte of the Gates; that is, one that heard amongst them, and so acquainted himselfe with their Discipline, and Mysteries, and affected an imitation thereof, particularly in this rite of admitting his Disciples and Probationers.

§. 4.* 1.362 Pythagoras appointed his Exoteriques under Probation many Exercises for the purification of their minds, as also many Abstinences from wine, flesh, and other meats obstructing the clearnesse of under∣standing, with many other probationarie exercises: which probation or preparative Discipline they underwent usually five yeares before they were admitted to be Intrinsiques, or compleat Pythagoreans. But the main Injunction, which Pythagoras laid on these Exoteriques, or No∣vices, was their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quinquenniall, or 5 years silence.* 1.363 The cause of which silence was to inure his Disciples to the right govern∣ment of their Tongues, which of all things is most difficult, and yet the most usefull, and necessary for Novices in any science. Thence Iambli∣chus lib. 1. c. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ The Government of the Tongue is of all most difficult. So Apul. Florid. 15.

The first Founder of Philosophie first taught his Disciples to hold their peace,* 1.364 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 si∣lence to be

that the soule, turning inward to her selfe, might be di∣verted from externall objects, and all irregular passions.

Hence his si∣lence was termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, (saies Aulus Gellius lib. 1. c. 9.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as Hesychius, and out of him Suidas from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, conteining within himselfe his speech. This Probationary silence of these Novices, Laertius lib. 8. calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 systeme.

So Servius on Virgil, Aen. 10. yet Aulus Gellius l. 1. c. 9. informes us, that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 enjoyn∣ed a quinquenniall silence. The Pythagoreans for this their silence con∣tinued 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lovers of learning, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lovers of words. 3. Pythagoras forbad his Scholars declaring his mysteries to others. Those who after their five years preparative Discipline, and Probation, appeared by their mo∣deration, commendable conversation, and other qualifications fit to par∣ticipate 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. perfect, which privileges the former Probationers, or Novices were not made partakers of. But if these Novices, after the time of their Probation, were not judged worthy to be received to the condition of the perfect, or compleat members of Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Covent, then were they rejected, & a Coffin was made by the Disciples of Pythagoras, & pla∣ced 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,* 1.365 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]

This term [perfect] saies he, is taken from those (viz. the Pythagoreans) a∣mongst the Pagans, who after many preparations and purifications ren∣dred 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 pre∣parative exercises, after which they became 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or perfect,* 1.366 does ori∣ginally 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, & parti∣cipation 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 Ap∣prentices only — But these words were taken originally from the fashion of the Jewish Church, in the Scholes whereof there were di∣vers 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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,* 1.367 and those in the Jewish Church, and Schole. Paul also 1 Tim. 3.6. makes mention of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, a Novice in the Christian Church, which Oecume∣nius

enterprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one newly initiated in the faith, a Catechu∣men, and Theophilact 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one newly baptized, and admitted in∣to the Church, answering to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which the LXX. render Job. 14.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and as we may presume with allusion to the No∣vice in the Jewish Church. And this very custome of initiating No∣vices by preparative Discipline the popish Monks, such as are Regular, universally retain to this very day (both name and thing) in the admit∣ting persons into their Covents; which, we need no way doubt, they at first took up in imitation of, and compliance with the Pagans, especial∣ly the Pythagoreans, and the Jewish Church; as also their whole Mona∣stique Life, and Institutes, of which hereafter. Lastly, we should be per∣fect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and without blemish; such were the Pythagorean 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Plato's Priest, whom he requires to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, perfect and genuine.

* 1.368§ 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 ex∣ercised amongst his Scholars, especially those of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Col∣lege, wherein we doubt not, but to discover many remarkeable, and e∣vident footsteps of Jewish discipline, and Traditions, whence we may suppose it was traduced.

The first thing considerable in the Discipline of Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or College was the Confoederation,* 1.369 League, or Covenant betwixt all those, who were Members thereof. For as we have already proved, Pythago∣ras was very severe and strict in the admission of Members into his Sy∣steme or College. He judged, and that rightly, there could be no fra∣ternity and lasting friendship, but what was grounded on Likenesse; and no true proper Likenesse, but what was founded in virtue, or resem∣blance of God. Whence saies Iamblichus of the Pythagoreans,

Their study of friendship by words and actions, had reference to some Di∣vine temperament, and to union with God, and to unity with the Divine soule.

So Stanly of Pythag. Philos. ch. 2. By which it is plain, that Pythagoras asserted both in Thesi, or Opinion, and in Hypothesi, and Practice, that there could be no Consociation, or friendship worthy of that name, but what was founded on Virtue, and Likenesse to God. This also was sufficiently couched under two of Pythagoras's Symbols accor∣ding to the explication of Iamblichus, as that Symbol 28. [Lay not hold

on every one suddenly with your right hand] i. e. sayes Iamblichus,* 1.370 give not your right hand, or draw not easily to you into your society per∣sons not initiated (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) i. e. such as have not been long tryed by Do∣ctrines and Disciplines, nor are approved as worthy to participate, &c.

Another of Pythagoras's Symbols, whereby he signified to us, that Vir∣tue, or Likenesse to God, was the onely solid and genuine foundation of strict Friendship and Society, was this, Symbol. 35. [set downe salt] that is, saith Iamblichus Justice, of which salt is an embleme. This also Plato (Pythagoras's imitator) does much insist upon, especially in Lysis (this Lysis, whom Plato makes to be the subject of this discourse of friendship, was Pythagoras's Scholar) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Friendship, proving first that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Likenesse was the ground of all Friendship. 2. Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. that good men only were alike, and Friends, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that wicked men had no likenesse, &c. Whence he con∣cludes 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there is no con∣junction, or stable union amongst wicked men.

§. 7. Now that Pythagoras took this Foundation, Constitution,* 1.371 or Idea of his Cellege from the Jewish Church their holy confederation, I thinke we have good conjectures, if not demonstrative Arguments to prove it. For we know, the Jewish Church was by virtue of Gods Covenant, and gracious presence with them a separate, select, peculiar, and holy people: Exod. 19.5. —and keep my covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure to mee above all people, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth ones owne proper good,* 1.372 which he loveth, and keepeth in store for himselfe, and for peculiar use: 1 Chr. 29 3. Here it is applyed to Gods Church, and translated by the LXX. a peculiar people, and St Peter expresses it by a word, that signifies a people for peculiar possession 1 Pet. 2.9. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. as Camero observes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies primarily abundance, thence

excellency, as choice, select jewels, &c.

Therefore God, though he were the Rector of all the earth, yet the Jewish Church was his peculiar treasure, or possession, as the Diademe on the head, or the seale on the hand: so Exod. 34.9. and take us for thine inheritance 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we find the same Psal. 135.4. For the Lord hath chosen Jacob to himselfe, and Is∣rael for his peculiar treasure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is the same word with Exod. 19.5. and so rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 such a separate, peculiar, and holy rela∣tion had the Jewish Church by virtue of Gods Covenant, and their owne stipulation unto God. In imitation whereof, we may safely conjecture, Pythagoras framed his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Covent, or College, which was to him

as a peculiar Family,* 1.373 or Church; and therefore look as Salt was of great use in the Jewish Church, and Sacrifices, as that which did lively, though but Symbolically, represent their holy friendship, and communion with God; so in like manner Pythagoras makes great use of this same Sym∣bol [set down salt] to expresse the holy Friendship and Communion there should be amongst his Collegues. And that Pythagoras's Symbol of Salt, by which he signified that Covenant, and Friendship, which ought to be betwixt his Collegues, had its first rise from the parallel use of Salt in the Jewish Church, will I thinke appeare very probable, if we consult the Scriptures, where we find this Symbol mentioned, as also its use amongst the Ancients.* 1.374 It is said Lev. 2.13. Thou shalt not suffer the Salt of the Covenant of thy God to be lacking; with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. So Numb. 18.19. we read of a Covenant by Salt. The like 2. Chron. 13.5. where the salt, that was cast upon all the Sa∣crifices, is called the Salt of the Covenant, because the Covenant of God with his people was confirmed by Sacrifice, as Psal. 50.5. Gather my Saints together unto mee,* 1.375 those who have made a Covenant with me by Sa∣crifice. The original of which Covenant by Sacrifice we find Gen. 15.9, 10. which was afterwards imitated by the Heathens in the confirma∣tion of their solemn Covenants: so that this Covenant by Salt is the same with the Covenant by Sacrifice, because these Covenants by Sa∣crifice, both in the Jewish Church, and also amongst the Greeks, were solemnized by Eating, and drinking the Sacrifices, whereunto Salt was alwayes a necessary appendix. For God by these feastings upon the Sacrifices, wherein Salt was used, did confirme his Covenant with those, who did participate of them; in as much as they did in some sort eat and drinke with God: as Luke 13.26. We have eaten and drunke in thy presence.* 1.376 i. e. we have eaten and drunke together with thee of thy Sa∣crifices, or at thy Communion Table, for the ratifying our Covenant, and in token of our friendship with thee. And, that Salt was alwayes accounted by the Ancient Jewes, as an essentiall concurrent of their feasts, especially such as were for the confirmation of Covenants, Love, and Friendship, appears by that common proverb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Every feast wherein is not some salt, is no feast. We have a great instance, and proofe of this Jewish custome to make use of Salt for the confirmation of their Covenants,* 1.377 in Ezra 4.14. where the original Chaldee (different from our version) runs thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because we have eaten of the Kings salt. i. e. be∣cause

we have engaged our selves in a Covenant of Friendship to him, by eating of his meat. So that we see this Rite of making Covenants by Salt was fresh amongst the Jewes even then, when Pythagoras flourish∣ed, and lived amongst them in Chaldea. Hence learned Cudworth (in his Discourse of the true notion of the Lords Supper pag. 68.) having shewen how Salt was used amongst the Ancients as a Symbol of Cove∣nants, and friendship, addes,

Thus I understand that Symbol of Py∣thogoras 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to set downe Salt for Friendship, and ho∣spitality.— Because Covenants and reconciliations were made by eat∣ing, and drinking, where salt was alwaies used. Salt it selfe was ac∣counted amongst the Ancients a Symbol of friendship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Salt, and the Table was used proverbially amongst the Greeks to ex∣presse friendship by: thence Origens quotation out of Archilochus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to transgresse the Salt and Table, was to violate the most sacred league of Friendship. Aeschines in his Oration de perperam habita Legatione hath a passage very pertinent to this purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For he saith, that he ought greatly to esteem the Salt, and common Table of the City.

Thus Cudworth, &c. By which we see how, and why the Ancients both Jewes, and Greekes made Salt a Symbol of their Covenants, and friendship. But yet I conceive there was something more couched under this Symbol of Salt, than learned Cudworth hath taken notice of, which will give further illustration, and proofe to our Assertion, that Pythagoras traduced it from the Jewish Church. For God instituting Salt, as a Symbol of his Covenant, to be eaten with the Sacrifices, as Lev. 2.13. did thereby represent to the life that sanctity, or holinesse,* 1.378 which he required, and expected from such, as entered into Covenant with him: For who knows not, that Salt, as it gives a savour, and re∣lish to meats, so its chief use is to preserve from putrefaction: this ex∣plication Christ himself gives of this Symbol, Marke 9.49, 50.* 1.379 Every one shall be salted with fire, and every Sacrifice salted with Salt, &c. Sal∣ted, i. e. purifyed, and preserved by Grace, as flesh by Salt: the like Sym∣bolique usage of Salt is given by Christ Mat. 5.13. Yee are the salt. So Luke 14.34. Coloss. 4.6. seasoned &c. That this was a main use of Salt amongst the Heathens, and that they traduced this usage from the Jewish Church, is asserted and proved by Francis Valesius de Sacra Pholosophia, cap. 16. on Levit. 2.13.

It is a wonder (saith he) that it was a solemn Rite, not only in the Sacrifices of the true God, but

also in those of the false gods, to use salt, as you may understand by Pliny lib. 31. cap. 7. where discoursing of the praises of Salt, he saith, that its autority is much understood in Sacreds, seeing no Sacrifices are per∣formed without Salt. Whence I conjecture that this custome was de∣rived from the first Sacrifices of the infant world, which were offered to the great God. And that it was thence derived into the Sacred Rites of all the Gentiles: for we have much reason to judge, that those false Ministers of Sacreds, received this custome from the true Priests, according to the Devils institution, thereby to have the Divine Sacri∣fices offered to him. Plato in his Dialogue of Natures saies, that Salt is a body friendly to God, which accords with this present text: for God requires every Sacrifice to be seasoned with Salt, as that which was gratefull and friendly to him. — Namely Salt seems to be a Sym∣bol of Integrity, and Incorrupti••n, and thence of Innocence. For Salt, as tis manifest by experience (and from Aristotle Problemat. 26. Sect.) dries, and thence preserves things from Corruption. Deservedly there∣fore is Salt made a Symbol of Justice, and so commanded in the Sacri∣fices. To which belongs that Numb. 18.19. Its a covenant of salt for ever.

He calls it a covenant of Salt. i. e. a covenant of Sacrifices, &c. Here Valetius seems to take in both notions: namely, as salt signifies an inviolable covenant of friendship, and moreover Integrity and Holinesse, both which are couched under this borrowed Symbol of Salt, and both conveighed from the use of Salt in the Church of God to the like usage of it amongst the Pythagoreans, and other Heathens. And thus much indeed Pythagoras understood by this Symbol of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to place salt. i. e. saies Iamblichus in his explication, as a signe of Justice, Righteousnesse or Holinesse. Thus also Diogenes explaines this Symbol of Salt as preservative of meats, &c. For Pythagoras conceived there could be no right consociation or friendship, but what was founded in virtue (as before) and therefore was he so strict in the examen or tryall of his Probationers, and so severe in the whole Discipline of his College, which that it all sprang from the Jewish Discipline, and his af∣fectation thereof, will farther appeare by what follows.

* 1.380§. 9. As Pythagoras tooke the Idea or platform of his Systeme, and College from the Jewish Church in general, that holy, and peculiar re∣lation they had to God, and to each other, by virtue of that mutual confederation or covenant betwixt them and God. So I conceive he had a peculiar regard, in framing this his College, to the particular Confoe∣deration,

or Monastique consociation of the Essenes, with whom he does in the chiefe parts of his Collegiate Discipline Symbolize, as it will ap∣pear, when we descend to particulars. Now here to make the way to this demonstration clear, we are to consider the Rise, constitution, and Discipline of these Essenes. As for the origination of their name they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. according to the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and accor∣ding to our English Dialect Pure. Now the Origination or Rise of these Essenes I conceive (by the best conjectures I can make from Antiquity) to be in, or immediately after the Babylonian Captivity, (though some make them later) and the occasion of their separation, or consociation, seems this. Many of the carnall Jewes defiling them∣selves either by beeing too deeply plunged in Worldly Affaires, even to the neglect of their Religion, or, which was worse, by sinfull compliances with their Idolatrous Lords, thereby to secure their carnall interests, these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Essenes to preserve themselves from these common pollutions separated, and retired themselves from the croud of worldly affaires into an holy solitude, and private condition of life;* 1.381 where ente∣ring into a strict confederation, or consociation, to lead together a Colle∣giate devout life, they 1. shunned all carnall pleasures, which might entice them from their Devotion. 2. They avoyded all profane compa∣ny, and conformity to the world, as also all affectation of Secular dignity, applause and honour. 2. They engaged in a strict fraternal com∣munion amongst themselves, professing a community of goods, &c. 4. They did in time of persecution, so far as they were able, lead a Monastique life, forbearing marriage, &c. 5. They were very abstemi∣ous and moderate in the use of creature comforts; forbearing wine, drinking water, &c. 6. They had their Distinctive garments, or white vestments. 7. They used Ceremoniall purifications, according to their Law; as also moral mortification of sin. 8. They enjoyned silence on their Novices, and were all studious for the right government of their speech, &c. 9. They forbad Oathes. 10. They had their Elders in great esteem. 11. They acknowledged all things to be disposed by a particu∣lar over-ruling Providence. 12. They did in a peculiar manner devote themselves to the worship of God by Prayers, and Sacrifices, especially of manimates. 13. They divided their Lives, and Studies into two parts, 1. contemplative. 2. active: they spent their time most in Acti∣on, besides what they employed in their Devotions; the principal study they addicted themselves unto was Medicine: they gave them∣selves

also to gardening, and other labours of the hand. 14. They di∣stributed the Day into times for Prayer, for Reading, for Study, for la∣bour with their hands, and for naturall Refreshments. 15. They endea∣voured much exactnesse in their Morals, to lead an exemplary Life. 16. Such as prov'd Apostates, or Scandalous, they excommunicated by the common consent of all the Fraternity, or Society. And to conclude with the character of Viret. (in his interim pag. 122.) In summe

their Estate was in their first constitution an excellent Schole of Me∣dicine, of Doctrine, and of Examples of virtue: all things were done a∣mongst them in good order, and I thinke the first Christian Monks took their pattern from these Essenes. But the later Monks have rather followed the example of the Sadduces, and Pharises.

Thus Viret. Indeed the Sadduces, and Pharises seem to be orders of much later constituti∣on, and but a spurious degenerate off-spring of the ancient devout 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Essenes. For although they both affected the opinion and e∣steem of eminent Saints, or Separatists (for so their name Pharisee im∣ports) yet all their pretended sanctity was but apparent hypocrisie, as far short of the sanctity and devotion of the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Essenes, as the pretended Popish mortifications of the later Monkes comes short of the sanctity and devotion of the first Christian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Puritans. He that will see more of these Jewish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Essenes may consult Drusius de 3. sectis Judaeorum, &c.

* 1.382Having laid downe the original of the Essenes, their Collegiate Con∣stitution, Order, and Discipline, I shall now proceed to shew, how much the Pythagorean College, or Systeme did Symbolize, and agree therewith: which will give a great confirmation to our Hypothesis; that Pytha∣goras traduced the Idea of his College, and its Discipline from the Jewish Church, &c.

* 1.3831. The Pythagoreans, as the Essenes, separated themselves from the rest of men, whom they accounted Profane; not at all regarding their Riches, Honours, or Pleasures. Hence that great Law amongst them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to give the Right hand of fellow∣ship to none but to Pythagoreans: i. e. saies Iamblichus, to have commu∣nion with none, who are not initiated, or tryed by Doctrines, and Disci∣plines, &c. The same phrase was used in the Jewish Church, to denote communion. So Paul speakes of the Right hand of fellowship given to him by Peter,* 1.384 James, and John. Gal. 2.9. according to the Jewish Dia∣lect. And as the Jews accounted all, that were not of their Church, as

dogs, profane, without, &c. So likewise the Pythagoreans, called all those, who were not of their Society 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not initiated; & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those without, profane, &c. So Grotius on Mat. 7.6.* 1.385 [cast not what is holy to dogs] observes this Symbolick mode was brought by Pythagoras out of the Oriental parts. Yea Iamblichus tels us, that the Pythagoreans excluded all, save their Parents, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from their conversation; hence those verses touching Pythagoras.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

His Associates he esteemed equall to the blessed Gods: but as for o∣thers he esteemed them not either in speech, or number;

Iamblichus lib. 1. cap. 35. This Pythagorean separation; and contempt of all others, but their own Collegues, gained them much envie, so that as some ob∣serve, they being once assembled in their College, or the place where they were wont to meet, some ill-willers accused them of a conspiracie against the City, which caused them to be almost all massacred, of which see Vossius de Philos. sect. l. 2. c. 6. par. 26. This is most probable, that the Pythagoreans were strict and severe separatists, as the Essenes, and Jews before them.

2. The Pythagoreans, as well as the Essenes, shunned all carnal plea∣sures, all mundane Honours, Riches, and Grandeur,* 1.386 affecting an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a mental self-sufficiencie. Thus Pythagoras in his Epistle to Hiero (of which before chap. 5.) pretends to an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a self-sufficiencie, which made him scorne the Honours, Pleasures, and Pomp of Hiero's court. Herein the Pythagareans were followed by the morose Cynicks, who affected a great aversation from all worldly pleasures, dignities, and conformities: as also by the Stoicks, who placed happinesse in an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a self-sufficiencie, thence Epictetus begins his Enchiridion with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

3. The Pythagoreans made not only a separation from the world,* 1.387 both persons and things; but also a strict Consociation, or Confoederation amongst themselves; professing a community of goods, or enjoying all things in common; wherein they did exactly imitate the Collegiate Discipline of the Essenes. Thus Iamblichus (cap. 17.)

Pythagoras,* 1.388 saies he, appointed a Community of Estates, & constituted an inviolable

Confederacie, and Societie as being that ancient way of consociation (perhaps he meanes in the Jewish Church, which was most ancient) which is truly stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Covent or College. This was agreable to the Dogmes of Pythagoras 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all things ought to be com∣mon amongst Friends, And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Friendship is an equality: whence his precept, Esteem nothing your own. So Diog. Laër. saies, the Pythagore∣ans put their estates in one cōmon stock, &c. Thus Vossius de Phil. Sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 25. The Pythagoreans, saies he, maintained the strict∣est conjunction amongst themselves; also a communion of Goods. But as for the Friendships of other men, they no way esteemed them, albeit they abounded with Riches, and Honours.

And Plato proceeding up∣on the very same principles with Pythagoras, viz: That all things must be common among friends, &c. enjoynes a Community of all things in his Common-wealth: of which hereafter.

* 1.3894. As the Essenes, and devout Jewes did, if they had ability, for∣bear marriage in times of persecution, especially thereby to avoid ma∣ny snares, and encumbrances; so likewise the Pythagoreans, who did not only look on Celibate, or single life as expedient for some times, and conditions; but enjoyned it in their sect, as a thing sacred, and holy. This learned Bochart. proves at large in his excellent Treatise a∣gainst Veron. part 3. chap. 25. sect. 4. Art. 1. (in French pag. 1338.) where he shews, that the Injunction of celibat, or Monastique life, was one great part of the doctrine of Daemons (mentioned 1. Tim. 4.1.3.)

which, saies he, was one of the superstitions Pythagoras brought out of Egypt, when he returned into Greece. For (as Clem Alexandr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. l. 1.) he forbad marriage to those of his sect, and erected a Cloy∣ster of Virgins (or Nuns) the charge of which he gave to his Daugh∣ter. Plato held the same sentiment, and Heraclitus, and Democritus, and Zeno the Prince of the Stoiques, who never touched a Woman.

Thus Bochart. But 'tis possible, Pythagoras might take up this his in∣junction of Celebat from the Jewish Priests, who at some times were enjoyned abstinence from Women. So Grotius on Colos. 2.21. having shewne how these Injunctions did not refer to the Jewish Law, but to some Traditions of the Jews, and Dogmes of Philosophers, especially the Pythagoreans, he concludes thus,

This last phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 handle not, refers to separation from Women, which the Jewish Priests at some certain times were enjoyned, but the Pythagoreans alwaies, &c.

Hammond on 1. Tim. 4.3. [forbidding to marry] shows, how the

Gnosticks received this part of their character forbidding marriages, &c. from the Pythagorean Philosophers, as Clemens Alexandr. Strom. lib. 3. &c.* 1.390

5. As the Essenes had their particular Rules for Abstinences from wine, &c. And the Jews in general had their Abstinences from seve∣rall meats, and at several times. So also the Pythagoreans in imitation of them. Thus Jerom tels us, that the Essenes abstained from flesh: whence some conceive Pythagoras brought this superstition into Greece, as Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 7. c. 12. Thus also Stanley of Pythagoras's Disci∣pline, ch. 5. out of Iamblichus.

Moreover Pythagoras commanded his Disciples to abstain from all things, that had life, and from certain other meats, which obstruct the clearness of understanding: like∣wise from wine, also to eat, and sleep little.

So Diogenes Laertius tels us, that

Pythagoras held things dedicated to God were holy, and so not to be used for common uses:* 1.391 thence that fishes were not to be eaten 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And Grotius on Col. 2.16 gives us a full account hereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in meat, or drinke.]

In one clause, saies Grotius, he comprehends both those, who Judaized, and Pythagorized.

To abstain from wine was not a perpetual Jewish Institute, but in some [persons and Times] but amongst the Pythagoreans it was frequent. The Jewes abstained from some meats; the Pythagoreans from many more.

Thus Grotius. The like he addes on vers. 20. To the rudiments

of the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies Grotius, Rudiments, &c. every institution, Gal. 4.3.9. where you'l see why they are called rudiments of the world, namely because they were common to the Jewes with other Nations. There was nothing in these Rites proper to the Jewes, &c. The same he addes on vers. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Here is,* 1.392 saies Gro∣tius, a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the note whereof the Syriack has placed here. For thus these masters spake. Tertullian against Marcion 5. denyes that this belongs to the Law of Moses. He seems to mee to have used common words which should comprehend both the Jewes and Philosophers, espe∣cially the Pythagoreans. And these first words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, touch not, tast not, chiefly belong to meats: the later 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 refer to Women, &c. So again, v. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] This, saies Grotius, refers to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 20. These things were invented by men, they came not primarily from God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pre∣cepts were such as were commanded by mens Laws: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such

things as were enjoyned by the Pythagoreans, as before.

Thus likewise Hammond in his Paraph on 1. Tim. 4.3.* 1.393 Forbidding to marry, and com∣manding to abstain from meats affirmes that the Gnosticks had these Doctrines from the Pythagorean Philosophers. And Mede in his Apo∣stacie of the latter times, on these words 1. Tim. 4.3. forbidding to marry, &c. proves at large that these Monkish Abstinences were but imitati∣ons, and branches of the Doctrines of Daemons (mentioned v. 1.) brought into Greece by Pythagoras, Plato, and other Philosophers.

* 1.3946. The Jewes in general, but more particularly the Essenes had their Purifications, or Purgatories, both Ceremonial, and Moral. So in like manner the Pythagoreans. Thus Iamblichus of Pythagoras.

He said (quoth he) that purity is acquired by expiations, and bathings, and sprinklings, &c. So Diogenes Laertius in his life. Pythagoras, saies he, held, that cleanesse is acquired by expurgations, washings, and sprink∣lings, with separation from all that defileth.

And Justin Martyr. A∣polog. 2. gives us this general assertion,

that all these washings, which the Heathens used in their sacreds, had their original, though by a Diabolique imitation, from our Sacred Scriptures, &c.

* 1.3957. The Jewes in general, and the Essenes in particular, were very exact in their observation of their Festivals. So likewise were the Py∣thagoreans.

For, saith Iamblichus, Pythagoras commanded that upon holy dayes we cut not our hair, nor pair our nailes: See Stanley of Py∣thag.'s Discipline, chap. 3. fol. 92.

* 1.3968. Again the Pythagoreans, as well as the Jewes and Essenes, had their white distinctive vestments, or garments. So Iamblichus (cap. 20.) speak∣ing of Pythagoras's Disciples, saies,

They wear a white, and clean gar∣ment: So Diogenes Laertius saies, that Pythagoras held the Gods to be worshiped 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with a good conscience (so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used by Plato) and white Vestment, &c. as Eccles. 9.8.

Let thy Vestment be alwayes white, &c. Hence I suppose the Pythagorean white. P. Virgil quaest. 4, de Inv. Rer. 7. supposeth that the Hebrews borrowed their white Garment from the Egyptians, whence also Py∣thagoras received the same: for Herod. l. 2. acquaints us, that the E∣gyptian Priests used a pure white Vestment, and rejected the Woollen, as profane. But it seems evident, that both the Egyptians, and Pythagore∣ans traduced their white Vestments from the Jewes, who received them from sacred Institution.

9. As the Essenes, so the Pythagoreans enjoyned silence,* 1.397 and that not only on their Exotericks, or Novices; but also on their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or In∣trinsicks: for besides the five years silence which Pythagoras prescribed his novices, he had another called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a continual silence, which properly belonged to his perfect Disciples, who were enjoyned secresie, or concelement of the Pythagorean mysteries from all those who were not of their societie, whom the Pythagoreans termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, uninitiated, prophane, &c. therefore not meet to have notice of their mysteries. Thus Iamblichus, speaking of the Pythagoreans, saith.

That the Principal, and most mysterious of their Doctrines they re∣served amongst themselves unwritten, as not fit to be published, but to be delivered by oral tradition to their Successors, as mysteries of the Gods.

To which that of Cicero lib. 1. de nat. Deor. refers.

Thou maist not concele it from me, as Pythagoras was wont to concele his mysteries from aliens.

Thus Vossius de Philos. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 24. having spok∣en of the Pythagorean quinquennial silence saies,

They had another silence, which was perpetual: by which it was unlawful for the Py∣thagoreans to discourse (not amongst themselves, but) with strangers of those mysteries, which they had received.

This indeed exactly answereth the Jewish silence, or secresie in conceling from the Gentiles their mysteries. viz. the name Jehovah, which they (as 'tis said) would alwaies pronounce by the other more common name Adonai, thereby to concele it, &c. For the Jews accounted the Gentiles, but as pro∣fane, and Dogs; therefore not fit to be made partakers of their my∣steries. To which Christ seems to allude Mat. 7.6. give not what is holy to Dogs. Yea indeed the Pythagoreans were not without some kind of silence amongst themselves, for they esteemed the right government of our speech, one of the hardest, and therefore best governments; as Iam∣blichus l. 1. cap. 31. Thence Pythagoras enjoyned his Disciples, 1. Perpetual silence, unless they could speak somewhat more profita∣ble than their silence. 2. When they did speak, to utter many things in few words, nor few things in many words: For Pythagoras was a professed enemy to tatling; thence that Symbol of his: Receive not a Swallow into your house, i. e. saies Vossius, admit not of tatlars. So Ze∣no, the Prince of the Stoicks, when he heard any talk much, was wont to say.

That man's ears were fallen down into his tongue.

3. Pytha∣goras enjoyned his scholars not to speak rashly without premeditation. 4. Not to discourse of Pythagorean mysteries without Light: For,

saies Iamblichus,

it is impossible to understand Pythagorean Doctrines without Light.

5. Pythagoras required a particular silence, or right ordering of speech in speaking of, or drawing near unto the Gods. So Iamblichus on Pythagoras's Seventh Symbol. [Above all things govern your tongue in following the Gods.] The first work of wisdom (saith he)

is to turn our speech inward upon our selves (by meditation) for no∣thing does more perfect the soul, than when a man turning inward up∣on himself followeth the Gods.

6. And touching the Pythagorean silence in general, Apuleius in floridis tels us,

That the first thing Pythagoras taught his Disciples, was to hold their peace; and the first meditation of him who would be wise, should be for an universal bridling of his tongue; and having clipped the wings of his words, which the Poets call birds, to shut them up within the walls of his white teeth.

7. The Pythagoreans, as the Essenes, forbad Oathes.

* 1.39810. The Pythagoreans in imitation of the Essenes, and Jews, had their Elders in great esteem. They never made mention of Pythago∣ras, without some note of reverence, calling him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Theo∣logue &c. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he said it, had with Pythagoras's Disciples the same authoritie, as a first principle with other Philosophers, or a Scrip∣tural testimony with a Jew, and Christian. This is observed by Laert. l. 8. Cicero l. 1. de. N. Deor. Quint. l. 11. c. 1. and others; who tell us that Pythagoras's Authoritie answered all objections: for when he spake, he was esteemed as the Pythian oracle: so that the solemn for∣mule was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And 'tis not unlikely, but this title also he borrow∣ed from the Sacred Records: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or thus saith he, is a title given to God in Scripture; as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

an honorable appellation is attributed not only to Prophane, but also to Sacred Writers; so that it is not given to any, but the most ex∣cellent, yea to God himself: for so He more easily gain'd credit to his Doctrine, and Authoritie to Himself.

* 1.39911. The Pythagoreans, as the Essenes, acknowledged all things to be disposed by a particular providence, which they called Fate.

* 1.40012. The Jews, and particularly the Essenes, did in a peculiar man∣ner, especially in times of Persecution, and captivity, devote them∣selves to the worship of God, by prayers, &c. in order whereto, they had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praying houses. So likewise the Pythagoreans were generally Devoto's, or much addicted to devotion: of which here∣after.

13. The Pythagoreans, as the Essenes, divided their life,* 1.401 and studies into Contemplative, and Active. In their studies they much addicted themselves to Medicine; in their bodily exercises to Gardening, &c.

14. The Pythagoreans, in imitation of the Essenes, distributed the day into several parts, for Devotion, Study, Labour, &c.* 1.402 So Iam∣blichus of Pythagoras cap. 20.

Those who were taught by Pythagoras, spent their morning walk alone, and in such places, where they might be most retired, and free from disturbances.

After their morning walk, they met together in the Temple, or place of Devotion. After that, having spent some time in their studies, they went to their morning Exercises. At Dinner they used (mostly) bread and honey. Their afternoon they employed in Political affairs. All the actions of the day they contrived in the morning before they rose, and exa∣mined the same at night before they went to sleep.* 1.403 A Pythagorean

rose not out of his bed, before he had called to mind the Actions of the day past, which recollection he performed in this manner.

He endeavoured to call to mind what he had heard, or done in the first, second, third place (and so in order) after his rising: And then after his going forth, whom he met with first, whom next, &c. and what discourses he had with the first, what with the second, &c. for he

endeavoured to keep a Diarie, Journal, or memoires of all that hap∣pened throughout the day; and so to repeat every thing in order as it happened. Thus they cheifly exercised their memories; for they conceived nothing conduceth more to knowledge, experience, and wisdome, then to remember many things. He taught his Dis∣ciples to do nothing without premeditation; nor any thing whereof they could not give a good account; but that in the morning they should consider what they were to do; and at night make a recol∣lection thereof: so Porphyrie on the life of Pythag. pag. 26. saith, That Pythagoras advised his Scholars, to have regard chiefly to two things. 1. The time of their going to bed. 2. The time of their rising: at each of these to consider what actions are past, and what to come: of the past to require from themselves an account; of the future to have a Providential circumspection, and care.

So Virgil ex Pythag. inter Epigr.

Non prius in dulcem declinat lumina somnum, Omnia quam longi reputaverat acta diei; Quae praetergressus, quid gestum in tempore, quid non:

See more Stanly, of Pythagoras's discipline cap. 9, 10.

* 1.40415. The Pythagoreans, as the Essenes, affected a great constancy in their principles, and morals: in order whereto they had many cautio∣nary precepts against Apostacy. So Iamblichus explaines that 15th. Symbol of Pythagoras. [Travelling from home turn not back, for the Furies go back with you.] i. e. saith Iamblichus after you have applyed your self to Philosophie, turn not back, &c. Which also was a Proverbi∣al 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.

* 1.40516. As the Essenes were severe in their Excommunication of Apo∣states, and Scandalous persons, so the Pythagoreans. Thus Iamblichus cap. 17.

Those, who were cast out of Pythagoras's Schole, had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a coffin made by his Disciples, placed in their room, as if they had been dead: for all, that were about Pythagoras, spake of them as dead; and when they met them, behaved themselves to∣ward 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:* 1.406 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 Mea∣sures, from the Jews. 2. Pythagoras's Physicks. 1. Contempla∣tive, The world's origine, its first Matter, Gen. 1.1, 2. Its Form, Gen. 1.13. Fire the great active principle in all things, from Gen. 1.2. 2. Medicine from the Jews. 3. Pythagoras's Moral 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. Pythagoras's Politicks from Moses's Politie: The Pythagoreans great Politicians. Their two great Maximes to preserve 1. Liberty against Tyranny. 2. Ʋnity against Faction.

§ 1. HAving gone thorough the story of Pythagoras's life, as also the Discipline of his Schole, and College,* 1.407 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 distri∣buted into Natural, Moral, o•• Supernatural. 1. His Natural philo∣sophie conteines, 1. His Physicks, or Natural philosophie properly so called. 2. His Mathematicks. His Physicks were either, 1. Con∣templative, 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 Scien∣ces, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wisdom into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Phi∣losophie.* 1.408 Iamblichus saies, that Pythagoras drew his Philosophie, and the several parts thereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. He saies, That Pytha∣goras 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 Theo∣logie was symbolick, and mystical, much the same with that of Pytha∣goras, 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 Mo∣saick tables,* 1.409 or Decalogue. 2. Iamblichus informes us, That Pythago∣ras received part of his Philosophie from the Egyptian Priests. The like he affirmes lib. 1. cap. 5. Pythagoras, saies he, owes to the Egyptians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. his symbolick mode of learning. So, Clemens Alexandrinus. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

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 He∣brew, so that he was thereby capacitated to read, and enquire into the

Sacred Scriptures and Jewish bookes, without supposition of their be∣ing translated into Greek, which was not till after times. 3. Iam∣blichus acquaints us,* 1.410 That Pythagoras received part of his Philosophie from the Chaldeans. Now that Pythagoras had converse with the Jews, whilest in Chaldea, by meanes of his skill in the Egyptian, and Chalde∣an tongues (which differed from the Hebrew only in Dialect) yea that the Jews themselves, frequently past amongst the Greeks, under the name of Chaldeans, because they lived under their government, we have endeavoured to prove in chap. 5. §. 8. of this second Booke.* 1.411 4. Iamblichus, together with Hermippus, tell us, That Pythagoras re∣ceived part of his Philosophie from the Thracians, so Josephus lib. 1. contra Apion. That the Thracians had their Philosophie originally from the Jews has been proved Book 1. chap. 5. parag. 7. 5. Porphyrie p. 4. acquaints us, That Pythagoras had part of his Philosophie from the Phenicians, who had theirs from the Jews, as before. 6. Porphyry pag. 8. and Clements Alexandrinus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. assure us,

That Pythagoras learned the most excellent parts of his Philosophie from the Barbari∣ans.

That by these Barbarians must be understood the Jews, in the first, and cheifest place, we have Testimonies of Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Epiphanius, Nicephorus, and Serranus on Plato's, Cratylus fol. 426. 7. What Pythagoras learned from his Preceptors, Thales and Pherecydes, owes its original to the Jews, as before, chap. 3.4. of this second Book.

§. 3.* 1.412 Having given a general Demonstration touching the traducti∣on of Pythagoras's Philosophie from the Jews; we now proceed to its Particulars, and shall begin according to Pythagoras's own method, with his Mathematicks: So Porphyrie in his Life, pag. 31.

The Mind (saies he) being purified by Disciplines, ought to be applied to the most useful: These Pythagoras procured by certain methods, and gradual mediums, bringing the mind by degrees to the contem∣plation of Eternal, Incorporeal, Real Beings. To this end, he first used the Mathematicks, as degrees of preparation to the contempla∣tion of things that are, &c.

This Pythagorean method of beginning with the Mathematick Sciences has been greatly applauded by some of our New Philosophers (and that perhaps not without sufficient grounds) as a method most proper for the fixing the Volatile vagrant spirits of young Students, in their entrance on Philosophie. And this is much practised by the French Nobles, who studie little else of Philo∣sophie besides the Mathematicks.

* 1.413§. 4. Amongst the Mathematick Sciences, Pythagoras firstly en∣tered his Scholars in Arithmetick, So Stobaeus in Ecl. Phys. lib. 1. c. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pythagoras seems of all Scien∣ces to have esteemed mostly of Arithmetick, and to have brought it in use from Mercature; he compared all things to Numbers. That Pythagoras made great use of Numbers, is apparent, in that he does symbollically set forth, and describe his chiefest mysteries by numbers, as hereafter. This part of his Mathematicks Pythagoras learned from the Phenici∣ans, who by reason of their merchandizing made much use of Arith∣metick.

§. 5. Pythagoras having laid a foundation in Arithmetick, pro∣ceeds to other parts of the Mathematicks,* 1.414 especially to Musick, of which also he made a very great symbolick use in all other parts of his Philosophie:* 1.415 So Iamblichus de vita Pythag. cap. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Of the Scien∣ces, they say, the Pythagoreans did not a little esteem of Musick, &c. Thus Apuleitus Florid. 15. and Quint. l. 1. c. 16. tell us, that Py∣thagoras was a great esteemer of, and very well skilled in Musick, which he commended to his Scholars daily. This they practised morning, and evening: in the morning after sleep to purge their minds from stupor, and impure imaginations; at evening to allay their more disturbed affections by this kind of Harmonie, as Plut. de Iside. and Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 7. Thence Pythagoras gives symbolical de∣scriptions of the Heavens, of the Soul, and of other of the mysteries by Harmony, &c. This his Science of Musick, I suppose he might re∣ceive from the Egyptians, who greatly affected Musick, or rather im∣mediately from the Jews, who were the first, and most skilful musici∣ans; receiving their Musick by Divine Institution, and Inspiration, it being prescribed them by God, as a medium, or Ceremonial Rite of his worship, and practised by them in Moses's time, long before Orpheus, who (next to their Idol god Apollo) was stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

* 1.416§. 6. Pythagoras also was skilled in Astronomie, or the Science of the stars, which Porphyrie in his Life tels us, he received from the Chaldeans. That the Chaldeans at first received this Science of Astro∣nomy from the Patriarchs, See Book 1. chap. 4. Paragr. 3. One great

Astronominical Paradox, which the Phythagoreans maintained was,* 1.417 That the Earth moved, and the Heavens stood still. This was also the opinion of Aristarchus the Samian, who whether he were more anci∣ent or latter then Pythagoras, is not determined. This likewise was the opinion of Gleanthes the Samian, Leucippus, Heraclides, and Ec∣phantus. That the Pythagoreans generally affirmed, That the Earth was not immovable, but moved in a circle about the fire: Plutarch in the life of Numa informes us. For they held,

that Fire being the most excellent of creatures, was placed in the midst of the world, which moved round about it.

They asserted moreover, That the Sun was composed of Fire, &c. Which opinions, that they were from Jewish traditions, we shall hereafter prove: Laertius acquaints us, that Philolaus the Pythagorean was the first, who openly taught 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Earth moved in a circle. Cicero in his 4^o Academ. Qu••stion, attributes the same opinion to Hicetas the Syracusian. Plu∣tarch in Numa saies, that Plato in his old age asserted the same. The like is said of Seleucus. This Hypothesis of the Earths moving, has been since revived by Cardinal Cusanus, lib. 2. c. 12. Doct. ignorant: but more professedly defended by Nicol. Copernicus, who about the year 1540, writ a Book concerning it, which is Dedicated to Pope Paul 3d. who was followed herein by Joannes Keplerus, Mathematick Professor to Rudolphus, Matthias, and Ferdinand the Emperours. Also by Christo∣pher Rothmannus, Michael Maest••inus, David Origanus, Mathematick Professors. Lately, Patricius Galilaeus, Hoscarius Italians, with, Willi∣am Gilbert, our English Physician, famous for his Book de Magnete; wherein he asserts this Hypothesis, having all maintained the same o∣pinion: which albeit it was condemned by the Cardinals at Rome, An∣no 1616, yet is it still defended by many of the New Astronomers: Ticho Brahe, the famous Danish Astronomer went a middle way: affirm∣ing, that both Earth, and Heavens moved, though in a differing man∣ner: See Vossius sect. Phil. l. 2. c. 6. s. 41.

§. 7. Pythagoras was also skilled in Geometrie,* 1.418 which I suppose he learned from Thales, or immediately from the Aegyptians,* 1.419 who were the first, amongst the Nations, that practised this Art. Dioge∣nes Laertius also tels us, that Pythagoras was the first, that brought Measures, and Weights into Greece; which also belongs to the Ma∣thematicks; and as we have good reason to judge, he received them from the Jewish Weights, and Measures. To conclude this, as we be∣gan

with Pythagoras's Mathematicks in the general: Iamblichus l. 1. c. 2. tels us, he was first initiated therein by Thales. And Porphyrie in the Life of Pythagoras (pag. 4.) saies, that the Mathematick Sciences he learned from the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Phenicians. Now that these Nations received their first Rudiments from the Patriarchs, and Jews, has been already proved.

* 1.420§. 8. Another branch of that Natural Philosophie, which Pythagoras professed was that, which we properly call Physicks, or Natural Phi∣losophie: Whereof there are two par••••. 1. Contemplative. 2. Active. As for Pythagoras's skill in Contemplative Physicks, or Natural Sci∣ence,* 1.421 it was indeed nothing else but the Historie of the Creation, with some Experimental Observations and Conclusions, which we need no way doubt was traduced to him from the Jewish Church, and Sacred Fountaines originally. For Diogenes tels us,

That Pythagoras whilest he was in Babylon, had familiar conversation with one Za∣bratus, by whom he was cleansed from the Pollutions of his life past, and learned this Science concerning Nature, and what are the Prin∣ciples of the Universe.

That this Zabratus was a Jew, we have en∣deavoured to prove afore, chap. 5. §. 8. And whether we affirm that Pythagoras received his History of Nature, and of the principles of the Ʋniverse, from his Masters, Thales, and Pherecydes, or from the Egyptians, or Phenicians, yet that it came originally from Moses's storie of the Creation, I think will be prettie evident from a consideration of Particulars.

* 1.422§. 9. First Pythagoras held Positively that the World was made by God, and by Him adorned with an excellent Order, Harmonie and Beautie, as to all its parts, whence He was the first that called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Adorn, or Beautifie, answerable to Gen. 1.31. Very good.* 1.423 &c. 2. Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or first matter, was the same with that of Plato; concerning which he treats so largely in his Tima••s, proving that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. without Forme &c. This Timaus the Locrian, whom Plato here brings in, thus discoursing of the Origine of the Ʋniverse, its first Matter, &c. was indeed a Pythagorean, from whom Plato borrowed much of his Natural Philosophie, as Hieronymus in his Apologie against Ruffinus assures us. And that Plato's Timaeus, or discourse of the Origine of the Universe was traduced from the first chap. of Genesis, and other parts of the Mosaick historie, I conceive will receive a strong probabilitie, from what shall be laid down in the

original of Plato's Philosophie. At present let any but compare this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or first Matter, asserted by Pythagoras, and Plato, with Sanchoni∣athons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or slime, and Thales's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 water, they will find all to an∣swer exactly to Moses's description of the first Matter, Gen. 1.1, 2. &c. 3. As for the Forme of the Universe, Pythagoras, Plato, and the foregoing Philosophers, dreamt not of any such Forme, as Aristotle invented to be educed out of the passive power of the Matter: no;* 1.424 all the Forme they asserted, was the Harmonie, Beautie Order, and Perfe∣••••ion of the Universe, and all its parts, resulting from that Law of Na∣ture, which Divine Wisdom stamped on the Beings of all Things, to∣gether with that Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Providence, which Inspired, and In∣fluenced the whole Creation; Governing and Directing all things to their proper Offices, Functions, and Ends, which they stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the soul of the world. From this Order, Beautie, or Perfection of things, the word Forme had its original; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beauty, by an easie transposition of φ into the place of μ, on which account Pythagoras called the World 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as before. Yea Pythagoras made Harmonie the Forme, and Soul of all things, as Gen. 1.3.

§. 10.* 1.425 But the main Active principle of all things in the Uni∣verse, according to the Pythagorean Philosophie, was Fire. So Ari∣stotle, lib. 2. de Coelo, cap. 13, tels us,

That the Pythagoreans placed Fire in the middle of the world, as that which was the most excel∣lent Principle, and preservative of all things:

he addes also that Fire was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jupiter's custodie. This also was the opinion of Numa Pompilius, as Plutarch in his Life affirms: whence it is ge∣nerally thought, that Numa had conversation with Pythagoras; but this cannot be, because Numa was more ancient: only we may sup∣pose they both had their perswasion from the same original, namely the Mosaick Institutes, by the hands of the Phenicians, or some other. The same Plutarch tels us,

That Numa caused the Temple of Vesta to be made round according to the Figure of the World, in the midst whereof was placed the eternal Fire (preserved by the Vestal Nuns) as a symbolick image of the Sun.

That the main Ceremonies of this Temple were instituted by some Pythagorean Prescript, in imitation of the Jewish Temples, we shall endeavour hereafter to prove, both from the name Vesta, which comes from the ••reek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and this from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Es Jah the Fire of Jehovah, according to Lev. 6.12, 13. where

the Priests are commanded to preserve the Fire on the Altar, &c. as also from the Vestal Nuns, and Priests, &c. At present, it may suf∣fice to shew, that the Pythagoreans had a great reverence of Fire, as that, which being the most active, and noble principle of all things, diffuseth it self thorough out the whole Universe; and therefore they placed its main seat in the midst of the World, whence it might, as the Heart in mans body, shed abroad its natural vivifick heat, and in∣fluences into all sublunarie bodies, for their nourishment, and conservati∣on. Plato speaks to the same purpose of a Fire that diffuseth it self through the Ʋniverse, for the production of diverse effects, which a∣grees exactly with the words of Moses, Gen. 1.2. according to the interpretation of Beza, and Serranus out of him, on Plato's Timeus, fol. 10.

The element of Fire, saies Serranus, was nothing else, but that fiery spirit, or efficacy, which is variously diffused, in the Sym∣metrie of the Universe, for the nourishing and somenting all things according to their respective natures. Which vivifick natural heat Moses, Gen. 1.2.* 1.426 calls the Spirit of God: and Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ef∣fective Fire.

And whereas it is said, this sacred Fire, which the Py∣thagoreans so much adored, was a Symbol of the Sun; I suppose, this sprang from that common opinion amongst the Ancients (especially the Chaldean Philosophers) that the Sun was a fierie bodie: which how far it is consonant to truth, and Mosaick Tradition, we intend here∣after to examine, when we come to the Philosophie of Plato; who also affirmed the same. To conclude; This Pythagorean principle, That Fire is the great Active principle of all things; was also held by Heraclitus the Founder of the Heraclitian Sect, which was but a branch of the Pythagorean: Also Xenophanes the Colophonian, the Founder of the Eleatick Sect (another branch of the Pythagorean Sect) held the Sun consists of a collection of little Fires; &c. Plato also held the Hea∣vens to be Fire, as August. lib. 8. c. 11. which seemes most conso∣nant to Scripture story; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies both Light, and Fire: as also the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Fire, as well as Light; so Mark. 14.54. of which more in Plato's Philosophie where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Stoicks also made Fire the chief Principle of all things.

* 1.427§. 11. Pythagoras and his followers were much versed in Medi∣cine, or active Physick. So Iamblichus (de vita Pythagorae cap. 20.) saies,

That amongst the Sciences, which the Pythagoreans were versed in

Medicine was one of the chief: then he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The chiefest part of their Medicine consisted in an exact Regiment, or right order of Diet. Where Iambli∣chus subjoynes many other particulars of the Pythagorean Medicine. So Cornelius Celsus in Praefat. amongst the famous Professors of Medi∣cine reckons up Pythagoras for one, who flourished under Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius: as Laertius, Solinus, Eusebius, and Vossiu••. That Pythagoras was very severe in his Prescripts, or Rules of Dyet, both to himself and his Followers, we have already shewn: how that he Prescribed to himself, and his Followers, Abstinence from all Meats, that might too much heate the bloud; as from Flesh, and Wine: also from such meats as did load the stomack, and were not easily digested; likewise from such as were obstructive, and bred ill humours; as Beanes, &c. Lastly from all such meats as might bring a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an ill habitude of bodie, or mind. For the great end, and scope of all the Pythagorean Prescripts, and Abstinencies, was to preserve an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good Healthfull Complexion of Bodie, and cleannes of Mind. As for the original of Pythagoras's Medicinal skill, Apuleius tels us, That he received it from the Chaldeans; i. e. as I concieve the Jews; who in Pythagoras's time lived amongst, and were subject to the Chalde∣ans; and therefore might well passe under their name; as before: Neither do we find any considerable mention of the Chaldeans, their skill in Medicine; but that the Jews were excellently versed therein, we have sufficient proof, both from what is mentioned of Solomon, 1. Kings 4.3, 4. touching his skill in Plants, and Animals, &c. Also by Eusebius, who saies he was excellently skilled in Medicine, and curing of Diseases, &c. (as book 1. cap. 1. par. 11.) Likewise from what Cu∣naeus (de repub. Jud.) relates of the Jewish Physicians, that belonged to the Temple for curing the sick Priests, and Levites. But amongst the Jews none more famous for skill in Medicine than the Essenes, who had a particular inclination, and devotion to this Studie, whom the Pythagoreans affected an imitation of, in this, as in other parts of their Discipline, as before.

§. 12. As Pythagoras was well skilled in Physicks,* 1.428 or Natural Sci∣ences, both Contemplative, and Active; so was he likewise no lesse versed in Moral Philosophie; which according to the Third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Relation of men· 1. To Themselves, or, 2. To their Families, or, 3. To the Cities, or Common-wealths they live in, admits of a Three-fold

Distribution. 1. Into Ethicks, 2. Into Oeconomicks, 3. Into Politicks. The Pythagoreans were skill'd in all these. 1. As for that part of Moral Philosophie, the Greeks call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ethicks,* 1.429 which con∣cerns the right government of man's self, Pythagoras, and his Adhe∣rents were much in the Studie, and Practice thereof. Yea indeed Py∣thagoras esteemed all Philosophie but Vain, which did not some way conduce to the m••liorating, or bettering of a man's self. Thus Stobaeus Serm. 80. brings in Pythagoras thus Philosophizing: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That discourse of a Philosopher is Vain, which cures not some passion of a man: For look as that Medicine is use∣lesse, which frees not the bodie from diseases, so likewise Philosophie, which drives not away evil from the soul. The Learned divide Ethicks into 3 parts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1.* 1.430 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dogmatick. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exhortative, or Preceptive. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Characteristical. Pythagoras, and his Disciples were versed in each of these. Concerning the Dogmatick part of Ethicks, the Pythagoreans laid down many wholesome Princi∣ples relating to the Object, Subject, and End, &c. of Moral Philoso∣phie, viz· That the Souls happines lay only in God its chiefest Good: That the proper Subject of Ethicks was the Humane Soul, as capable of the chiefest Good: That its chief End was to cure the Soul of its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 its sick diseased passions, and to bring it to an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or good healthie complexion, which consisted in vittuous Dispositions, and Acts. These Dogmes, albeit they were not Formally, and Me∣thodically treated of, according to that accurate Method of Definition, Division, &c. to which Aristotle reduced them, yet were they all se∣minally, and virtually comprised in the Pythagorean Philosophie. And particularly Pythagoras expresly asserted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

That virtue consisted in Harmonie; yea that all health of bodie, and minde, yea all good, yea God himself, and so all things else consisted in Harmonie, as Diogenes Laertius informs us. Pythagoras farther taught his Scholars 3 Mediums, by which they might become Ma∣sters of Philosophie, and better themselves: 1. By conversation with the Gods. 2. By Well doing, for that is proper to God, and therein they were imitators of God. 3. By Death, whence he affirmed, that the most considerable of all things, is to instruct the Soul aright, touching Good and Evil: and that men have perfect felicitie in

having a good Soul, as Iamblichus, and Stanly out of him of Pythago∣ras's Philosophie, part. 3. chap. 1. fol. 83.* 1.431

And as the Pythagoreans held many useful Dogmes of Moralitie; so were they not lesse versed in the Hortative, and Preceptive part of Ethicks; as it appears by the model of their Discipline before mentioned; as also from that great Apothegme of Pythagoras, which he frequently inculcated on his Disci∣ples, as the summe of his Philosophie, viz. That in all things they should endeavour to avoid excesse, &c. of which hereafter.

§. 13. But the chief part of the Pythagorean Ethicks was Characte∣ristical: for Pythagoras taught moralitie mostly,* 1.432 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Ethick Characters; i. e. Lively descriptions of Virtues, and Vices, by Symbols, Fables, Emblems, Images, or Signes, and Effects, answera∣ble to Aesops-Fables, Philostratus's-Fables, and also the Scriptural Types, and Parables. Pythagoras also exhorted his Scholars to Virtue under that Symbolick letter Y, as Lactant. l. 6. c. 3. which was thence called Pythagoras's Letter; not that he was the first Inventor of it, as some conceive (for it was found out 600 years before his time, by Pa∣lamedes) 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 an∣swerable 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.* 1.433 [This my Son was dead.] where Hammond (out of Grotius) observes,

That this is ac∣cording 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an emptie Coffin set in his place, to signi∣fie 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when the soul is dead as to the life of Vir∣tue, and lives only the life of sin, as elsewhere, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wicked men are dead in their souls. And that this Symbol was by Tradition from the Jews universally received amongst the Oriental Barbarick Philosophers, and thence traduced into Greece, appears by what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

For

in the Barbarick Philosophie (which takes in also the Jewish) they call men fallen from their Principles dead; as such also, who subju∣gate their Minds to their Sensual passions.

But more of this, when we come to discourse of Pythagoras's Symbols.* 1.434 2. Another Ethick Character, or Symbol, which Pythagoras used to express his Moral Pre∣cepts by, was that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to set down Salt: by which he sig∣nified, 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 Py∣thagoras couched a reproof against Sloathful, or Pratling Scholars was this.* 1.435 [Receive not a Swallow into your house] i. e. saith Iamblichus,

Ad∣mit 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,* 1.436 [Turn away from thy self every edge.] Pytha∣goras exhorted men to the use of prudence, rather then passion, as Iam∣blichus. 5. By this Symbol [Stir not the Fire with a sword] Pythago∣ras 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,* 1.437 as Iamblichus. 6. Pythagoras's Ethick Character, or Symbol, by which he dehorted men from Covetousnes, was this, [Breed no∣thing 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 9. Pythago∣ras exhorted men to Justice under that lively Symbol [Passe not over the ballance]

This, saith Iamblichus, commands to do justice, to ob∣serve 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 chear∣ful 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,* 1.438 which may be summed up in these two words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. forbear moral evils, or the evils of action; and bear physical natural evils, or the evils of passion: for all Ethicks, or morals are comprehended un∣der active, and passive moralitie, or under Abstinence, and Tollerance. i. e. forbearing what is evil in manners, and bearing (which implies do∣ing also, as well as suffering) what is evil to nature.* 1.439

§. 15. Pythagoras taught not only Ethicks, but also the two other parts of Moral Philosophie; viz. Oeconomicks, which regard the Go∣vernment of Families; and Politicks, which respect the Government of Cities, and Nations. This latter Pythagoras, and his Followers, were greatly versed in: for 'tis said that Pythagoras had his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, book of Politicks, which he composed, and gave to his Scholars, as Laerti∣us relates. Iamblichus saies,

That Pythagoras used to say, that a∣mongst 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 to••ards all, answerable to that saying, man is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on which he grounded his Politicks. Iamblicus saies also

That men hold Pythagoras was the first Inventor of all Politick Science.

'Tis 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 Sci∣ence of Politicks more ancient than Pythagoras,* 1.440 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 Spar∣ta 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 Prin∣ciples of Politie from Moses's Laws, and Politie, will be more evi∣dent hereafter, when we come to treat of the traduction of all Hu∣mane Laws from the Divine Mosaical Law. At present take only this proof hereof: It is well known, that Zaleucus, the great Founder of the Locrian Laws, was Disciple to Pythagoras, from whom we may presume he received the Bodie of his Politie, now that the Locrian Laws were many of them of Jewish extract, and original, is evi∣dent. I shall only mention one, which Aristotle in his Politicks takes notice of, telling us, that the Locrenses were forbid to sell their Ance∣stors possessions: which was plainly a Mosaick institute. I might instance in the Roman 12 Tables, the Agrarian Laws, and others, which, were traduced originally from the Mosaick Laws, by the hands of Pytha∣goras, or some other.

* 1.441§. 16. Pythagoras, as he had an high esteem of this Science of Politicks, so it was the last piece of Philosophie he acquainted his Disciples with; as Varro, and out of him Augustin in his last Book de ordine. Iamblichus (cap. 20.) tels,

That the Pythagoreans im∣ployed their time after Dinner in Political affaires.

And that the chief Politicians of Italie proceeded from Pythagoras his Schole we are assured by Iamblichus, (l. 1. c. 29.) and by Vossius, de philos. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 27.

This, saies he, was the great glorie of Pythagoras, that in Italie so many excellent Rectors of Common-wealths proceeded out of his Schole.

Amongst these the most famous were 1, Zalencus, who gave Laws to the Locrenses, and is supposed to have been the first, who committed his Laws to writing. For Strabo saies of the Lo∣crenses, That they are beleived to be the first that enjoyed written Laws. As for the Laws of Lycurgus, he forbad the writing of them. 2. Also Charondas the Catanean another of Pythagoras's Disciples, who gave Laws to the Thurii, &c.

* 1.442§. 17. The great Maximes of Politie, or Reasons of State, which Pythagoras instilled into his Disciples, as the main Foundations of Hu∣man Politie, and Government, were these Two: 1. The extirpation of Tyrannie, and Preservation of Libertie. 2. The Prevention, and removing of Dissentions: These Principles he endeavoured to put in Practice, where ever he came. So Porphyrie pag. 14, and Iamblichus cap. ••. informe us.

That whatsoever Cities Pythagoras in his

travels through Italie, and Sicilie found subjected one to the other, he instilled into them Principles of Libertie by his Scholars, of whom he had some in every Citie. Thus he freed Croto, Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum, &c. To whom he sent Laws by Charondas the Catanean, and Zaleucus the Locrian; by means whereof they lasted a long time well governed. He wholly took away dissention: for he did frequently utter his great Apothegme,* 1.443 (which was a kind of abstract of his Philosophie) That we ought to avoid with our utmost endeavour, and to cut off even with Fire, and Sword, from the Bodie Sicknes; from the Soul Ignorance; from the Bellie Luxurie; from a Citie Sedition; from a Familie Discord; from all things Ex∣cess.

Which Apothegme comprehends the summe of all his Morals, both Ethicks, Oeconomicks, and Politicks: of which see Stanly of Pythag. cap. 17.

CHAP. VIII. Pythagoras's Theologie traduced from the Jewish Church.

Pythagoras's Theologie the center of his Philosophie: his Tetractie from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Exod. 3.14. His Scrip∣tural notions of Gods Unitie, Simplicitie, &c. His Divine Ideas the same with the Scripture descriptions of Gods Decrees; and founded on that Oriental Maxime, All things are one, and many. Parmenides's opinion of Ideas. Timaeus ••oc••us of Ideas. His primarie Idea the same with Gods Idea of things possible. His exemplar answers to God's Decree of things future. Gen. 1.31. With Timaeus's Tradition thence. Of Gods Creation, and Providence. Of Divine Worship against images, Exod. 20.4. That God is to be worshipped according to his own Will. Their exactnes in Divine Worship, Eccles. 5.1. Pythagoras's Damons, their Nature, and Office according to Plato's description. Pythagoras's Aeones. His traditions of the Soul, its Immortalitie, &c. His Metemp∣sychosis. The Pythagorean Theologie mystical, &c.

§. 1. HAving finished Pythagoras's Philosophie, both Natural, and Moral; we now proceed to his Supernatural, or Metaphy∣sicks,

which is either Theologick, and Divine; or Magick, and Diobo∣lick: We shall begin with Pythagoras's Theologie, which indeed comprehended the best part of his Philosophie, and gave foundation to Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Natural Theologie,* 1.444 as also to Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Metaphysicks. That Plato received much of his Natural Theologie from this of Pythagoras is generally granted, and shall be hereafter proved: our present work is to shew, what Pythagoras's Theologie was, and how he traduced it from the Jews, and Scrip∣tures. That Pythagoras received the choicest of his Theologick con∣templations immediately from the Jews, while he was in Judea, E∣gypt, and Babylon, I conceive may be groundedly conjectured by what has been before laid down, chap. 5. §. 2. & 6. But supposing this be denyed, yet I suppose no one can rationally denie, that he received his Theologie from the Phenicians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, Pherecydes, and Orpheus, who had theirs origionally from the Jews, as before. He is said to have a particular affection for, and inclination unto Orpheus's Theologie, whose Philosophie, if we may believe Iamblichus, he had continually before his eyes.

* 1.445§. 2. Pythagoras according to Iamblichus's relation (chap. 29) made Theologie, or the Knowledge of God the first, most universal Being, to be the Center of all his Philosophie; for, saies he,

Pythagoras, who first gave the name to Philosophie, defined it (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pla∣to termes it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) a friendship, or love to Wisdom. Wisdom is the knowledge of the truth of things that are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Things that are, he called immaterials, eternals, and Sole Agents. Other things are equivocally called such by participation with these; For Cor∣poreals indeed are not further then they depend upon incorpo∣reals,* 1.446 &c. Hence Pythagoras defined Philosophie, The knowledge of things that are, as things that are: again, the knowledge of things Di∣vine, and Humane: also the meditation of Death, daily endeavou∣ring to free the soul from the Prison of the bodie; Lastly he defined it the resemblance of God, &c.

Which Definitions are properly applicable to no part of Philosophie but Metaphysicks, or Na∣tural Theologie;* 1.447 whence Pythagoras judged the supreme end of all Philosophie to be the contemplation, and knowledge of Ʋnitie: which Architas interprets, of the Principles of all Principles; and Plutarch of the Intelligent, and Eternal Nature: and Simplicius, of the Divine Ma∣jestie i. e. God. Hence we see the reason why Pythagoras was by way

of Eminencie called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and his Philosophie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The∣ologie, namely because he treated chiefly of God, his Nature, and Worship, and delivered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Science of the worship of God; which is properly the office of a Divine. So greatly was the Idea and perswasion of Divinitie impressed on his minde, as that with∣out it he judged there could be no true Philosophie. Yea Aristotle himself. 10 Metaph. cap. 6. and elsewhere stiles his Metaphysicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Theologick Science. The Rabbins call the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wisdom of the Deitie. The Author lib. de Mundo saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which Cicero lib. 1. de Leg. ex∣presseth thus: A man by Philosophie, undertakes the worship of the Gods, and pure Religion. By which it appears, the Ancients, especially Py∣thagoras, made Knowledge, and Worship of God the chief part of their Philosophie. Plato in his Definitions of Philosophie follows Pythagoras 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making its Object to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which truely is; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Being it self, or the most independent Being, &c. Yea Aristotle himself comes not much behind in making the object of his Metaphysicks to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ens or Being in its universal latitude; & its Affections 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ʋnitie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Truth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bonitie, which Notions, I presume, he had from Plato, as he received the same from Pythagoras, or from the Jews.

§. 3. Pythagoras's Natural Theologie, as to its Object or Matter, com∣prehended, 1. the Knowledge of God, his Names, Nature, Decrees, Pro∣vidence, and Worship, &c. 2. The knowledge of the Aeones, or An∣gels. 3. The knowledge of the Daemons. 4. The knowledge of Human Soul, &c. Concerning the knowledge of God, his Names, Attributes, Acts, and Worship; we find manifest footsteps of scriptural, and Jew∣ish Traditions in Pythagoras's Theologie. For First, as to the Names of God; that Pythagoras received some broken tradition, touch∣ing that Essentials Name, of God Jehovah, seemes manifest. For this Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being sacred amongst the Jews, they endeavour∣ed, what they could, to concele it from the Gentiles: whence in∣stead of pronouncing of it, they called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.448 the Four Lettered Name of God, and in imitation of the Jews, Pythagoras called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tetractie. This Godefrid Wendelin in his Epistle to Erycius Puteanus Dissertations of Pythagoras's Tetractie: where he shews,

That the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Four Lettered Name of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was signified: Moreover, that Pythagoras traduced this Tetra∣ctie from the Jews and particularly from the Prophet Daniel, the

Prince of the Magi, who was then, when Pythagoras visited Baby∣lon,* 1.449 about 70 years aged, as Vossius Philos. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 5.

That Pythagoras had clear notices of the Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jah, which is but the contract of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jehovah, is evident from all his Metaphysick Con∣templations about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Being, truely Being, Self-Be∣ing, &c. as in wh••t follows.

§. 4. Neither could Pythagoras content his Curious Inquisitive Humor with some imperfect notices of Gods Name, but makes some farther Inquiries into his Essence, or Nature, concerning which he gained his best notices, and satisfaction from the Mosaick Descripti∣ons of God. For the best discoverie, that ever was given of the Di∣vine Essence, or Nature, is that, which God himself gives, Exod. 3.14. I am, that I am,— and I am hath sent me. Which the LXX renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] As if he had said I am He that is. For the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Participle, which the Latins knew not how to express in one word better than by calling it Ens, Being, which Caesar derived from Sum, I am, as potens from Possum. It here signifies, That God alone is the First, Eternal, Infinite, most Simple, most Necessarie, most Absolute, most Independent, yea only, truely, properly, and purely Being. For all Beings else have much of not-Being, or nothing; yea much more of Nothing than of Something mixed with them: yea all things else, if compared with God, they are but meer Metaphors, or Shadows of his Being, or rather pure Nothings, or lesse than Nothings, as Esa. phraseth it, Esa. 40.17. And Job speaketh in the same Dialect frequently. Now that Pythagoras traduced his Contemplations of God hence, is to me, and I think, to any other that shall duely consider it, most apparent. For whence could Pythagoras, and his followers Timaeus, Parmenides, and Plato out of them, traduce their Metaphysick Con∣templations of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Being, Self-Being, Very-Being, &c. but from this Scriptural Definition of God. For we must remember, that the Pythagoreans, and Platonicks from them, when they discourse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. of Being, or that which is truely Being, they understand it of God, the most Ʋniversal, Infinite, and only true Being: They accounted all derived, temporal, lower Beings, but as Be∣ings by accident, or to speake in Aristotle's phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be∣ings of, or from Being, they judged nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pro∣perly, and truely Being, but what was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very Being, or self-Being: and first-Being. Thus Steuch. Eugubinus de Peren. Philos.

l. 4. c. 7.

The Ancients called God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Being it self, that which only, and principally exists, which never was not, never shall cease to be. Other things sometimes have been, and sometimes have not been. As therefore the Divinitie is stiled with an article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ʋ∣nitie it self, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bonitie it self: so by a manner of emi∣nence it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Being it self. And because Being is ascri∣bed principally to God, it seems to denote, that he alone is Essence, and that he alone is; so that in comparison of Him, other things ex∣ist not. By Three Testimonies it appears, that the Divine Nature is Being it self, by the Testimonie of the Ancient Theologie, by the Te∣stimonie of Plato, who is as it were the Interpreter thereof, lastly by the Testimonies of the Heavenlie Philosophie, the mistress and guide of the other. For the Sacred Name Jehova, being as it were, the Third person of the Verb Substantive future, Jod being turned into Vau, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hence this most ancient name of God was translated to the Greeks; (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differ only in Gender.)

Thence in what follows he adds It is true, we may doubt, what Plato meant by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unlesse we call to witnes the Superior Divines, and the heavenlie Philosophie it self, with which Plato differs not, save in the variation of the Gender, so that he who is stiled in the Sacred Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Gen. 3.14.) Who am, is called by Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Being. Which variation was duely made, for two causes, both because the Hebrews have no Neuter Gender, and also because it seemes more full to say, God is Being it self, as that comprehends the whole plenitude of Existence, than to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Existing. For Names of the very Natures, or Essences, import more than Deriva∣tives from them: As Life signifies more than Vital. And God is rightly exprest by the present, who is, because with him there is neither past, nor to come, but the very Eternal Presence a∣lone.

Pythagoras, when he defines Philosophie a Love to the Knowledge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Beings.] By Beings, saith Iamblichus, he understood

(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) sole, and self Agents, Immaterials, and Eternals, other Be∣ings indeed are not Beings, but yet are equivocally called such by participation with these Eternals, Iamblichus cap. 29.

So Plato in his Parmenides (who was a Pythagorean) treating of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Being, and Unitie, which he makes the First Principle of all things, thereby under∣stands 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Be∣ing

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, properly, and truely, only belongs to this Eternal Essence.

These Contemplati∣ons, as 'tis supposed, he received from this Timaeus the Locrian who was a Pythagorean; yet we need not doubt, but that originally they were traduced from Exod. 3.14. for the Greek participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there used signifies properly the present time only, as the Hebrew, excluding from God erat, and erit, was, and shall be, past, and future; denoting that God only is, according to the description of the Pythagoreans, and Platonicks. Phutarch saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies▪ Thou art. And indeed of God alone it can be truly said He is, without mutation. That Pythagoras did really traduce these Metaphysick Notions of 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.

* 1.450§. 5. Pythagoras seems to have had some Scriptural, or Jewish tradi∣tion touching the Ʋnitie of Divine Essence. So Diogenes Laertius in∣formes us, that Pythagoras asserted, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ʋni∣tie to be the principle of all things, from which proceeded indefinite Duali∣tie, which was as matter subject to Unitie, it's essential cause. We have a good explication on this mystical Pythagorean Unitie by Learned Reueh∣lin 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One, and ma∣ny, and Determined thus,

That God as he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. One Divine

Essence, 1. Was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Many. 2. That he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.451 One immutable Being.

3. That he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. One Eternal Be∣ing, &c. This also Plato in his Philebus fol. 17. discourseth of at large, shewing how this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and how these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. How this one Divine Essence was many, as to the Divine I∣dea's, or Decrees, and how the Divine Ideas were one in the Divine Ʋnitie, 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,* 1.452 if not Scrip∣tural 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 receiv∣ed 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, where∣fore 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into Hell, saw there Hesiods soul bound to a Brazen pillar, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 making a la∣mentable noise: and Homer's Soul hanging upon a tree, and Serpents about, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 com∣mon Vogue, a professed enemie to all those Mythologick, & Poetick Fictions of the Gods.

The same dislike we find in Plato against Ho∣mer for his monstrous fictions of God. So also Parmenides, (who did much, Pythagorize) is brought in by Plato discoursing of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or

one Divine Being. 1. As one that was neither the whole, nor had he parts. 2. Neither had he beginning, nor end, therefore was 3. In∣finite, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, simply in the same Forme &c. as hereafter. We find the simplicitie of the Divine Essence thus described, accord∣ing 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the all governing Throne. It is not confined to genus, Place, Time, or Reason; but is the free unlimited President over all these; infinitely supreme in place, power, possession, ex∣cellence, above all Essence, Nature, Aevum, Age, &c.

See Stanly, fol. 138.

* 1.453§. 7. That Pythagoras received by tradition from the Jews, if not immediately from the Scriptures, some notices, touching the Divine Idea's or Decrees (which were the first original Archetype, or Univer∣sal exemplar of all things made) seemes very probable. Thus August. Stouch. Eugubinus, de Peren. Philos. l. 1. c. 12.

It is very observable, and worthie to be known, what Plutarch mentions, that the Divine mind, and Ideas, (which Philo, and Plotinus taught) are the same: and that his Wisdome, is the Nature and Substance of all Ideas: and that the whole series of Ideas is the same with the immense Sapience of God. It is also to be observed, that this Mind, was according to the Sentiment of all the Philosophers, the Creator, because they at∣tribute unto him Ideas as the Origines of things. Whence it is mani∣fest, that they thought, and spake, what they learned from the Bar∣barians.

The first Barbarians were the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and, whom we ought to set in the first place, the Hebrews, &c. That Py∣thagoras asserted the Doctrine of Ideas before Plato, or Parmenides, is evident, as Reuchlin in his explication of the Pythagorean Doctrine shews us,

that the Pythagoreans reduce all beings Subsistent, or Sub∣stant immediately to Ideas.

And to prove, that Pythagoras, and his followers, Parmenides, Timaeus Locrus, and Plato by their original Ide∣as understood nothing else, but that which our Divines call the Di∣vine Ideas, or Decrees of God, it will be necessarie to examine a little

their Doctrine of Ideas, its Original, &c.* 1.454 The great foundation of all this Doctrine of Ideas was that famous Oriental Tradition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That all is one, and many. This Axiome Plato expounds at large, out of Parmenides, and Timaeus Locrus the Pythagorean, shewing how, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One was many, and many one: which ctrine, saies he, we received from the Ancient Philosophers, (i. e. from Timaeus the Locrian, and Parmenides immediately, but from Pythago∣ras originally) and they originally from the Gods who taught them thus to Philosophize, and teach others. What Plato's opinion of I∣deas was, we shall reserve for its proper place; we are now to treat only of the Pythagorean Doctrine concerning Ideas founded on this great Axiome, That all is one, and many. This Pythagorean Princi∣ple Parmenides (who was of the Eleatick sect, a branch of the Italick, and Pythagorean) much Philosophized on,* 1.455 as the foundation of his I∣deas. Him therefore we shall chiefly follow in the explication of this ••ythagorean Doctrine, as we find his opinions explained by Steuch. Eugubinus, by Ludovicus Vives, and Serranus. Steuchus Eugebinus, de Peren. Philos. l. 3. c. 8. saies,

That the Vnitie, and Being was stiled by the Ancients, with a certain great and deep mysterie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the very Ʋniverse. Aristotle in his first Book of the Principles of Philo∣phie, delivers, that the Ancients affirmed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That one was all.

Therefore they said, God was that All. This in what follows he applies to Empedocles, Parmenides, &c. Lud. Vives in August. civit. Dei l. 8. c. 1. gives us this general account of Parmenides's (and so of Pythagoras's) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One, &c.

There are not wanting some (saies he) who conceive that Parmenides himself in his Poems, in which he comprized his Philosophie, affirming all things to be One, under∣stood that One to be God; of which number is Simplicius. Neither is it likely that Parmenides an acute, and wise man could be igno∣rant of the Division, and Multiplicitie of things, which in plain words he asserted in his Poems. For when he had versifyed much, and enough on that One first Being. Hitherto saies he of these true, and supreme Beings; now of Mortals, and confused Beings, &c.

But Serranus does more fully, and clearly expound unto us this Doctrine of Parmenides touching Ideas (in Plato's Parmenides fol. 124.)

This saies he, was the opinion of Parmenides concerning Ideas. In the V∣niverse of things there is nothing that happens unadvisedly, or by chance; but all things depend on the force, and efficacie of their Ide∣al

causes. Of these Ideas he makes two sorts. 1. One he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Infinite, Immovable, Eternal, Simple, and Causative of all things. This he calls the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The primarie Idea, which being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, gives being and virtue to all things. 2. As for the Secondarie Ideas, they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods works, or second natural causes depending on God. He denies therefore that any thing happens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of it self, without the Divine mind influencing it.

The same Serranus (in Plato's Parmenides, fol. 130.) Parmenides, saies he,

teacheth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that all is One, and that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Archetype Idea, and thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That one is many, and many again one.

Where he notes the power, and force of the One in the Ideas, in which it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

The proper forme, or exemplar, and thence to know the na∣ture of any intelligibles, we must reduce them to the Unitie of Idea.

Thus Serranus of the original of these Ideas. The plain mind of this dark Oriental Tradition is this; That the Divine Essence, which in it self is but one; in respect of it's Divine Ideas, or Decrees may be looked on as many; and thus one becomes many, and many one. Thus Plato, and Serranus on him (fol. 134.) explain Parmenides his Ideas.

Parmenides saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That God has the most accurate Knowledge;

and that this Knowledge he has by his I∣deas; and that these Ideas arise not from us, (i. e. external objects) but from Himself, from his own Infinite Essence, (the glasse of all those Ideas which represent things Possible) and from his Sovereign, Abso∣lute will, (which is the glasse wherein he contemplates the Ideas of things Future) for otherwise, saies Parmenides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

The Gods would not be our Lords, neither would they know Humane affaires, should their Ideas or Knowledge arise from us, and not from them∣selves.

How Divinely does Parmenides here Philosophize on the Ab∣solute, Independent, Sovereign Ideas, or Decrees of God, to the confusion of that great Jesuitical Idol of Scientia Media, which is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of all Pelagianisme: of which more when we come to Plato, &c.

§. 8. Besides Parmenides, there were other Pythagoreans who Philo∣sophized largely on this Doctrine of Ideas: as Epicarmus, or Cous,

and Timaeus Locrus, both famous Philosophers of the Pythagorean Sect, from whom Plato, as 'tis conceived, received much of his Philoso∣phie touching Ideas. So Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 11.

Alci∣mus, saith he, in the Books which he writ to Amynthas, teacheth us, that Plato borrowed his Opinion of God being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as also that of Ideas from the Books of Epicarmus, who was Cous a Philo∣sopher of the Pythagorean Sect most famous: Timaeus also the Locrian has writ of Ideas in his Book of the Universe. But all these things, Plato being of a more accurate Wit, and assisted with a deeper, and more Divine Doctrine, has more largely, and clearly explained. Though I doubt not, but Pythagoras had before learned these things from the Sacred Scriptures, &c.* 1.456

As for Timaeus Locrus the Pythago∣rean, we have his opinion of Ideas laid down at large by Plato in his Timaeus, or Dialogue of the Origine of the Universe, which, I presume he calls Timaeus, because he received the main Principles, and Mate∣rials of it from this Timaeus the Pythagorean. The summe of this Dis∣course in Plato's Timaeus, about Ideas, may be reduced to this Scheme.* 1.457

God in the Production of the Universe acted as a skilful wise Artifi∣cer, according to the Ideas of his own eternal Wisdom.

These Ideas existing in the mind of God, he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-subsisting, or independent, eternal, indivisible, immaterial, and simple. These first original Ideas seem to answer to those Divine Ideas, w^ch the Scholes suppose in the Divine Essence, and Power, w^ch is the glasse of things possible, the object of Gods simple Intelligence. Besides this original simple Idea, Plato brings in Timaeus discoursing of another kind of Idea, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.458 an ex∣emplar, or image, which he makes to be the first foetus, impress, or off-spring of the former original Idea. This Exemplar, or Image, as it is conformed, and exactly answerable to the first original Idea; so likewise is it a lively delineation or representation of the future work or thing to be made, whence the Divine Agent, having got his Exemplar, proceeds to the production of his work answerable there∣unto. His words are these,* 1.459 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where he distinguisheth his Idea from his Exemplar, making the former to be first, and productive of the latter. Unto this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exemplar, or Image, the Divine Idea's of things future, or the Decrees of God, which the Scholes suppose to be seated in the Will of God, the object of Gods Science of Vision, seem to answer. Laertius saies, that Plato makes

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Idea, and Exemplar Synonymous, I con∣ceive he is mistaken. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exemplar, or intelligible Image. Timaeus (Edit. Steph. fol. 30.) calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. the Animal, Living, Intelligible World, which is elsewhere called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ideal World, the self Liver, the alwaies Liver; and by the Pythagoreans it is generally stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, intelligible World, which they place in the middle, betwixt the Supreme World or the Divine Essence, and the Sensible World, or Universe. This Exemplar Serranus (on the fore-cited place of Timaeus, fol. 30.) makes to be

that eternal Image, or Exemplar in the mind of God, deline∣ated, or drawn according to the Idea of his eternal Wisdom, ac∣cording to which all things are produced.

Yea, thus Plato seems to express Timaeus's mind, fol. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If the World be beautiful, and it's Maker good, it is evi∣dent, that he eyed some internal Exemplar, &c. So before (Timaeus fol. 28.* 1.460)

Wherefore, saies he, if he that undertakes to effect any thing, regards this unvariable Exemplar 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. it cannot be but that the work should be exactly formed.

Thus Timaeus the Pythagorean in Plato's words, which indeed seems exactly to answer that of Moses, Gen. 1.31. and God saw every thing that he made, and behold it was very good. So saies Au∣gustin (de Civit. Dei. l. 11. c. 21.) on this place,

hereby is under∣stood God's approbation of his work made according to Art, which is the wisdom of God.

Yea Timaeus, according to Plato's relation, (fol. 30. edit. Steph.) speakes more fully and openly the sense (almost in the very words) of Moses, Gen. 1.31. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For

God willed, that all things should be good, and nothing bad, neither is it lawful, saies he, to suppose that God, who is best, should make the World but in the best and most beautiful manner: then he concludes, fol. 37. Thus, after the Father of the Universe had beheld his Workmanship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the framed a visible Image of the eternal invisible Gods, he recreated and reposed himself therein, i. e. God was delighted in his own works, because they were exactly conformed to, and so sensible Ideas, or visible Images of that eternal Exemplar, and those invisible Ideas, or Decrees lodged in his own sovereign Will, and Essence.

Does not Plato here speak plainly,

not only the mind of Timaeus, but of Moses also? This is not mine own conjecture only, but Philoponus (otherwise Johannes Grammati∣cus) also that great Christian Philosopher has long since observed the same, in his Book of the Worlds Creation, lib. 7. c. 11, 12.

Moses therefore concluding the production of the World, saies rightly (Gen. 1.31.) God saw, &c. Moreover Plato in this again imitating him, and shewing how the Ʋniverse was made by God, saies, That the Fa∣ther when he beheld this moveable and living Image of the eternal Gods, which he had made, he rejoyced and recreated himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so much the more when he considered, that it was made according to that great Exemplar of his own Idea's, or Decrees.

Thus Philoponus, who was well skilled in the mind of Plato, as well as of Moses. But of these things more in their place.

§. 9. Pythagoras held Gods production of,* 1.461 and providence over all things. So Timaeus (in Plato fol. 12.) saies, that God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. adorned and disposed the World into the most perfect Forme and Order; whence it was by Pythagoras called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Order, and Beauty. Diogenes tells us, Pythagoras asserted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that Ʋnity (by which he understood God) was the principle of all things. He held also God only to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the ani∣mation and vivisick principle of all things; according to Gen. 1.2. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters: whence Pythagoras defined God

a mind, which communicateth, and diffuseth himself through every part of the Ʋniverse, from whom all Animals receive life, &c.

which accords with Plato's Anima mundi. He also called God one en∣tire Being within himself, in a complete Circle, i. e. shedding abroad the influential lines of his Providence throughout the Universe.* 1.462 The Pythagorean Conception (as Iamblichus) touching the Providence of God in general, was this, That we have need of such a Government, as we ought not in any thing to contradict, which alone proceeds from the Deitie, who deservedly may challenge a soveraign Dominion over all. For man being, say the Pythagoreans, shamefully variable, and fickle in his appe∣tites, affections, and other passions, needs such a Government, from which proceeds moderation, and order. But Pythagoras affirmed the Gods to have a peculiar Providence towards Men, such as were at Friendship with them. So Diogenes Laertius saies, Pythagoras held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That Men are ak•••• to the Gods, and therefore God has a special Providence over us, as Gen. 1.

26. so saies Iamblichus, Pythagoras demonstrated there is a friendship of the Gods towards men, &c. Grotius on Matth. 10.29. tells us, that some of the Hebrews held Gods providence about men, but not about beasts: which Pythagoras seems to have learned from them, and to have taught the Grecians.

* 1.463§. 10. Hence Pythagoras was a great Devoto, or Advocate for God, his Worship, and sacred Institutes. So Iamblichus tells us,

That Py∣thagoras proposed, that all things we resolve to do, should tend to the solemne acknowledgement of the Divinitie; that the whole of mans life should consist in the following God, which is the ground of all Philosophie. For since there is a God (saies he) we must acknow∣ledge it is in his power to do us good. Now all give good things to such as they love, and delight in: therefore it is manifest that such things are to be performed, in which God delights, from whom alone good is to be sought for.

The like foundation of Divine Worship Plato (who did in this point greatly Pythagorize) asserts, of which in it's place. And as to the Mode of Divine Worship, Pythagoras and his Adherents, give us many wholesome Institutes, such as these.

* 1.4641. That God being an Incorporeal, and Spiritual Being, should not be Worshipped under any Corporeal Forme, or Visible Likenes. Thus Plutarch in the Life of Numa Pompilius, tells us, That Numa forbad the Romans to believe, that God had any Forme, or likenes of Beast, or Man, which is agreeable to the Pythagoreans, who thought the Gods Invisible, Incorruptible, and Intelligible Beings only: so that in these for∣mer times there was in Rome no Image of God, either painted, or graven for 170 Years, &c. Some think that Numa had this Institute from Pythagoras; but Ludo. Vives (on August. Civit. l. 7. c. 35.) refutes this; shewing, that Numa dyed many Years before Pythagoras was born. We may therefore more fitly with Clemens Alexandr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. and out of him Selden (de Jure Gent. Hebr. l. 1. c. 2.) affirm, That Numa received this by Tradition originally from the Jews, though perhaps immediately from the Phenicians, who frequented Italy in, and before his time. That Pythagoras had it immediately from the Jews, and particularly from that great Moral Command,* 1.465 Thou shalt not make any graven Image, &c. is most likely. Conformable whereto is that great Pythagorean Symbol [Grave not the Image of God in a Ring] i. e. saies Iamblichus, Philosophize, and above all things conceive that the Gods are incorporeal. This Symbol is (saith he) above all other the Seminarie of the Pythagorick Doctrines, &c.

2. Hence Pythagoras instituted,* 1.466 that God should be Worshipped with a pure mind; and such decent Ceremonies, as were by him appoint∣ed. So Diogenes Laertius: Pythagoras, saies he, held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That honors are to be performed to the Gods according to their own appointment, with a white garment, and chaste bodie, and soul, which purification is acquired by expurgations, washings, sprinklings, and separation from what ever is unclean, &c. I know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred by the Latin Version cum laudibus, with praises; which agrees well enough with our present designe: but yet that it signifies in this place such a Worship, as was appointed by the Gods, I gather by the like usage of the Word in Plato his Alcibiades, fol. 149. where bringing in the Athenians complaining to Ammon their Oracle, that their Enemies the Lacedemonians, who offered few, or no Sacri∣fices, should prevail against them, who offered such costly Sacrifices: The Oracle makes answer,

that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the plain simple instituted worship of the Lacedemonians, was more acceptable to the Gods than all their pompous will-worship.

This we need not doubt, but that Pythagoras learned from the Jews, as Plato also, who in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fol. 6. tells us, that all Divine Worship must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. saith Serranus, measured by the will, and good pleasure of God. And whereas Pythagoras required his Followers to worship in a white Garment, that is apparently a Jewish Rite, answerable to the Ephod. Such were also all those ••urifications, Washings, Sprinklings, and Separations from all unclean things, which Pythagoras enjoyned. This likewise is af∣firmed of Iamblichus,

that Pythagoras said Puritie is acquired by Expiations, Bathings, Sprinklings, Abstinences from the flesh of things, that dye of themselves, and viperous Creatures, &c. which were all Jewish Ceremonies.

Laertius also informs us, that Pythagoras held

things dedicated to God were holy, and not to be used for com∣mon use: thence he forbad the eating of Fishes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in as much as they were holy: for it was not meet that what was proper to the Gods should be common to Men. Farther Vossius de Philos. sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 5. tells us, it appears out of Clemens Alexandrinus, that Pytha∣goras was circumcised, &c. which if true, gives us a great demon∣stration, that he was initiated in the Jewish Ceremonies, which agrees with what was before mentioned out of Diogenes Laertius, that Pytha∣goras, whilst he was in Babylon, was cleansed from the Pollutions of his life past, by one Zabratus, who according to Selden (de Gente

Hebr. l. 1. c. 2.) was Ezekiel.

See more of this in chap. 6. §. 6, 7, 8. of Pythagoras's symbolizing with the Jews in Rites.

* 1.4673. Pythagoras required of his Disciples a very great exactnes, and solemnitie in the Worship of God. This is evident by many of his Symbols, and Iamblichus's explication thereof. As Symbol 1. [When you go to the Temple to Worship, neither do, nor say any thing concerning life] i. e. saith Iamblichus, Worship the Deity after such a manner as

is most pure, and immixed. He takes care, that no worldly affairs insinuate into Divine Worship. So Symbol 2. [If a Temple lye in your way, go not in: No, though you pass by the very doors] i. e. saies Iambli∣chus, the Supreme Being ought to have the Principal Worship: but if any Man doth it upon the occasion of any other thing, he makes that the second, which is the first, and chiefest of all; and by that means he subverts the whole order of Worship. The most excellent Good ought not to be ranked in the latter place, as inferior to humane Good. Again Symbol 3. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sacrifice and Worship bare-foot.] i. e. saies Iamblichus, serve the Gods 1. decently, and orderly. 2. Being free from fetters: this is to be observed not in the Bodie only, but in the acts of the Soul also.

Now that this Py∣thagorean exactnes in Divine Worship had its original from the Jewish Church, is observed by Mr. Mede (on Eccles. 5.1. of the reverence of Gods house, pag. 104.) where citing this very Symbol of Pythagoras, [offer Sacrifice and Worship with thy shoes off.] This, saies he, alludes to

the Jewish Custom of Discalceation, which was used by the Jews in going to the Place of Worship, and from them derived to the Gen∣tiles, when they worshipped their Gods.

We might adde to these Pythagoras's seventh Symbol, [Above all things, governe your tongues following the Gods.] i. e. saith Iamblichus, nothing renders the mind so perfect, as when a Man in following the Gods reflects in upon himself by serious Meditation. The whole of which Symbolick Doctrine, touching the Worship of God, seems very correspondent with Scri∣pture Precepts, touching God's Worship; especially Eccles. 5.1.

* 1.468§. 11. Another part of Pythagoras's Theologie consisted in the knowledge, and worship of the Daemons. For the understanding where∣of, we are to remember, that as Augustin (de Civit. Dei, l. 6. c. 5.) hath long since observed, out of Varro, and Seneca; the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was three-fold.* 1.469 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mythick. or fabulous, which was that of the Poets. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Politick, or Civil, which was (as is supposed)

taken up, and imposed by their Law-givers, and Politicians,* 1.470 and so followed by the Priests, and People in their worship. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Natural Theologie, which the Philosophers taught, as that, which suited best with the Light of Nature, and Principles of Reason, in di∣stinction from the two former. For the wiser of the Philosophers, Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. utterly rejected the fabulous Theologie of the Poets: Neither did they generally approve of that Politick Theologie, which States-men had invented, and the Priests with the People embraced, in order to the promoting their Politick Interests. But these Philosophers, by what Oriental Jewish Tradition they had received, together with the Improvements of their own Reason there∣on, found out a more Natural, & Rational kind of Theologie; which was briefly this. They held only one Supreme, Eternal Being, which they called God: This God the Phenicians called Saturn, or Molech, from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 King; but the Grecians generally stiled him Jupiter, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Father Jah, which was one of God's names. Now this supreme God Jah the Father, Saturn, or Molech, was, as they supposed, at such an infinite distance from poor Mortals, and Sinners, as that there could be no approach to Him, or communications of good things from Him, but by some Mediators, or midling Gods. These middle Gods, or Mediators, were no other than their great Heroes, or Persons, who had been greatly famous in their Age for some noble Exploits, or virtuous Acts, and after their Death were by common consent Deify∣ed, or made Gods, and called by some from their office Medioxumi, from the place of their main residence (which was supposed to be in the Stars) Deastri, from their relation to the superior God, the les∣ser Gods, the made Gods; from their knowledge of humane Affairs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Daemons; also from their sovereigntie over Men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Baalim Lords. Who was the first of these Daemons, is not determin'd: some think 'twas Joseph, whom the Egyptians worshipped under the Symbolick names, and Images of Apis, Syrapis, Hermes, &c. Others make Belus a Phenician King, the first of them; whence they were by the Phenicians called Baalim: who ever was the first, it matters not, so long as we have such probable conjectures, yea strong presum∣ptions, that their original Idea, or Exemplar, was conveighed by some imperfect Tradition from the Jewish Messias. This seems evident by that account we find of these Daemons in Plato, who discourseth professedly, and at large concerning them, in his Politicus; but more

particularly in his Symposium, as also de legibus, where 1. Touching their Natures, he terms them to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. made Gods visible Gods: Idols, and Images of the great God, who was Maker of all things. Plato de Legib. 13. 2. Touching their Office, he saies, they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. placed in the middle 'twixt the great God, and man, to be Mediators, or Porters, for the con∣veighing the Sacrifices, and Prayers of men to the Gods; as also for the transmitting guifts, and all good things from God to Men; toge∣ther with an Interpretation of the mind, will, and precepts of God to men: Whence 3^ly, says he, by the mediation of these Daemons there is a communion, and friendship maintained betwixt God, and men, which otherwise could not be: so Plato, Sympos. fol. 202, &c. 4. As to the dignitie of these Daemons, he makes them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Co-rulers with the great God: so Plato, Politicus fol. 251. By all which I think, it plainly appears, that these Daemons had their original from some Scriptural Tradition of the Messias, unto whom Plato's Characters of them seem fully to answer. That Pythagoras held these Daemons, we are informed by Diogenes Laertius, who tells us, that

Next to the supreme God, Pythagoras, and his followers placed Daemons, and Heroe's:

see more of these Daemons in Lud. Vives, in August. Civ. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 14, &c.

* 1.471§. 12. Another piece of the Pythagorean Theologie, is that which treats of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aeones, who were distinct from their Daemons, and much the same with our Scripture Angels, for they looked upon these Aeones, as Divine immortal Powers, amongst whom there were divers degrees; some inferior, some superior, who had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their conjunctions, and Genealogies, &c. These Aeones the Gnosticks (who much imitated the Pythagoreans) transmitted into their mystical Divinitie, applying them to the Angels: of which see more in our account of the corruption of the Pythagorean Philo∣sophie.

* 1.472§. 13. Another part of Pythagoras's Metaphysicks concerned the humane Soul, which (saies Stobeus)

Pythagoras defined a self-moving number: who held also, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was induced into the Soul from with∣out,* 1.473 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. by a Divine efficacie (so Plato understands this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) delibated of the universal mind, whence also she became immortal.

Diogenes Laertius likewise acquaints us, that Pythagoras held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that the Soul was immortal, because

that, whence it was derived, was immortal. And this some give as the genuine import of Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Metempsychosis, which by some was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Laertius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Metempsychosis,* 1.474 or Transmigration of the Soul from one Bodie to another, was also asserted by Plato, and, as it is supposed, taken up both by him and Pythagoras from some broken Tra∣dition they had received from the Jews, touching the Resurrection. This is observed by Serranus in Plato, Repub. lib. 10. Plato, saies he, teacheth us, that the Bodies of the Pious, should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be raised again to life. And the Comment, or Invention of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Transmigration of Souls, was but a corrupt derivation from this Truth of the Resurrection. That the Jews had the like per∣swasion touching the Transmigration of Souls, appears from that of Herod, who thought that John Baptist's Soul revived in Christ. That the Pharisees held this Opinion, is affirmed by Josephus, l. 18. Antiq. c. 2. and 'tis possible the more ancient Jews held the same, and Py∣thagoras from them, though Vossius denies it. That Pythagoras's, and Plato's Metempsychosis, or Transmigration of the humane Soul after death, was by them taken up, to signifie the Souls first infusion into,* 1.475 and thence by death separation from, and at the Resurrection re-union with the Bodie, is asserted by John Reuchlin, Art. Cabal. l. 2.

This is (saies he) the meaning of Pythagoras concerning his Metempsy∣chosis, or Transmigration of Souls after death, and their descension into life. Others thought the Soul educed out of Matter: Pytha∣goras thought it infused by God into the Bodie, and therefore before it, not in time, but in dignitie, and puritie: This infusion he termed the descent of the Soul, &c. or if he meant historically, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Soul separate from the Bodie, may by the power of God be brought the same, into the same bodie; whence he acknowledgeth God only to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the animation of all things. God infuseth the soul into every man, and being infused taketh it away, and being taken away restoreth it, when, and as oft as he pleaseth.

Thus he; some understand this Pythagorean Metempsychosis, Symbolically, with relation to the several passions, dispositions, and morals of men, as hereafter.

§. 14. Lastly, To give a general Idea of Pythagoras's Theologie;* 1.476 we must know, that it was Mystical; much the same with that of Pherecydes his Master; as also with that of Orpheus, from whom he

borrowed much of it: who all affected a mystical mode of Theologi∣zing, partly from their own Ignorance, being unacquainted with the true import, or meaning of those Jewish Traditions, which were ve∣ry imperfectly delivered to them; and partly from an affected Singu∣laritie, they being unwilling that any should be acquainted with their Mysteries, but such as were of their own Tribe, and Sect. This is the meaning of many of Pythagoras's Symbols, whereby he strictly enjoyned his Disciples not to communicate his Mysteries to Strangers, and those without; as before from Grot. Matth. 7.6, &c. That Pythagoras, and his Adherents, were generally sensible of their great Ignorance of Divine Mysteries,* 1.477 appears by several of his Symbols, as that [Look not in a Glasse by Candle-light.] i. e. saies Iamblichu••, Phi∣losophize, pursuing not the fantasies of sense, which gives a kind of light to comprehensions, like a Candle, neither natural, nor true, &c. This an∣swers to Prov. 13.9. Thence another of his Symbols runs thus, [Dis∣course not of Pythagorean things without light.] i. e. (saies Iamblichu••) because it is impossible to understand Pythagorean Doctrines without light. But that which was the foundation of all the Pythagorean mystical Theologie, and a great argument of their sense of Ignorance in Divine things, was their credulous inquisitive humor, which inclined them to receive ev'ry Tradition, though never so broken, or corrupt, touch∣ing Divine things. This is fully expressed by that great Symbol of Pythagoras, viz. [Concerning the Gods dis-believe nothing wonderful, nor yet concerning Divine things]

This (saies Iamblichus) declareth the superlative Excellence of God's instructing us, and puts us in mind, that we ought not to estimate the Divine power by our own Judge∣ment: which Comment of Iamblichus, if applyed to Divine Revela∣tion, is excellent, and excellently useful; the same with what the Scripture universally teacheth us; viz. that concerning God, and Di∣vine things, we should dis-believe nothing though never so wonder∣ful, if we have a Divine word for it.

But the Pythagoreans stretched this excellent Scriptural Rule beyond the line of Divine Revelation, even to the belief of every corrupt Oriental Tradition, as here∣after.

* 1.478§. 15. We should now proceed to the black, and Satanick part of Pythagoras's Metaphysicks, or Supernatural Philosophie, namely his Magick, or Art of Divination: But this we shall refer to Chap. 10. Touching the Vanitie, or corruptions of the Pythagorean Philosophie.

Only in general: that this black Art of Divination, wherein the Py∣thagoreans were greatly versed, had its original from Satanick imitation of God's sacred Oracles, and the various ways of his revealing himself in the Jewish Church, I think will be very evident, when the parallel is drawn betwixt the one, and the other: For as God revealed his Ora∣cles by Dreams, and Visious; so the Devil's were frequently delivered in the same manner. Of which more in its place.

CHAP. IX. Of Pythagoras's Symbols, and their Jewish Original, &c.

Pythagoras's Symbols from the Jews. 1. Give thy right hand to none but Pythagoreans; as Gal. 2.9. Abstain from the dead, Matth. 8.22. Set down Salt, Lev. 2.13. Ethick Symbols Jewish. Py∣thagoras's Metempsychosis Symbolical, from Dan. 4.32, 33. Pythagorean Abstinences from Jewish Symbols. Pythagorean Numbers Symbolical. Pythagoras's Symbols of Divine Worship of Jewish extract; particularly that Worship bare-foot, from Exod. 3.5. Eccles. 5.1. Of Pythagoras's Works, that he left nothing in Writing. The Pythagorean Sect, their ruines. Py∣thagoras's Followers, and their Writings. Pythagorizing Philo∣sophers, ••lato, &c. The pride of the Pythagoreans, and all other Sects.

§.1. HAving finished our Discourse touching the matter of the Py∣thagorean Philosophie, we now proceed to its Forme, or Mode,* 1.479 together with its Traduction from the Jewish Church. Porphyrie, in the Life of Pythagoras, informes us,

that he used a two-fold Forme, or manner of Philosophizing:

the one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was more open, and easie: the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was mystick, and obscure. * 1.480 The choicest parts of Pythagoras's Philosophie, especially his Theologie, was wrapped up, and expressed in a Symbolick Forme, or Mode. Thus Iam∣blichus

in the Life of Pythagoras, l. 1. c. 29.

Pythagoras (saies he) used by short sentences to express various significations to his Disci∣ples, after a Symbolick Mode, as Apollo by short enigmatick Oracles, vaticinated many abstruse things, and Nature by little seeds exhi∣bits difficult effects. the same Iamblichus, lib. 1. cap. 5.

Thus also Clemens Alexandrinus, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. attributes to Pythagoras 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Symbolick Mode of teaching. So Justin Mar∣tyr, in his cohortation to the Greeks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus, who delivered the Dogmes of his Philosophie Mystically by Symbols, as the Historiographers of his Life manifest.

* 1.481§. 2. That Pythagoras traduced this his Symbolick Forme, or Mode of Philosophizing originally from the Scriptures, or Jewish Church is not without good grounds affirmed by the Learned, and will farther appear by inquirie into particulars. We find a rational affirmation hereof in Learned John Reuchlin his Explication of Pythagorick Do∣ctrine, Artis Cabal. lib. 2.

The way of teaching (saies he) by Sym∣bols, and Silence (as other things) Pythagoras brought into Greece, from the Hebrews, with whom it was the custome, that the Disciple being to ask some sublime questions, should hold his peace, and be∣ing questioned should only answer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus the Cabalists an∣swer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Wise said. Moreover all the Pythagorick Phi∣losophie, especially that, which concerns Divine things, is mystically expressed by Enigmes, and Symbols, because 1. The Ancients used to deliver Wisdom by Allegories: all their Philosophers, and Poets are full of Riddles, avoiding by obscuritie contempt.

2. It oft happens that abstruse things are best expressed by such short Enig∣mes.

3. As Generals use watch-words to distinguish their own Soul∣diers, so the Pythagorean Symbols were as distinctive marks of their Societie. 4. They used Symbols also as Memorial notes. For in treating of things Divine, and Humane, the vastness of the subject require•• short Symbols, as conducing much to memorie.

So Stanly of Pythag•• fol. 136. wherein we have a full account of the original of Symbols as also of their proper use, both amongst the Jews, and also the Gre¦cians. As for the Jews it's evident, that God made use of this Forme or Mode of teaching them Heavenly, sublime Mysteries by terren•• Figures, Symbolick Images, Types, or Shadows out of condescentio••

to their Infant State; which manner of teaching continued even to our Saviours time, who delivered the chief of his Doctrine concerning Heavenly Mysteries, under Earthly Parables, and Symbols, thereby to render them more plain and familiar; as he himself signifies, John 3.12. If I have told you Earthly things, &c. The Jewish Types, and Symbols were also as distinctive marks of God's People, and Church,* 1.482 whereby they were distinguished from all the world besides, (so the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Symbol signifies a distinctive mark, or watch-word) which I suppose made Pythagoras the more ready to embrace the like garbe, as that, which was of Divine original, and so most honorable: The great Maxime, on which the Pythagorean, as well as the Jewish Symbols were founded, was this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Things corporeal are imitates (or images) of spirituals. That Pythagoras receiv∣ed this Symbolick mode of Philosophizing originally from the Jewish Church, is farther confirmed by Serranus, who on Plato's Symposium speaks thus:

It was the manner of the Ancient Philosophers to shadow forth the truth by Symbols. These Plato followed, as it ap∣pears by this disputation. And this mode of Philosophizing was ac∣curately framed by the Pythagoreans, the whole of whose Philoso∣phie was couched under the covert of Symbols, and Allegories, &c.

But more particularly Serranus in his Preface to Plato's Works, laies down this general assertion, That it is the opinion of all Learned Chri∣stian Antiquitie, that this Symbolick manner of Philosophizing came ori∣ginally from the Jewish Learning, delivered by Moses, and the Prophets, though whether immediately, or mediately by the Egyptians, is not deter∣mined. Clemens Alexandr. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. enclines to the latter, namely that Pythagoras received his Symbols immediately from the Egyptians, though originally from the Jews. We have the Testimonie of Grotius to the same purpose, on Mat. 7.6. and on Mat. 8.22.

§. 3. The full proof of our assertion touching the Traduction of the Pythagorean Symbols from the Jewish Church,* 1.483 depends upon the con∣sideration of particulars, and their parallel with Jewish Symbols of like import. Pythagoras's Symbols related either to such, as were aliens and strangers to his schole, and Philosophie, or to such, as were within, and Disciples thereof. As for those, who were without, and Forrein∣ers, Pythagoras had many Symbols to express their state, and to pro∣hibite his Disciples conversation with them. For Pythagoras esteemed all that were not of his College as profane, wicked, dogs, &c. whence

that Symbol,* 1.484 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To give the right hand of fellowship to none but Pythagoreans. Which Symbol was plain∣ly of Jewish extract. For amongst the Jews, to give the right hand was an ordinarie Symbol of Friendship, and Communion, as Gal. 2.9. therefore they esteeming the Gentiles as Profane, and Vnclean, would not salute them with the right hand of fellowship, i. e. they would not have Communion or Friendship with them. Hence also it followed, that the Pythagoreans forbad the Revealing of their Misteries to such Profane Dogs; which also was of Jewish extract, as it appears by that Jewish Symbol, cited by St. Mat. 7.6. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] where Grotius observes,

that amongst the Chaldeans, Hebrews, and Egyptians, their ancient Professors of Wisdom, delivered their Pre∣cepts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Symbols, as Clemens Alexand. teacheth us.

Pythagoras brought this mode into Greece, either from Egypt, where

he lived some while, or from Syria, whence his Master Pherecydes was, and as some think Pythagoras himself. For that he was a Tyr∣rhenian many have affirmed: others say, he was a Tyrian.

And in∣deed the Tyrrhenians, as we have said, were originally Tyrians. But

moreover he went to the Jews, as many writers have reported. Thus Grotius.

See more of this Symbol, chap. 6. parag. 8.

* 1.485§. 4. But the most livelie Symbol, which Pythagoras had to ex∣press the Wicked, and Miserable state of profane sinners, was That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To abstein from things Dead, or Mortal. By which Hierocles saies, Pythagoras called off his Disciples from things dead, or mortal. Iamblichus also tells us, that Pythagoras said puritie was ac∣quired by absteining from things that dyed of themselves. This Symbol, we need not doubt, was of a Jewish origination. For we know the Jews in general were forbid to eat the flesh of any creature, that dyed of it self. And particularly the High Priests, and the Nazarites were forbid to come near, or touch a dead bodie, as Num. 6.6. Lev. 20. And the proper import of this divine Symbol seems this; That Sa∣cred, and Holy persons, are not to have Conversation, or Communi∣on with persons, or things spiritually deadly, or dead. That it was common amongst the Jews to look upon wicked men as dead in sin, is evident from what has been observed from Luke 15.24. (chap. 7. §. 13.) Thus also Philo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wicked men are dead in their souls. And that Pythagoras did really traduce his Symbol, of abstein∣ing from the dead, from this Jewish Symbol is positively affirmed by

Grotius on Mat. 8.22. [Let the dead burie the dead.] This also, as other Symbols, Pythagoras drew from the Oriental Philosophie, who was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitator of Jewish opinions, as Hermippus writes of him. For Pythagoras, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, went to the Hebrews, as Malchus (i. e. Porphyrie) writes out of Dioge∣nes. Whence it was the manner, that such who were expelled out of the Pythagorean Schole, had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Coffin made, and placed in their room, which we read was executed on Hipparchus. Arrianus in E∣pictetum 4.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Jewish, and Pythago∣rean Symbol, of absteining from the dead, we find in the Books of Chrysippus thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

§. 5. As Pythagoras had Symbols to represent the Spiritual death of Wicked men, and the Dutie of his Scholars,* 1.486 to separate from them. So likewise to represent the strict, and holy communion which ought to be amongst his Collegues, he made use of this lively Jew∣ish Symbol 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, set down Salt. We have already proved that Pythagoras traduced this Symbol from the Jewish Church, (chap. 6. parag. 6.) where it has been shewn, how Salt was by God's in∣stitution, a Symbol of their Holy Confederation, and Communion with God, and amongst themselves, as Numb. 18.19. 2 Chron. 13.5. &c. And to make this a little more evident, we must know (ac∣cording to L' Empereur of the Jewish Temple) the Jews had their Store-houses of Salt in, or about, the Temple, for the seasoning of their Sacrifices. We find frequent references in the New Testament to to this Symbol, as before; and Luke 14.34. Lev. 2.13. And as in God's Sacrifices there was ever Salt to be used, so the like was usually observed in Heathen Sacrifices, as appears by that of Plinie

The great authoritie of Salt is discovered by the Sacreds of the Ancients, a∣mongst whom there were no Sacreds performed without Salt.

And that Salt was used in those federal Sacrifices, as a Symbol of Friend∣ship appears by that Proverbial saying of Tullie, There must be many Bushels of Salt used before there can be a full friendship completed. To the same purpose is that of the Scholiast on Homer Iliad. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because Salt is a Symbol of friendship. Lastly that this Pythagorean Symbol of Salt implies farther an Holy Confederation, or, according to the scripture Dialect, a Communion of Saints, is manifest by Laertius's interpretation of this Symbol. Pythagoras, saies he, bid

men make use of Salt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as a memoire of righteousnes, for Salt preserves all things. This was the proper signification of this Symbol of Salt in the Jewish Church, unto which Christ alludes in Mark 9.49, 50. Mat. 5.13. and we have suffici∣ent evidence from what has been observed, that Pythagoras traduced this his Symbol from the Jews, and used it in the same sense that they did; namely to express that holy, and strickt confederation, and Friendship, which ought to be amongst his Collegues.

* 1.487§. 6. Pythagoras had some Symbols relating to his Philosophie in general, especially his Theologie, it's mystical nature, and difficultie to be understood, without some Interpreter, or Divine light: Such were those Symbols forementioned. [Discourse not of Pythagorean things without Light.] [Looke not into a Glasse by Candle light.] [Con∣cerning the Gods disbelieve nothing wonderful.] all which, according to the Interpretation of Iamblichus, seems to be of Jewish original, as has been observed (chap. 8. §. 14.) I shall adde only one more, which seems to be the Foundation of all Pythagoras's Symbols, according to Laertius's interpretation, thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To have Tapestrie alwaies bound up, i. e. saies Laertius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a man's speech should not be alwaies spoken out,

so as to have the mean∣ing, and forme of it fully appear, but like Tapestrie when rolled up, the Forme, and Figure of it should be conceled.

This Pythagoras seems to have learnt from the Jews, who rolled up all their myste∣ries under Symbolick Types, and Figures, as before.

* 1.488§. 7· As to the Matter of Pythagoras's Philosophie, he had many Ethick Characters, or Symbols of Moralitie, whereby he excited his Scholars to Virtue, and discouraged them from Vice. Such as these, [Receive not a Swallow, (i. e. a sloathful person) into your house.] [Stir not the Fire with a Sword] i. e. provoke not a wrathful, or potent person. [Eate not the heart.] i. e. by distracting cares. [Passe not over the Bal∣lance.] i. e. do justice. Pythagoras also called Virtue harmonie, which is a symbolick image of its Beautie, Order, Amiablenes, &c. as before chap. 7. §. 13. There were other Ethick Symbols, by which Pythago∣ras allured his Disciples to the embracing of Virtue, as that, [Eate not the Brain.] i. e. saies Iamblichus, destroy not your principal instru∣ment of Wisdom. Agen, [Sleep not at noon.] i. e. (according to Iambli∣chus) Shut not your eies against the light, when it is most manifest▪ Farther, [When it Thunders touch the earth.] i. e. (saies Iamblichus

When a King is angrie humble thy self. Agen, [Pluck not a Crown] i. e. Offend not the King. Lastly Pythagoras said, [Declining high waies, walk in path waies.] i. e. (as Iamblichus will have it) Leave the popular course of life, and pursue that, which is separate, and divine, answerable to that of Christ, Mat. 7.13.14. That all these Pythago∣rean Symbols have their parallel in the Scriptures, and Jewish Do∣ctrine, might with ease be proved.

§. 8. Yea some make the Pythagorean Metempsychosis to be but a Symbolick Image, or Ethick Character. Thus Velcurio in his Physicks,* 1.489 lib. 4. cap. 38.

I would think (saies he) that Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Metempsychosis, and Redintegration of the soul, did belong to the Variable morals, Affections, and Habits of the Soul.

For as a man is variously affected, or moralized, so he acts the part of a Lyon, of a Bear, of a Wolf, &c. according to the varietie of his conditions. Thus is Ovid's Metamorphosis referred to Morals. Yea Plutarch gave this Interpretation of Pythagoras's Metempsychosis, and out of him the French Montaigne Essaies livre 2. chap. 11.

Pythago∣ras emprunta la Metempsychose &c.

That is in English, Pythagoras bor∣rowed his Metempsychosis from the Egyptians, but since it has been re∣ceived by other Nations, and particularly by our Druides. The Reli∣gion

of our ancient Gaules supposed the Soul to be Immortal, and thence, that it never ceased to move from one bodie to another. If it had been Valiant, it moved to the bodie of a Lyon: if it had been Voluptuous, it then creeped into that of a Swine: if Timerous, into that of an Hart, &c. And the Interpretation, which Plutarch gives to this Errour, is very apposite: for he saies, that it was not the Cat, or the Oxe (for example) that the Egyptians adored, but some images of Divine powers which they conceived to lodge in these beasts, as in the Oxe they adored Divine patience, and Ʋsefulness, as in the Cat vivacitie, &c.

Thus Flutarch, and Montaigne. That the Egyptians were the first, that taught this Doctrine of Metempsychosis, is affirmed by Herodotus in Enterpe. Where he addes,

That the Greeks (mean∣ing the Pythagoreans) first received it from Egypt, though they de∣livered it as their own dogme:

So Vossius de Philos. sect. lib. 2. cap. 6. §. 3. That Pythagoras took up this Metempsychosis only as an Ethick Symbol, is the judgment of John Reuchlin Artis Cabalist. lib. 2. where

he tells us, That Pythagoras in affirming that the Soul of a Time∣rous person went into a woman, and of a Cruel man into a Lyon, and

of a Libidinous man into a Sow, and of a Vaine, Light person, into a Bird, as of a Sloathful person into a Fish,, from their resemblance in manners; he did not speak thus, as if he thought so, but only to affrighten the vulgar sort, by such kind of Fables, from Vice, as we were wont to affright Children by Bugbears.

That the Egyptians (from whom Pythagoras is said to have received this Symbol) under∣stood their Metempsychosis in a Symbolick, Hieroglyphick sense, seems very probable: and that they traduced it originally from the Jewish Church, appears as likely. For that the Pharisees asserted this Metempsychosis, is affirmed by Josephus de Bello Jud. lib. 2. cap, 8. And we may presume the Jews before them held the same. Yea some, and that not without probable conjectures, make the whole storie of Nebu∣chadnezzar's being Transformed into a Peast, &c. Dan. 4.32, 33. to be Symbolical of his Brutish life, separate from humane societie. For that he was not really transformed into a Beast, is most likely. And hence it is supposed, this Egyptian Pythagorean Metempsychosis had its original, even from Nebuchadnezzar's Symbolical Transformation into a Beast: and that which gives this conjecture the more likely∣hood;* 1.490 is that this Transformation of Nebuchadnezzar into a Brutish condition was but just before, if not at the very same time, that Py∣thagoras lived at Babylon. For whether it were in Ezechiel's time, as Selden, or in Daniel's time, as Wendelin (of Pythagoras's Tetractie) that Pythagoras was in Babylon, yet it could not be long after this Metamor∣phosis, or, as we may truely stile it, Metempsychosis of Nebuchadnez∣zars. Neither can we imagine that Pythagoras, who was so curious an Inquisitor into all the works of Divine Providence, should let passe this stupendious, and amazing Providence of God on Nebuchadnez∣zar (which made all the Empire ring of it) without observation. Why therefore may we not conclude, that both Pythagoras, and the Egypti∣ans derived their Symbolical Metempsychosis from this Metempsycho∣sis, or Transmigration of Nebuchadnezzar into the Symbolick Forme of a Beast. Or, if we had rather, we may suppose Pythagoras's Me∣tempsychosis to be a Symbolick image of the Souls Divine Original, and Infusion into the bodie by God, as also of it's Separation by death, Reunion at the Resurrection,* 1.491 and immortal estate: so Plato, Serr••¦nus, and Reuchlin seem to encline, as before, chap. 8. parag. 13.

§. 9. We have also good conjectures to perswade us, that Pythagoras's precepts touching Abstinence from Flesh were muchly Symbolical,

and that his followers did not abstein from all kinds, or all parts of Flesh, but only from such as were of Sacred use, or of Symbolical sig∣nification, answerable to the Jewish Abstinences. For first, That Py∣thagoras himself absteined not wholly from Flesh, we have for it the Testimonie of Aristoxenus the Musician, Disciple of Aristotle, quoted by Gellius lib. 4. cap. 11.

That Pythagoras (saies he) did eat of young Pigges, and tender Goates is affirmed by Aristoxenus, which he seems to have learnt from Xenophilus the Pythagorean, his familiar, and from some others more ancient, who lived not much distant from Pythagoras. And that Pythagoras ate of Animals, Alexis the Poet teacheth in the Comedie of Pythagoras's Life.

Thus Gellius, who, in what followes, relates, that Aristotle affirmes, the Pythagoreans abstein∣ed not from all Flesh, but only from some parts, namely the Heart, Brain, &c. which were of Symbolick use. And Porphyrie in his first Book of Abstinence from Animals, saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

They say, that the Pythagoreans themselves absteined not from all Flesh, when they sacrificed.

So Athenaeus lib. 7. saies, That the Pythagoreans eat but mo∣derately of some flesh, and some they sacrifice, but of Fishes they taste not, &c. and he gives a Symbolick reason why they eat not of Fishes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For silence, which they e∣steem as Divine. Diogenes Laertius gives the like Symbolick account of their absteining from Fishes. And we need not doubt, but that the main of their Symbolick Abstinences from Flesh, and Fish, had it's original from the Jewish Symbolick Abstinences from things un∣clean, &c. Though we may not denie, but that Pythagoras, and his Followers were very abstemious as to Flesh, upon a Medicinal, and Natural account, thereby to keep their mind, & bodie, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a good Habitude, and disposition of Health, as before.

§. 10.* 1.492 The like Symbolick account some give of Pythagoras's pre∣cept for Abstinence from Beans; the which we find mentioned in Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in this verse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is an equal crime to eat a Bean, as to eat the heads of Parents. This Lucian brings in Pythagoras asserting in Hell, and Chrysostome in his 1. Homil. on the Gospel of St. John, attributes the same to Pythagoras. Gellius, lib. 4. chap. 11. cites a Verse, which is supposed to be one of Empedocles's (who was a Pythagorean, and Auditor of Pythagoras) to the same purpose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.493 O ye miserable wretches touch not Beanes with your hand. Yet some think this Pythagorean prohibition against eating Beans, ought to be understood Symbollically, and Enigmatically only; in as much, as some of great authoritie affirme, that Pythagoras himself absteined not from Beans. Thus Aristoxenus the Musician in his Book of Pythagoras, as Gellius lib. 4. cap. 11. and Voss. de Philos. l. 2. c. 6. §. 39. Others by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 understand the Testicles, and so by Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, conceive the illicite use of Venerie to be forbid; as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 12. 'Tis possible it was both Physical, and Symbolical, as the former of these.

* 1.494§. 11. As Pythagoras had many Ethick Symbols to express his moral Precepts by; so also his Theologick Mysteries were in a more parti∣cular manner couched under, and expressed by Enigmatick, Symbolick Images, especially by Numbers, and Figures, which, as he conceited, had an Analogie, and consent with all things: Whence he expressed Apollo by Unitie, Diana by the number Two, Minerva by the number Seven; and Plato in his Timaeus seems to imitate him. That Pythago∣ras expressed God by Unitie, appears by that of Laertius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Unitie is the Principle of all things. Whence the Pythagoreans accounted the number of Two accursed, because it was the first departure from Unitie. And the reason why Pythagoras expres∣sed God by Unitie, is given us by Reuchlin (Art. Cabal. lib. 2.) thus,

The Divine mind, the receptacle of Principles, Pythagoras Symbol∣lically calls Number, saying, Number is the principle of all things. So Plutarch, de Philosoph. Placit. By Number Pythagoras understands the mind; a very proper Symbol: for in Incorporeals nothing more Divine, than the mind; in Abstractions, number is most simple: thus he.

All this was couched under that great Pythagorean Maxime, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one and many; of which before.

* 1.495§. 12. The Symbols, whereby Pythagoras expressed that Spiritual Divine Worship due to God, were such as these [Grave not the Image of God in a Ring] i. e. worship not graven Images. Agen, [When you go to the Temple-worship, neither do, nor say any thing concerning this life.] i. e. let not the world mix with your hearts, &c. of which see Chap. 8. §. 10. And more particularly that great Pythagorean Symbol, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [Sacrifice, and Worship bare-foot] which was but an imitation of the Jewish Custom of Discalceation, when they went to worship; as Mede on Eccles. 5.1. or else 'tis possible Pythagoras

might derive this Symbol immediately from God's command to Mo∣ses Exod. 3.5. Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, &c. For Pythagoras (as we have before observed, Chap. 5. §. 8.) having acquired the Egyptian, and as we may presume the Chaldean Languages, was thereby enabled not only to converse with the Jews, but also to read the sacred Scri∣ptures in their Original, the Egyptian, and Chaldean Tongues dif∣fering only in some Dialect from the Hebrew. And this may serve us as a Key to this whole Discourse touching Pythagoras's traduction of his Philosophie, both Matter, and Forme from the Scriptures, and Jewish Church: Namely, his skill in the Oriental Languages, especially the Egyptian, and Chaldee, which gave him an huge advantage for his more thorough searching into the Sacred Oracles, and Jewish Doctrines.

§. 13. Having discoursed of Pythagoras's Philosophie,* 1.496 both as to Matter, and Forme, its traduction from the Jewish Church: before we shut up this Chapter, we shall a little touch on his Works, and Disciples, which gave foundation to most of the following Sects, and their Philosophie. Touching Pythagoras's Works, it is a great contro∣versie amongst the Learned, whether Pythagoras left any thing in Wri∣ting. Laertius makes mention of three Pieces of Pythagoras: his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Heraclides in Sotion's Epitome, attri∣butes more to Pythagoras, as Laertius affirmes, who also upbraids those, as Fools, who think that Pythagoras left no Works behinde him, whom he confutes out of Heraclitus the Physiologist, who quotes some things out of Pythagoras's Works. Yet Augustin (lib. 1. De Consensu Evangelist. cap. 7.) denies that Pythagoras left any Writing behinde him. Cedrenus makes mention of an Historie compiled by Pythagoras, touch∣ing the War betwixt Cyrus, and the Samians his Country-men, but this is rejected by Vossius, de Histor. Graec. l. 4. As for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Golden Verses which passe under Pythagoras's name, Laertius assures us, that they were not made by him, but by Lysis the Pythagorean. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. As for the Golden Verses which passe under the name of Pythagoras, they are Lysis's a Pythagorean of Tarantum. This also is affirmed by others. We have an excellent Comment on these Golden Verses of Lysis, by Hierocles, who though a Stoick, yet exactly expresseth the minde of the Pythagoreans. That Pythagoras indeed left nothing in Writing behinde him, is also asserted by Lucian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Divine Pythagoras

vouchsafed not to leave behinde him any part of his Doctrine in Writing. So Josephus, lib. 2. Ant. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There is no Writing of Pythagoras owned; of which see Vossius, de Histor. Graec. lib. 4. pag. 435. As for Pythagoras's Symbols, which contained the choicest part of his Philosophie, there have been Collections, with Interpretations made of them by many; particularly by Laertius in his Life; by Iamblichus; by Plutarch; and amongst Modern Writers, by Erasmus in the beginning of his Chiliads; especially by Lilius Gy∣raldus, who has written an accurate Treatise of Pythagoras's Symbols. Touching Pythagoras's Philosophie, Eusebius on Hierocles tells us, that Philolaus had committed his chiefest Dogmes to Writing. 'Tis said also, that Aristotle, Androcydes, Antiphanes, Alexander, Didymus, and Me∣deratus Gaditanus, writ professedly of Pythagoras's Philosophie: but the most that we have now extant of it, is in the Historiographers of Pythagoras's Life, Diogenes Laertius, Porphyrie, and Iamblichus, be∣sides what is mentioned by Cicero, and Plutarch. That Aristotle writ a Book, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; as also another, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is affirmed by Laertius. Porphyrie, in the Life of Plotinus, tells us, that Plotinus did more clearly explicate the Principles of the Pythagorick Philoso∣phie, as well as of the Platonick. Of which see more, Vossius de Philos. l. 2. c. 6. §. 12, 44.

* 1.497§. 14. As for Pythagoras's Schole, and Disciples, there succeeded him, Theano his Wife, and Telauges with Menaxarchus, his Sons, as Euseb. lib. 10. praepar. cap. 3. There flourished of his Disciples, Ocellus, Architas, Philolaus, Parmenides. Ocellus was the glorie of Italie: whose Book, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, full of ancient mysterious erudition, is yet extant: out of which Aristotle borrowed not a little. Architas the Tarentine was also one of the most ancient Philosophers of Italie. 'Twas he, who by Mechanick Art, made the volatile or slying wooden Dove, as Gellius, lib. 10. cap. 12. Parmenides is said to spend 18 whole years in a Rock, feeding his minde with Logick Contempla∣tions. As for Philolaus, of what great repute he was, is evident by the esteem Plato had of him, who purchased his Books at 10000 De∣naries; as Gellius, lib. 10. c. 17. Diogenes saith, that his College continued for nineteen Generations. Yet Moderatus Gaditanus saith,

that the Pythagorick Sect was extinguished for the obscuritie of their Philosophie.

Justin. lib. 20. tells us,

that 300 Pythagoreans being under a strict Confederation, and Separate Life, were accused of a se∣cret

Conjuration against the Citie, and thence, when they were met in their College, 60 of them were destroyed, and the rest banished.

Porphyrie, and Iamblichus mention the same, & say, that there sled only two, Archippus, and Lysis the Preceptor of Epaminondas. And Iam∣blichus addes,

that when the Innocencie of the Pythagoreans appeared to others of the Citie, they stoned those who destroyed the Pytha∣goreans.

We find both these reasons joyned together by Carion, in his Chronicon, l. 2.

The Italick Philosophie, saies he, being ob∣scure, and full of Enigmes, and the Pythagoreans having their private Meetings, and peculiar Rites, they were destroyed upon suspicion of the Tyrants, &c.

§. 15. Although Pythagoras left nothing in Writing behinde him,* 1.498 yet what his Philosophie was, may be gathered by those of his Sect, who followed, of whom we have many things extant. As Hippoda∣mus the Thurian his Tract of Felicitie. Euryphamus of Life. Hippar∣chus of the minde's Tranquilitie. Archytas of a good Man, and of the Doctrine of Moralitie. Theagis of Virtues. Clinias of the causes of Vir∣tue. Crito of Prudence, and Felicitie: with Polus of Justice. Besides, we have Lysis's Golden Verses, who slying to Thebes, was Preceptor to Epaminondas the most famous of his Age. We must reckon also a∣mongst the Pythagoreans, Epicarmus, otherwise Cous, who for his re∣pute amongst the Philosophers, was esteemed as the Sun amongst the Stars. He writ of Being, of Ideas, and of the nature of Things. Also Timaeus the Locrian was a Pythagorean, who writ a Book of the Uni∣verse, of Ideas, &c. as Lud. Viv. in Aug. l. 8. cap. 11. We may adde to these the two great Law-givers, Zaleuchus who gave Laws to the Locrians; and Charondas to the Thurians: both Pythagoreans. Lastly, Sextus the Pythagorick Philosopher, who writ an Enchiridion of Sen∣tences, which Ruffinus translated into Latin.

§. 16. There were other Philosophers, who did very much Pytha∣gorize, although they were not altogether Pythagoreans.* 1.499 Of this num∣ber was Parmenides of the Eleatick Sect, who did Pythagorize in the Doctrine of Ideas, for which he was so eminent, though some make Parmenides a more complete Pythagorean, as before §. 14. Also Empeo¦docles the Agrigentine Disciple of Pythagoras, and Parmenides wh•• Symbolized with Pythagoras in the Doctrine of the Metempsychosis, the prohibition of Beans, &c. and is by Laertius supposed to be the first Inventor of Rhetorick. But amongst the differing Sects, there

was none that did Pythagorize more then Plato, especially in Divine matters, as Aristotle, and Laertius have observed. Yea the choicest of his Metaphysick Contemplations seem to be traduced from Pythagoras, and his Followers; besides what he brought out of Egypt. Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. his Ideas, his Discourse of the Universe, his Metempsy∣chosis, and Daemons, were all asserted by the Pythagoreans. Yea many of the Hellenistick Jews did greatly Pythagorize, as Philo Judaeus the Alexandrine, who (saith Euseb. Hist. l. 2. c. 4.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, greatly burning with love of Platonick, and Pythagorick Philosophie, &c.

* 1.500§, 17. Lastly, Albeit the Pythagoreans were thus famous for Judaick mysterious Wisdom, and many Moral, as well as Natural Accomplish∣ments, yet were they not exempted from Boasting, and Pride, which was indeed a Vice most Epidemick, and as it were Congenial among all the Philosophers; but in a more particular manner among the Py∣thagoreans: so Hornius, Hist. Philos. l. 3. c. 11.

The manners of the Pythagoreans were not free from boasting: They were all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as abounded in the sense and commendation of their own Ex∣cellences, and boasting even almost to the degree of immodestie, and impudence, as great Heinsius ad Horat. has rightly observed.

Thus indeed does proud Nature delight to walk in the sparks of its own fire. And although many of these old Philosophers, could, by the strength of their own Lights, and Heats, together with some common eleva∣tions, and raisures of Spirit (peradventure from a more than ordinarie, though not special, and saving assistance of the Spirit) abandon many grosser Vices; yet were they all deeply immersed in that miserable cursed Abysse of Spiritual pride; so that all their Natural, Moral, and Philosophick Attainments, did feed, nourish, strengthen, and render more inveterate this hell-bred pest of their Hearts: Yea, those of them that seemed most modest, as the Academicks, who professed they knew nothing; and the Cynicks who greatly decried, both in words, and habits, the pride of others, yet even these abounded with notorious, and visible pride. So connatural, and morally essential to corrupt Na∣ture is this envenomed root, fountain, and plague of Spiritual pride, especially where there is any Natural, Moral, or Philosophick Excel∣lence to feed the same: whence Austin rightly judged all these Philo∣sophick Virtues to be but splendid Sins.

CHAP. X. Of the Elatick Philosophie, &c.

Of the Eleatick Sect, and its first Institutor Xenophanes. Of Parme∣nides, and Zeno the first Inventor of Logick. Leucippus his Dogmes of Atomes, and Democritus's emproving the same. Democritus's skill in Physicks, Medicine, Ethicks, Mathema∣ticks, and all the Liberal Sciences, with Mechanick Arts. His Travels, and Conversation with Egyptians, Chaldees, Jews, &c. Of the Heraclitians, Epicureans, and Scepticks.

§. 1. THe Pythagorick Sect, termed Italick, included under it the Eleatick, the Heraclitian, the Epicurean, and the Sceptick. The Eleatick Sect had for its first Founder Xenophanes the Colophonian;* 1.501 but its denomination, and name, it had from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Elea, or Velia, a Town of the Lucans in Magna Graecia, of which Parmenides, Zeno, and Leucippus were; who being eminent persons of this Sect, from them the Sect it self was termed Eleatick. Thus Cicero, lib. 4. Acad. Qu••st.

I find that Xenophanes was the Prince of this Noble Disci∣pline: him Parmenides, and Zeno followed; from them this Sect was termed Eleatick, &c.

§. 2. Xenophanes lived about the time of Hieron King of Sicily,* 1.502 and of Epicharmus the Poet; namely, about the LX Olympiad. Some affirme, that he had no Praeceptor; others say, he heard Boto the Athe∣nian, or Archelaus the Master of Socrates: or as others, Parmeniscus, and Orestades, Pythagoreans. He approved not fully of the Ionick, or Italick Sect, but delivered many Dogmes contrary both to Thales, and Pythagoras: Yet his Disciples Parmenides, and Zeno, did in many things Pythagorize, and the whole Sect is reckoned but a Branch of the Italick, or Pythagorick Sect. Xenophanes writ his Philosophie in Verse; yet was he a professed Enemie to the Mythologick Philosophie of the Poets. For he writ against Homer, and Hesiod, and derided them for uttering such Fables of the Gods. He held, First, all things to be incomprehensible, wherein he agreed with the Scepticks. Secondly, That God is one, Incorporeal, Eternal Being, having nothing common

with Men, yet all-seeing, all-hearing, all-wise, &c. Thirdly, He held also the Soul to be of a Spiritual Nature. Fourthly, That the Sun consists of a collection of little Fires, &c. see more of his Dogmes in Sextus the Philosopher, and Athenaeus.

* 1.503§. 3. Parmenides was the Disciple of Xenophanes, who yet differed from his Master in some things; and in many things Pythagorized. For he held only two Elements, Fire, and Earth, whereof the former he made to be the Active, the latter the Passive, or Material principle of all things. By the Fire Vossius supposes he meant the Sun, and Stars, which have an Active Influence on all Generations, wherein he symbolized with the Pythagoreans, who held Fire to be the active, pro∣ductive cause of all things; and that the Sun and Stars were of a Fierie Nature, as before, chap. 7. §. 10. Parmenides asserted also, that the first Principle of all things is One, and that this One is im∣moveable, and that this One is all: which assertion was the foundation of all his Dogmes concerning Ideas, for which he was so famous: the summe whereof was this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that all is one, and many: which Principles, and Opinions were evidently Pythagorean, and ori∣ginally Scriptural; as before, chap. 8. §. 7. That Parmenides by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one, meant God, is affirmed by Simplicius, and others, as Lud. Viv. in Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 11. His Philosophie was delivered in Verse, yet not Mythick, &c.

* 1.504§. 4. Zeno the Eleatick was Disciple of Parmenides, but originally of Tarsis, or according to others of Sidon, as Suidas: whence we may presume, he could not but have some Traditions or Notices of the Jewish Mysteries.* 1.505 This Zeno is said to be the first that Invented Lo∣gick: So Aristotle in Sophista, and Laertius in Zeno the Eleatick; so Galen, or Aëtius in his Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Zeno the Eleatick is reported to be the first Author of Contentions, or Dialectick Philosophie:

Yet others make Euclid the Megarick, (Scholar to Socrates, and first In∣stitutor of the Megarick Sect) to be the Author of Eristick, or Dia∣lectick Philosophie: But the Reconcilement is easie. For although Parmenides, and his Scholar Zeno the Eleatick, were the first who brought up Dialectick, or Logick Disputations; yet Euclid, who (as Diogenes reports) was much versed in Parmenides's Books, might much improve the same, and commend it to those of his Sect: so Voss. de Phil. l. 2. c. 11. Parag. 3.

§. 5. Next follows Leucippus Disciple of Zeno the Eleatick,* 1.506 whom some make to be an Eleatick, others a Milesian, others an Abderite. He is said to be the first amongst the Grecians, that asserted Atomes to be the first principles of all things. So Laertius in Leucippus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Leucippus first laid down Atomes as the Principles, &c. where Laertius more fully explains this Doctrine. Thus also Galen, or Aëtius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having spoken of Zeno the Eleatick, addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of this man Leucippus the Abderite being hearer, first conceived the Invention of Atomes. Clemens Alexandri∣nus calls him a Milesian, and saies, that he placed, as first Principles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiphanes, saies he, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. La∣ctantius lib. 3. Institut. makes him

the first that dreamt of Atomes, from whom Democritus received them, as Epicurus from him.

Yet Ari∣stotle, lib. 1. de Generat. saies, that Empedocles (Disciple of Pythagoras, and Parmenides) held the same Opinion of Atomes. The same is af∣firmed by Plutarch. de Placit. Phil. l. 1. c. 24. Laertius also tells us, that Anaxagoras asserted the same. And 'tis probable that Pythagoras, and Parmenides (Empedocles's Preceptors) held Atomes to be the first Principles: which Dogmes they received (as we may presume) from Mochus the great Phenician Phisiologist, who was the first among the Pagan Philosophers, that asserted this Doctrine of Atomes, which he received by Tradition from Moses's storie of the Creation, as before, Book 1. chap. 3. parag. 18.

§. 6.* 1.507 Democritus the Abderite (as to Physicks) Disciple of Len∣cippus, followed him in this Doctrine of Atomes: for he held, there was an infinitie of Atomes scattered up, and down the Vacuum (which the Phenicians called Chaos) which being coagmentated, or sement∣ed together, were the material Principle of all Bodies, yea of the hu∣mane Soul; and that all Motion was caused by these Atomes: to which he ascribed three Properties. First, Magnitude, though the least, yet some. Secondly, Figure, which was various, and infinite. Thirdly, Pondus, or impetus, which caused their swift Motion, Lud. Vives in August. Civit. l. 11. c. 5. gives this account of these Dogmes. Demo∣critus, saies he, affirmed,

that the first Principles of Nature were lit∣tle Bodies flying up, and down through the immense Vacuum, which had Figure, and Magnitude, yet were indivisible; wherefore he cal∣led them Atomes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epicurus followed him, who added to

them Pondus, weight (or impetus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Thus these small individuous Bodies, being endowed with various Figures, or Formes, Magnitudes, & Pondus's extreamly divers, as also by a fortuitous agitation tossed up & down through the immense Vacuum, were by various chances mix'd together, and coagmentated into infinite Worlds, produced, increased, and destroyed, without any certain Cause, or Counsel.

Thus Lud. Vives. Of which more hereafter in Epicurus.

* 1.508§. 7. Democritus writ also, according to Suidas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the greater World its Government, &c. (but this Piece Theophrastus ascribes to Leucippus) Likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Tract of the nature of the World. Laertius addes, amongst the genuine Works of Democritus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his little Government of the World. He had an excellent skill in the Experimental part of Natural Philoso∣phie. Plin. lib. 21. c. 11. saies, he left behind him many things of Plants. Petronius Arbiter, saies of him, That he drew forth the Juices of all Herbs; neither was the virtue of Stones hid from him. That he was an excellent Anatomist, appears by Hippocrates's Character of him, who being sent for by Democritus's Friends to cure him of a Frenetick Di∣stemper, which they fancied him, by reason of his continual Smiling, to labor under: Hippocrates found him busied in the Anatomizing of Animals, and skilful therein, so that ever after they contracted an in∣timate Friendship, and correspondence by Letters. Democritus was exactly skilled in Medicine also, wherein he writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an order for Diet, and Cures. For which skill Democritus is greatly extolled by Celsus, lib. 2. cap. 5. what his opinions were see Laertius, Sextus Empericus, but principally Stobaeus in his Physicks.

§. 8. Democritus was in like manner skilled in Ethicks; wherein he made the end of humane life to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tranquillitie, which he called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good, perpetual state of things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, See Hesychius, and Suidas in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yea Democri∣tus seems to be well skilled in the whole Encyclopaedia, or bodie of Phi∣losophie. Laertius saies, he was accounted in Philosophie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as having joyned together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Physicks, Ethicks, Mathematicks, the Circle of the Liberal Sciences, & all Mechanicks. He was a great Traveller in the Oriental parts; He went to Babylon, and there conversed with the Chaldeans (and as it's likely, also with the Jews, who were called Chal∣deans) as Aelian. Ʋar. Hist. lib. 4. c. 20. from whom he learned The∣ologie,

and Astrologie. He is said to have written a book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the sacred letters in Babylon (perhaps from Jewish traditions) and another called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Laertius. He was also in Egypt, whence he had his Geometrie, and as we may sup∣pose, many Jewish traditions also, especially concerning Solomon's ex∣perimental Philosophie, wherein Democritus excelled. He flourished about the LXXV. Olympiad; and was contemporarie with Socrates.

§. 9. There were other branches of the Italick, or Pythagorick Sect; as the Heraclitian instituted by Heraclitus an Ephesian,* 1.509 a per∣son of a great spirit, who flourished about the 69 Olympiad, and was famous for his skill in Natural Philosophie, from whom Plato is said to have derived his Physicks. He in some things Pythagorized, espe∣cially in that great Pythagorean Principle, That Fire is the Principle of all things. They reckon also as branches of the Pythagorick Sect, the Epicurean,* 1.510 which sprang immediately from the Eleatick: and so o∣riginally from the Italick: as likewise the Sceptick,* 1.511 which had its foundation in the Eleatick Schole from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the contentious dialectick disputations of Parmenides, and Zeno, which were taken up, in the old Academie, instituted by Plato, and called therein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Probationarie, or Problematick Disputations; wherein the Matter being only things dubious, they disputed pro, and con. as they listed. Which way of dubious Disputation, was so well improved in the New Academies, and by Pyrrho, and his followers, as that they came to denie that any thing was certain, or knowable; whence they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But of these in their places.

BOOK III. Wherein more breifly of Socratick, more largly of Platonick Philosophie.

CHAP. I. Of Socratick Philosophie, its Original, &c.

Socrates brought in Moral Philosophie, and why: His Metaphysicks from the Scriptures, viz. That Ʋirtue and Knowledge of God comes by Divine infusion: His Daemon, &c. Socrates's Philosophie how far Contemplative: All true Philosophie Active: His Moralitie, par∣ticularly his endeavours to strip men of vain conceits touching their own knowledge, & to reduce them to the Knowledge of themselves. The Forme of Socrates's Philosophie was partly Rhetorical by Ironie, partly Dialectical, by Introduction, and Interrogation, according to the Jewish mode of Disputing, Mark. 8.11. Luk. 11.53. Socrates's Death, and Character: the many Sects, that sprang from his Schole, and their differences about the chiefest Good, &c.

§. 1. HAving discoursed at large of the Italick Philosophie founded by Pythagoras, and its ••raduction from the Divine Oracles: We now return to the Ionick, and its Advances under Socrates, and by his Scholars, Plato, &c. We have afore in the Storie of Thales, shewn how he, who was the Foun∣der of the Ionick Sect, traduced the Choicest parts of his Phi∣losophie from the Jewish Church. We are now to demonstrate, what emprovment the Ionick Philosophie received from the said Jew∣ish Philosophie, and Sacred Oracles. The Ionick Schole (as we be∣fore

hinted) was Transplanted from Ionia in Asia,* 1.512 unto Athens by A∣naxagoras. as Vossius will have it; or by his Successor Archelaus, as Ludovicus Vives. Socrates was Scholar to both: First to Anaxagoras, and after his departure from Athens to Archelaus, who was called the Physiologist, or Naturalist, because he (as all his Predecessors of the Ionick Schole) wholly addicted himself to Natural Philoso∣phie.

* 1.513§. 2. But Socrates, being disgusted at the vain Ph••losophizings of these proud daring Naturalists, considers how he might reduce Philo∣sophie to a more Practical usage. For observing what small advantage Contemplative Philosophie brought to Human Life, he reduced her to a more Active Science; and so pared off in every Science what he conceived lesse useful,,* 1.514 valuing Speculation no farther, than it con∣duced to Action. Thus Cicero Acad. Quaest. 1.

Socrates (saies he) seems to me, as it is manifest to all, to be the First, that called off Philosophie from occult things, and such as were involved, in Na∣ture, in which all the foregoing Philosophers were Versed, and to reduce her to common Life, that so men might enquire about Virtue, and Vice, and altogether of things Good, and Evil. As for Celestial bodies, he judged them altogether above the knowledge of Nature, or if they might be never so well known, yet did they no way con∣duce to our well living.

Thus Cicero. We find the like account in August. Civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 3. Of Socrates's Philosophie.

Socra∣tes (saies he) therefore was the first, who is mentioned to have turn∣ed the whole of Philosophie, for the correcting, and composing of manners: whereas before him all employed their chiefest endeavours in Physicks, i. e. in natural Enquiries.

Thus we see, that Socrates was the first, who rejecting Astronomical, and Physick Contemplations, brought in Moral Philosophie into the Scholes: whence he is said to call down Philosophie from Heaven to Earth.

* 1.515§. 3. August. also (de Civ. l. 8. c. 3.) enquires into the reasons, which might enduce Socrates to reject the Speculative Disquisitions, which were then most in vogue, and to turne his Philosophizing whol∣ly to Moralitie. And he concludes that 'tis not clear, whether it pro∣ceeded

from an irksome sense he had of the obscuritie, and uncertain∣tie, which attended such Natural Philosophizings: or (as some more favourably judge) whether it were, that he judged men not fit to meddle with such sublime Mysteries, before they had gotten minds

purified, and clarified from terrene affections, &c.

So Lactant. lib. 3.

I grant (saies he) that Socrates was a little more discreet than the rest, who fancyed, they could comprehend the Nature of things by their Ingenie, wherein I conceive them to be not only foolish, but impious, in that they dare thurst in their curious eyes into the secrets of that Celestial Providence: yea I count them much more wicked, who seek to prophane the secrets of the World, and this Heavenly Temple, by their impious disputes, than he that would endeavour to enter into the Temple of Vesta, or Ceres, &c.

Put the genuine account seems this; that Socrates having enquired into all kinds of Philosophie then in vogue, he found little of certaintie, and lesse of usefulnes therein; whereupon he made it his designe to reduce spe∣culation to practice, &c. The like inducement drew Padre Paul that Venetian Reformer to quit speculative Philosophie, and turne to Mora∣litie, as it's well observed by the Author of his Life (English, pag. 69.)

About that time (saies he) Father Paul changed the qualitie of his studies (excepting Ecclesiastical, and Prophane Stories) to the studie of Moral Philosophie. Peradventure that which is written of So∣crates is no singular, or voluntarie Act, but is, as it were natural to all those understandings, which have any thing of transendent, who, after they have made a discoverie of what they can arrive to upon U∣niversalities, transport themselves totally to Moralitie; which studie (as to inferior things) is the only speculation of Humanitie. This a∣riseth either from a desire more intense to better it self, or from some incomprehensibilitie, or from a solid judgment of the vanitie of Sci∣ences, &c.

§. 4. Though Socrates addicted himself chiefly to Moralitie, yet was he not without skill in other parts of Philosophie, and Learning.* 1.516 Plato in his Epistles Attributes some parts of Natural Philosophie to Socrates. Xenephon his Scholar (as also Cicero) affirms,

that he was excellent in all kind of Learning, as well in Wisdom, Acutenes,* 1.517 Po∣litenes, and Subtiltie; as in ••loquence, Varietie, and Copiousnes: to whatsoever piece of Learning he addicted himself; he was with∣out exception Prince of all.

So much also is expressed in that an∣swer, which the Oracle made to him, who enquired who was the wisest m••n? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Of all men Socrates is the wisest, said the Oracle. He made man the entire subject of his

Philosophie. For, according to the twofold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or regard of man, 1. To Divine Contemplation, or, 2. To Human Conversation, he di∣vided his Philosophie into Metaphysick or Contemplative, and Mo∣ral or Active.* 1.518 1. As to his Metaphysicks, or Divine Contempla∣tions, he took it for granted, whilest man was subject to, and under the impression of corporeal Images, sensible Formes, and terrene Affe∣ctions, he was not rightly disposed for Divine Contemplation, which required a mind defecated, and separated from corporeal Phantasmes, and Passions. This some give as the reason, why in his Philosophick Institutes he so much addicted himself to moralitie; because he found his Scholars not capable of those more sublime Metaphysick Contem∣plations, therefore he endeavoured to prepare them for the same by Moral Institutes. This he made the chief subject of his last Philoso∣phick Lecture to his Scholars, after he had taken his Poyson, immedi∣ately before his Death, as we find it related at large by Plato in his Phaedo; where he gives us Socrates's Dying Philosophizings

touching the souls immortalitie, and separate state; and particularly, that none could rightly Philosophize of these Divine Mysteries, but such as had their souls stripped of, & abstracted from all Corporeal ima∣ges, impresses, and affections: for 'till the soul was loose from the prison of the bodie it could not be free for the Contemplation of God &c. Whence he defines Philosophie a mediation of death i. e. of the separation of the soul and bodie, in which state the soul being purged from those corporeal dregs, by which it was contaminated, whilest confined to the bodie, it is rendred capable of contempla∣ting God, and Divine things. For (saies he) it is great impietie to suppose that the Most Pure Divine Truth, and Being, will be touch∣ed by an impure mind. Thence he judged, that the Friends of God knew more of him, and his Divine Mysteries, than impure souls, who followed not God.

And Plato in his Cratylus brings him in affirm∣ing, that only Good men were Wise, and skilful in Divine Myste∣ries, &c. So August. de civit. Dei l. 8. c. 3. giving a reason, why So∣crates Philosophized so much on Moralitie, he saies,

Socrates would not, that minds clogged with terrene passions, should extend them∣selves to contemplate Divine things, which he conceived could not be comprehended but by a refined judgment: and therefore he thought men should be very intent on getting a reformed Life, that the minde being exonerated of its depressing Lusts, might by a natu∣ral

vigor, lift up it self to Eternals, and by that puritie of Intelligence contemplate the Nature of that Eternal, Incommutable Light, where the causes of all created Natures live in stabilitie, &c.

Thus August. Whereby we are informed, why Socrates was so sparing in communi∣cating his Divine Contemplations to his Scholars: though it seems to me very evident by what I find ascribed to him by Plato, that of all the Grecian Philosophers (Pythagoras not excepted) Scocrates had as (if not more) clear Notions as any touching God, his Nature, Vnitie,* 1.519 and other sacred Mysteries, which he could never have attained unto, but by some borrowed Tradition originally Jewish, or Scriptural. Particularly Socrates asserted. 1. The Spiritual, Infinite, Eternal Nature of God, and his Ʋnitie, which was the great Article, for which he suffered a kind of Martyrdome. 2. The cor••uption of Humane Na∣ture, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 3. A Native blindnes, in which all men were inveloped &c. 4. That Virtue was not teachable, and acqui∣table by Nature, or Art, but the product of Divine inspiration.* 1.520 Thus Plato in Meno. fol. 89. brings in Socrates thus discoursing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

Having therefore often sought if there were any Praeceptors of Virtue, after all my endeavours I could find none:

so, fol. 99. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Virtue is neither teach∣able, neither gained by science. Then he brings in Socrates concluding more positively, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Virtue then is neither from Nature, nor Teachable; but it comes by a divine inspiration, without the concurrence of humane understanding in those to whom it is communica∣ted, &c. Thus Plato. Yea he adds (in the same fol. 99.) That God useth the most unskilful instruments, in communicating this Grace to men, &c. 5. When also Socrates asserted, That all true knowledge of God came by Divine Infusion. So Plato in his Alcibiad. fol. 124.* 1.521 brings in Socrates thus bespeaking Alcibiades,

We have need of a Common Council, by what means we may become best. Neither doe I affirm this only of thee, Alcibiades, that thou wantest Di∣scipline, but that I my self, mostly need it. Neither doe I at all dif∣fer from thee, this one thing being excepted; ••hat my Tutor, name∣ly God is better, and Wiser than thine, viz. Pericles.

So again Pla∣to Alcibiad. fol. 135. brings in Socrates thus Dialogizing with Alci∣biades. Socrates:

Dost thou know by wh•••• me••ns thou mayst avoid this inordinate motion of thy mind? Alcibiades: Yes: Soc. How?

Alcib. If thou wilt Socrates. Socrat. Thou speakest not rightly Al∣cibiades. Alcib. How then must I speak? Socrat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If God will, &c.

Again, Plato in his Theaet. fol. 151. brings in So∣crates alluring Theaetetus (a young man of an happie ingenie) to his Philosophie: in order whereto he affirms, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. endowed with a Midwifes facultie to draw forth the conceptions of mens minds. But withall he adds that God alone was the Efficient, and he only a Midwife employed by God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.522 God has compelled me to play the Midwife, but for∣bad me to generate. and fol. 210. he expresly saies, I and my Mother received this Midwifes facultie from God, &c. 6. Hence Socrates pretended to have a familiar Daemon alwaies attending, and inspiring of him. So Plato Theagnes. 128. brings in Socrates thus discoursing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

There is by Divine Grace a Daemon, which has follo••ed me from my Childhood. This Daemon, is a voice, which signifies to me what I must doe, yet it does not compel me to do every thing: But if any of my friends communicate somewhat to me, and that voice d••hort me me from the same,* 1.523 it also suffers me not to doe it, &c.

So it's said of Socrates that when one of his Scholars offered him Money for in∣structing him, he refused it, saying, his Daemon would not permit it. And Plato in his Symposion, brings in Socrates discoursing at large of this Daemon, his Office, &c. And Serranus in Plato's Apologie for So∣crates tells us,

That Socrates called his Divine Inspiration 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Daemon, a Voice, and a Signe. And by the assistance of this tutelar Daemon Socrates affirmed, that he instituted his whole life even from his childhood. Wh••t this Daemon was, whe∣ther a good, or bad Angel (whereof the latter is most probable) it concerns us not to debate: only this is evident from the whole, that Socrates acknowledged a necessitie of a supernatural, Divine, assistance for instruction, and direction &c.

7. Socrates acknowledgeth a ne∣cessitie of some Divine Purgatorie, or purgation to expel all noxious humours from the soul: So Plato Charmides 154.

Socrates artificially feignes himself (saies he) a Physician; and testifies, that his Medi∣cament would be ineffectual unless there preceed some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pre∣paratorie Pill, or enchantment, by the words whereof the disease may be driven out. This he illustrates by an excellent similitude

drawn from Medicine, which teacheth that general purgatives are to precede particulars: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

So agen fol 157. he adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Socrates said, that the soul was to be purged by certain Epoda's, or preparatories, and these E∣poda's were Good, and Divine words.

8. Socrates seems to have some imperfect notices of Faith, and Prayer,* 1.524 according to the Scriptures notion thereof. So Plato Epinom. fol. 980. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Trust on the Gods, and pray unto them, that meet apprehensions of the nature of the Gods may come into thy minde. 9. Lastly that Socrates had very clear apprehensions of the soul's immortalitie,* 1.525 and it's sepa∣rate state, will be evident to any, that views his dying discourse of this Theme, as related by Plato in his Phaedo. By all which laid together it's evident: that Socrates had very Metaphysical contemplations of Divine Mysteries, and that originally from the Jewish Church,

§. 5 Though Socrates was not without sublime,* 1.526 and deep contem∣plations of Divine things, yet the most of his Philosophical discourses in his Schole concerned Morals, and that for the reasons afore menti∣oned. So August. Civit. l. 8. c. 4.

In as much as the studie of wisdom consists in Contemplation, and Action, Socrates is said to excel most, in Active Philosophie, whereas Pythagoras, insisted more upon Contemplative, &c.

Not but that Socrates spent much time in Contemplation, as well as Pythagoras, for so Plato lib. 7. de Repub. brings in Adimantus thus speaking unto Socrates, Thou hast consumed thy whole life in nothing else but Speculation; &c. Only herein lay the difference: Socrates made all his Contemplations subservient unto Acti∣on, and valued not speculative sciences farther then they conduced to practice: for he made Man the whole subject of his philosophie. So Plato in his Apologie for Socrates, tells us, how much time he spent in Contemplative Inquisitions; but only so far, as they referred to Action: whereas Pythagoras, & so Plato in many of their inquiries made Truth the ultimate Object or End of their Contemplation, or Motion. Now it's well known, that the specifick differrence betwixt Contemplative, and Active Philosophie ariseth not so much from their different Acts, as Objects, and Effects; for Active Philosophie supposeth some Con∣templation of Truth, as well as Contemplative; only in the latter, Truth is the ultimate Object, and sole Effect; whereas the former considers Truth only as influential on Practice, according to that anci∣ent

determination, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Practick Philosophie is effective of Virtue, but Theoretick of Truth. Thus we see how Socrates's Philosophie may be termed Active, though not exclusive of Contemplation. Namely as it is not only speculative, and apprehensive of Truth, but also practick, and causative of Virtue: wherein he was followed by the Cynicks, and Stoicks,* 1.527 who acknowledged a Fraternitie, as being both descended from Socrates's schole, and herein agreed with him in making the chief end of Philosophie to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To live according to Vir∣tue. So Plato, who according to vniversal consent, received his Mo∣rals from Socrates, follows his Master therein, telling us, that

Philo∣sophie is the way to true Felicitie, which has chiefly these two Offi∣ces, to Contemplate God, and to sever the minde from Corporeal Phantasmes. So agen Plato in his Euthydemus tells us, that Use in things holds the principal place, and the possession of any thing, & therefore of science it self, which without the use thereof, is vain: So that if there could be a science, which should give us Immortalitie, yet were it of no value, if we understood not how to use it: whence he con∣cludes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wisdom therefore alwaies makes men to live happily.

Agen he saies, That he deserves very ill of Philosophie, who lives not Philosophically. i. e. according to the pre∣cepts of Philosophie. And elsewhere he give us this principally as the spirits of all his Philosophie, To Philosophize is to know, to love, and to imitate God. Yea Aristotle his scholar who abounds in speculation, does yet herein symbolize with him, and Socrates his Master: affirm∣ing that he alone is a true Philosopher, who lives Philosophically: So Arist. Eth. l. 2. c. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Many doe not these things, but flying to their reason they think to Philosophize, and so to be virtuous, doing like to sick men, who hear their Physitian diligently, but yet doe nothing of what he prescribeth. As therefore these playing thus the Physicians, will never cure the bodie, so the other, thus Philosophizing, will never cure the soul. But the Stoicks (as it has been already hinted) follow Socrates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, foot by foot reducing all Philosphie to Moralitie. So Epictetus bid his Di∣sciples Not to tell the world they were Philosophers by words, but by deeds:

to act as Philosophers, As (saies he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. The sheep do not bring their grasse to the shepherd to shew how much they eate, but digesting their food within, they bring forth a good Fleece, and Milk. And so do you; don't teach men, how they ought to eate, but eate as you ought, &c. So Seneca Epist. 75. He is not blessed, who knowes these things, but who does them. Epist. 94. What else is Philosophie, but a law of Life? The like Seneca Epist. 90. Wis∣dom

sets deeper, neither does she teach the hands, but is the Mis∣tress of Minds: she is a Queen, and Governess, Arts serve, but wisdom governs the life,

Seneca Epist. 117. The minde is wont to de∣light, rather then to heal it self, and to make Philosophie a Recreation, whereas it ought to be a Remedie. &c. To which we may adde that of Plutarch de placit. philos. l. 1. It behoves (saies he) a man (truly wise &) blessed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To be not only Theoretick of Beings, but also practick of things wanting as to well-being. By all which we see what a general reception this active, and moral Philosophie, which Socrates first brought into the Scholes, found amongst all the following Sects, especially the Stoicks. That Socrates reduced the whole of his Philosophie to an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋirtuous opera∣tion, is evident,* 1.528 by what is mentioned of him in Stobaus Serm. 1. fol. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Some one asking Him (i. e. Socrates) what seem∣ed to him the best instruction? He answered Eupraxie, or Well-doing— For he said they were best, and most grateful to God in husbandrie, who transacted their husbandrie affaires well; In Physicks, who acted as good Physicians; In Politicks, who dispatched the Politick concerns well. But he, that does nothing well, said he, is neither profitable, nor (Theo∣philes) grateful to God. Thus Stobaeus, who also in what follows, serm. 1. fol. 29.) tells us out of Xenophon, lib. 2. de Secrat. that Socrates made this his practice wheresoever he came to do Good, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Thus Socrates was in every affair, and according to every

respect useful, wherefore nothing was more beneficial than to have conversation with Socrates, and conference with him in every place, and matter: for he profited those, who conversed with him, no lesse in recreation, than in serious studies, and conferences:

Thus Stobaeus. So Plutarch acquaints us, that

Socrates taught not only in the Chair, but even in his recreations, in his eating, in the Field, in the Mar∣ket, finally, when he was in Prison; thus he made every place a Schole of Virtue, &c.

As for the severals of Socrates's Moral Philoso∣phie, we have no exact account thereof, because he left nothing in Writing; only we may look upon most of Plato's Moral Philosophi∣zings as extracts (though with some flourishes, and intermixtures of his own) of Socrates's Principles; for it is a received opinion amongst the Ancients, that Plato owes the original of his Moral Philosophie to Socrates, as Augustin. &c. But yet we shall give one or two parti∣culars of Socrates's Morals, &c.

* 1.5291. He made it a great part of his design to strip men of their affect∣ed conceited opinions of their own wisdom. He seemed to have some kind of feeling sense, how apt men are to be their own flatterers, to a∣bound in the sense of their own parts and sufficiencies, and therefore he laies this as the first principle, and foundation of all Philosophie Know thy self: So Plato (Alcibiad. 24) brings in Socrates advising Alcibiades to the studie of himself thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But believe me, and the Delphick Oracle, Know thy self. He tells us (fol. 134) that they who know not themselves, know nothing of their own goods, or ills, nor of any such thing, that belonged to them, yea that they knew nothing of other affaires; and therefore could never make good Politicians, or Governours of Families. He also affirms, that all sin proceeds from a conceited ignorance, which makes men presume they know, what indeed they are ignorant of. He shews how many have erred from the best Marke, because they trusted to their own opinion; whereas those, who are conscious of their ignorance, will commit themselves to the teaching of others. He saies this is the best Modestie, and Wisdom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to know a man's self. He gives us the root of this Self-knowledge, namely the knowledge of God, &c. He also informs us touching its true Object, and Act: viz. that it is a reflex knowledge of the soul, its Habits, Acts, &c. And the more effectually to convince Alcibiades of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and

proud arrogance, Socrates draws a parallel 'twixt him, & the Persi∣an Monarchs thereby to shew him how inconsiderable he was: so Plato Alcibiades, fol. 102.

2.* 1.530 Socrates gave many excellent precepts for the government of the Tongue as Stobaeus Serm. 3.44. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be a lover of hearing, more than a lover of speaking. Agen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Seal thy words with silence, and thy silence with opportunitie, wherein he Pythagorized.

Lastly, albeit Socrates gave many excellent Moral Institutes, yet was he greatly defective both as to Principles, and Practice: as hereafter.

§. 6. As for Socrates's Mode, or Forme of Philosophizing,* 1.531 it was in the general suitable to his matter, natural, familiar, and plain, not artificial. He suited his Forme to his Matter, according to the me∣thod of Nature, not his Matter to his Forme, as the scholes now doe. For the matter of his Philosophie being chiefly Moral, he fitted his forme thereto. In particular, the Socratick Mode, or Forme of Philoso∣phizing was Twofold, 1. Rhetorical, or Suasive, 2. Dialectick, or Persuasive. 1. As to Socrates's Rhetorical mode of Philosophizing,* 1.532 it was by Ironie: and indeed his whole life was but a kind of Ironie, or dis∣simulation, whence he was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. One that acts the part of a Fool, though most Wise. Cicero (de orat. 2.) tells us

That Socrates ex∣ceeded all men in this Ironical dissimulation, mixing a sweet Urbani∣tie, and pleasantnes with his discourses: so Stobaeus saies, that his Jests were instructive.

2. As for Socrates's Dialectical Demonstra∣tive, and Persuasive Mode of Philosophizing, it was also Natural,* 1.533 and Familiar, not Artificial, as that in Aristotle's schole. In brief, Socra∣tes's natural Logick consisted in Induction; which Cicero [de Iuvent. 1.)

defines a Discourse, that gains assent to things doubtful, by the as∣sent which is yeelded to things not doubtful. Lud. Vives (in Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 7.) acquaints us, that this Socratick Induction is of all most powerful; which none used more happily than Socrates; whence Quintilian commends it to his Orator; whence also Plato borrowed his Mode of Dialogizing, &c.

This kind of reasoning Socrates affected, because he would not himself use any arguments of persuasion, but ra∣ther work somewhat out of what was granted. This is discursive Induction Socrates formed into, and expressed by Interrogations, as it's evident to any, that shall consider his discourses in Plato. So Hornbeeck summa Controvers. pag. 56.

Alwaies (saies Hornbeck)

approved the Socratick mode of Disputing, wherein, by continued, & pressing interrogations, and answers, the truth at last is so certainly gathered, and concluded, that it easily gains an assent from all; which as elsewhere, so especially in Plato's Hippia he observes, &c.

Socrates made use of this kind of Argumentation by Interrogations, thereby to draw forth the conclusion he aimed to prove, even from the gradual concessions of his opponents: for he was wont to say he knew nothing himself, only like a barren Midwife he was endowed with a particular gift for the assisting others to bring forth their own concep∣tions. So Plato Theaet. fol. 210. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.534 This Midwifes Art, I, and my Mother received from God, &c. In these Dialogizing disputes Socrates attributed more to his opponents, detracting from himself, for he pretended still to know nothing, and therefore refused to take Money of his Scholars. Thence Aristotle, 2 Elench. Sophist. cap. 8. saies. That Socrates alwaies interrogated, but never replied, because he professed he knew nothing. This Natural and familiar mode of reasoning by questi∣ons and answers used in Socrates's Schole seems an exact imitation of, and derivation from the Jewish mode of Disputation. So Mark 8.11. 'Tis said the Pharisees came forth, & began to question with him, &c. 'tis so in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to dispute with him by questions: So Grotius on this place: The ancient manner of Disputing, saies he, was by Interrogations. But more expresly Luke 11.53. 'Tis said the Scribes, and Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. by In∣terrogations, unto which they required an extemporary answer, so it follows, and to provoke him to speak of many things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This

word (saies Grotius) was taken from the Scholes, where the Masters were wont to set the riper Scholars to pose the younger by Interro∣gations,

whence in the New Testament the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usually signifie to dispute, i. e. by Dialogues, or questions, and answers, which was the mode of disputing in the Jewish Scholes, and thence traduced unto the Grecian, and continued amongst them till Aristotle reduced this natural Logick to an Artificial way of Syllogi∣zirg in Mode and Figure, of which more hereafter, in Plato's mode of Philosophizing. In these disputations of Socrates, he intends more the drawing forth, ••nd revincing the opinion of his Opponent, than the delivering and establishing of his own. For he conceived it not his concern, who affirmed he knew nothing, to assert any thing, as he

himself declareth in Plato's Theaetetus. And this his modest suspension, or conceling his own opinion, laid the Foundation of those differing Sects, which sprang from him; especially of the Academical 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension: of which hereafter. Howbeit Socrates's modestie would not permit him to assert, and confirme his own 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Hy∣potheses, yet was he very bold, and Ironical in refuting the proud as∣sumings of such as pretended they knew all things. So August. de Civit. l. 8. c. 3.

It is apparent (saies he) that Socrates did in his very Moral questions, whereto he seems wholly to addict himself, either by his confessed ignorance, or dissembled knowledge, with an admirable pleasantnes, and most acute urbanitie agitate, and overturne the follie of unlearned persons, who thought they knew somewhat, &c.

All these Philosophick Contemplations of Socrates laid together, suf∣ficiently argue their original to be Divine, and Sacred. Yea Justin Martyr, and other of the Fathers, conceived, that he lived 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & that he did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in part acknowledge Christ. So Justin Martyr Apol. ad Senat. & Anton. Hornius Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 13. 'Tis possible that Socrates's Daemon might be no other, than the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Spirit of God.

§. 7. This fervor of Socrates mixed with an Ironical facetiousnes in overturning the proud conceited ignorance of some,* 1.535 who fancyed they knew all things, is supposed to give the occasion of his condemnation, and death. So August. de Civit. l. 8. c. 3.) in what follows saies, that from

these endeavours of Socrates to discover the follie of these ignorant Sophists, enmities being stirred up, he was by a calumnious crimination condemned, and punished with death, &c.

Plato in his Apologie for Socrates affirmes, that these odiums, and feudes befel Socrates by rea∣son of his disputations against these proud Sophists. The same Laertius:

There were three, that accused Socrates Anytus, Melitus, and Lycon the Orator, who was the Actor;

whereas Anytus defended the rout of Artificers, and the rest of the Athenians, whom Socrates often deri∣ded; and Melitus defended the Poets, when Socrates had condemned, and judged to be expelled the Citie. The main crime they accuse him of was his denying a multiplicitie of Gods &c. for which he was condemned by 281 suffrages. Immediately before his death, after he had taken the poyson, he makes a learned, and undaunted discourse a∣bout the immortalitie of the Soul, and its state in separation from the bo∣die &c. and when he felt the paines of Death growing upon him, he

takes his leave of his Scholars,* 1.536 enjoyning them to go, and Sacrifice a Cock to Esculapius the Daemon-god of Medicine, as a thankful acknow∣ledgement for so sweet, and noble a death: of which see Plato's Phaedo about the end; also his, and Xenophon's Apologies for Socrates, with Diogenes Laertius, where we find Socrates pleading, that his Enemies overwhelmed him not with Crimes, but envie only, &c. And the Athenians were so greatly affected with the injurie done to Socrates, that a little after they caused all their Scholes to be shut, and punished Melitus with death, Anytus with banishment, erecting a brazen Statue to Socrates, as Austin: and Ludov. Vives in Aug. Civit. l. 8. c. 2. gives him this great Character.

This is that Socrates of whom nothing can be sufficiently said for his Dignitie, who, as it's manifest, was the wisest of all the Gentiles, and came nearest of all to the Christian Wisdom: He was borne at Athens, Sophroniscus be∣ing his Father, &c. He was a Man temperate, chast, just, modest, pa∣tient of injuries; not greedie of riches, pleasures, no nor yet of glorie, for it's certain he writ nothing. He was the first, who whilst others professed to know all things, professed himself to know no∣thing.

Thus Lud. Vives. To which may be added that of Hornius, Socrates erat vir acutus, festivus, laborem tolerans, non tam praeceptis quàm exemplo docens: quem, & Lactantius caeteris non paulo cordatiorem fuisse concedit. Socrates was eminent for his Acumen, Eloquence, Dili∣gence, Instructing, as well by his Example as Precepts; and such as Lactantius also acknowledgeth to have far surpast others (Heathen Phi∣losophers) for Wisdom, Horn. Hist. Phil. lib. 3. cap. 13. Yet some say, Socrates was not exempted from that great Gentile uncleannes, which the wisest and best of those Gentile Philosophers were guiltie of, mentioned Rom. 1.21, 27. as elsewhere.

* 1.537§. 8. Though Socrates writ nothing himself, yet his Disputes were committed to Writing by his Scholars: amongst whom Xenophon was the first, and most punctual; for Plato useth a great libertie in interlining his own Sentiments with his Masters Dogmes. And albeit Socrates con∣fined himself to Morals, and in his Philosophizings thereon used a plain method, yet after his death, his Scholars fell into several Fa∣ctions, and Sects, which sprang from their differing Apprehensions a∣bout the chiefest Good, and the chiefest Evil. So Austin (Civit. l. 8. c. 3.)

Therefore Socrates by reason of his so great Fame, both living, and dead, left behind him many Sectator•• of his Philosophie, whose

Eristick studie was to be versed in the Controversies of Moral Que∣stions, wherein the chiefest Good consisted? which not evidently ap∣pearing in Socrates's Disputes, whil'st he started, and asserted, and destroyed every thing, every one formed such a chief Good, as seem∣ed most pleasing to him. Thus had these Socraticks differing per∣swasions about this last end; some placing the chiefest Good in Plea∣sures, as Aristippus; some in Virtue, as Antisthenes, &c.

Indeed all the Sects of the Ionick Philosophie, seem to owe their Original to Socrates's Schole, especially the Cyreniack, Cynick, Eleatick, Megarick, Academick, Platonick, Stoick.

1. Of Socrates's Scholars, Xenophon,* 1.538 and Aeschinus, the Socratick clave fast to their Master, without founding a new Sect.

2. Aristippus the Cyrenian,* 1.539 another of Socrates's Scholars founded the Cyreniack Sect, whose main Principle was, that the chiefest Good lay in Pleasure, whence the whole Sect was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the E∣picureans after them.

3. Antisthenes another of Socrates's Scholars,* 1.540 founded the Cynick Sect. His chief Position was, that Virtue was the chiefest Good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherein he was followed by Zeno his Scholar, who was the Founder of the Stoick Sect, which as to Morals held a great commu∣nion with the Cynicks, and they both with Socrates, &c.

4. Another of Socrates's Scholars was Euclid the Megarick,* 1.541 whose Followers were thence called Megaricks, and afterwards Eri∣sticks; and by some Dialecticks, because they exercised themselves chiefly in Dialectick Questions, which humor Euclid suckt in, not from Socrates, but Parmenides, and Zeno the Eleatick.

5. Phaedo of Elia, another of Socrates's Scholars,* 1.542 established the Eleatick Sect. He writ many of Socrates's Elegant Speeches.

6. But the most renowned of all Socrates's Scholars, was Plato,* 1.543 that famous Founder of the old Academie, whence the new Academicks descended; as the Platonists: as it follows.

CHAP. II. Of the Platonick Philosophie, its traduction from the Jews.

That Plato borrowed his Philosophie from the Jews, proved by the uni∣versal consent, 1. of Pagans. Plato's own Confessions, that he re∣ceived his choicest Principles from the Barb••ri••ns, Phenicians, and Syrians, i. e. the Jews. Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some Jewish Traditions: His Traditions of the Divine Ideas, Providence, Immortalitie of the Soul, and Origine of the Universe from the Jews. The Testimonie of Numenius. 2. The Testi∣monies of Jews, Aristobulus, Josephus. 3. Testimonies of Christians. 1. More ancient, as Clem. Alexandrinus, Just. Martyr, Jo. Grammaticus, Ambrose, Austin. 2. Moderne, Lud. Vives, Selden, Jackson, Cudworth, Stillingfleet, and Hornius.

§. 1. HAving given some cursorie account of the Socratick Philo∣sophie,* 1.544 we now proceed to the Platonick (the main Branch of the Socratick) to demonstrate its traduction from the Jewish Di∣vine Oracles. And herein we shall take up the same method we laid down in our Discourse of Pythagorick Philosophie; namely, first, to give that, which the Scholes terme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Demonstration that 'tis so; and then to proceed to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the several Causes, Me∣thods, and waies by which Plato traduced his Philosophie from the Jewish Church, and Oracles. As for the first Branch of our Demon∣stration, to prove the quod sit, that Plato indeed borrowed the choicest parts of his Philosophie from the Jews, and sacred Scriptures; we shall endeavour to make it good by an universal consent, or Testimonie, w^ch though but (as they phrase it) an inartificial Argument, yet will it prove strong, and binding as to our present design: For we shall produce Testimonies from all parties, both Pagans, Jews, and Christians, and those most able and faithful Recorders of, and Searchers into Anti∣quitie: so that there will not be place left for doubting; so far as such an humane Faith will reach; that parties so diametrically opposite in their inclinations, perswasions, humors, principles, spirits, and interests,

should universally conspire to impose a cheat, and falsitie, on all their posteritie in a matter concerning which they had sufficient advantages to satisfie themselves, and their posterities. That Grecian Philosophie in general was traduced from the Jewish Church, we proved by uni∣versal consent, Book 2. Chap. 1. which might serve as to our particu∣lar case. But we shall now give you some particular Testimonies to prove, that Plato derived his Philosophie from the Jews, and Scriptures. And amongst those from Pagans, we shall begin with some Confessions dropt from Plato's own Pen, which seem to give some grounded evi∣dence, if not full conviction to our Conclusion.

1. Plato confesseth ingeniously, that he,* 1.545 together with the rest of the Grecians, received their choicest Traditions, and Learning, from cer∣tain Barbarians more ancient than themselves. So in his Cratylus, fol. 426. (edit. Steph.) Plato acknowledgeth, That the first Institution of Letters was from the Gods, by certain Barbarians, &c. so in his Epinom. Plato saies, What the Greeks received, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they put into a better mode, that is, they cloath'd in a Greek fashion, there∣by to disguise it. That by Barbarians can be meant no other than the Hebrews, we have endeavoured to prove out of Justin Martyr,* 1.546 Clemens Alexandrinus, Epiphanius, Nicephorus, and Serranus, before Part. 1. Book 1. Chap. 2. This is farther evident by what we find in Tatianus (contra Graecos Oratio.) thus translated.

It becomes not you, O Gre∣cians, to prosecute the Barbarians with so much enmitie, and to be so invidious against their Placits: For what is there of Studie a∣mong you, which drew not its Origine from the Barbarians, &c.

Then having largely explicated the chief parts of the Grecian Learn∣ing, he proceeds to demonstrate, that the Mosaick Wisdom, which he calls Barbarick, was most ancient.

Therefore, saith he, I have bid adieu to the vain Glorie of the Romans, to the frigid Eloquence of the Athenians, and their contentious Studies: and have em∣braced our Barbarick Philosophie, which how it is more ancient than your Disciplines, I now proceed to explicate.

This he demonstrates very accurately, by evincing, that Moses was more ancient than Berosus, who writ the Chaldean Annals, yea then Cadmus, &c. whence he concludes thus.

Hence it appears, that Moses was more ancient than those ancient Heroes: and it is but equal, that we give credit to the elder, rather than to the Grecians, who drew their Dogmes, not rightly understood, from the others Fountain. For many of the

Grecian Sophists, being induced by a certain Curiositie, indeavoured to deprave, and pervert whatever they learned from Moses, or the like wise Men; which they did partly, that they might make that their own, which they drew from others; partly, that under a feign∣ed Composition of Speech, conceling what they understood not, they might corrupt the Truth by their Comments.

Thus Tatianus.

* 1.5472. Plato makes mention of certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Syrian, and Phenician Fables, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ineffable, &c. So Plato (de repub. l. 3. fol. 414.) tells us,

of a Phenician Fable touching the Fraternitie of all men made out of the Earth, &c. where Serranus observes, that this Fable is but a foot-step of the Primitive Truth, touching the formation of Adam out of the Earth, and that by the name of the Phenician Doctrine is noted the Jewish.

So Plato in his Symposium, speaks of a Phenician Fable touching the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or man, and woman conjoyned; which Cudworth, with others, makes to be but a Jewish Tradition of Eves formation out of Adam: Yea, the Jews themselves had this Cabbalistick Fable of an Androgynon com∣mon amongst them, as Grotius has observed on 1 Tim. 3.4. as afore. And Hammond, on Matth. 15.22. tells us in express termes,

that when the Heathens speak of the Original of their Literature from the Phenicians, they 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.

* 1.5483. Plato makes mention of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an ancient Discourse, o•• Tradition, which he elsewhere calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.

* 1.5491. Plato in his Philebus, fol. 17. confesseth, that

The knowledge of the (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.) one infinite Being was from the Gods, who com∣municated this knowledge to us by a certain Prometheus, together with a bright Fire: and then he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Py∣thagoras

first brought into Greece, and after him Parmenides assumed the same, as the foundation of his Metaphysick Philosophizings about the Divine Ideas: as before, Part. 1. B. 1. C. 2. §. 6.

2. Plato, de leg. l. 3. makes mention of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.550 an An∣cient Tradition, which affirmed God to be the beginning, the end, and middle of all things, &c. This Plutarch calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the old Faith; which surely could be nothing else, but the old Jewish Tradi∣tion, which they had received touching God's Creation of, and Provi∣dence over all things. Thus Steuchus Eugubinus, de Peren. Philos. l. 2. c. 2. Justin Martyr conceiveth, that where you find in Plato, or other Philosophers, mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ancient Fame, they meant it of Moses. The like Plato in his Philebus affirmes, that all wise Men grant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Divine mind is to us King both of Heaven, and Earth; neither does any thing happen fortuitously. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.* 1.551) treating of the immortalitie of the Soul, confesseth, that the safest, and most certain way to prove it, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by some Divine Word, or Tradition. Now what this Di∣vine Word should be, if not some Jewish, or Scriptural Tradition, can∣not be imagined. This Divine Word he elsewhere calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Traditional Knowledge, &c. Of which see more, Part 1. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 5.

4. Plato in his Timaeus, fol. 29.* 1.552 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Phi∣losophizings, touching the Origine of the Universe, were but Tra∣ditions from Moses's description of the Creation.

5. Plato in his Politicus, fol. 272.* 1.553 gives us a large account of A∣dam'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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, until there appear to us some fit Interpreter. Serranus on these Words, fol. 251. tells us, that Plato acknowledgeth, he received this Narration from elsewhere, in that he calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Fable; for the unfolding whereof, he ex∣pected a fit Interpreter.

Wherefore he signifies, that the truth here∣of 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,* 1.554 &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 An∣cients he meant the Jewish Church, or Patriarchs, whose names he con∣celed; as also clothed those Jewish Traditions with a Grecian Mytho∣logick 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. which differs only in Gender, not really from Moses's description. Whence the Learned, both Moderne, and Ancient have concluded, that Plato drew this Notion of God out of Mose••. So Justin Martyr, and Ludovicus Vives after him; as also Raleigh, Hist. Part. 1. B. 1. C. 6. §. 7. For where it pleased God, by his Angel to answer Moses, Ego sum existens, which is, I AM; and existens misi•• me ad vos, I AM hath sent me unto you, herein did Plato, saith Justin Martyr, no otherwise differ, than that Moses used the Word [Qui] and Plato the Word [Quod] Moses enim qui existit (in∣quit) Plato quod existit. For Moses saith, He who is: Plato, That which is, &c.

7. To these tacite acknowledgements of Plato, we may adde the full Testimonie of Numenius the Pythagorean Philosopher,* 1.555 quoted by Clem: Alexandrinus, lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But Numenius the Pythagorean Philosopher plainly Writes: What is Plato, but Moses Atticizing.

§. 2. Amongst the Jews we have the testimonie of Aristobulus,* 1.556 who flourished about 200 years after Plato, cited by Clemens Alexand. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (as also by Eusebius Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. 6.) where he brings in Aristobulus thus speaking of Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

He fol∣lowed our Law, or Institution, and diligently inspected, or searched into all those things mentioned therein.

The same is mentioned by Ludov. Vives in Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 11.

Aristobulus the Jew to Phi∣lometor lib. 1, as Eusebius cites him, saith, that Plato in many things follow'd our Law; for he seems in many things to have diligently ex∣amined every particular. For Moses's books were translated before Alexander, and before the Persian Empire, whence this Philoso∣pher, as well as Pythagoras, received many things.

Thus Ludov. Vives. I am not ignorant, that his opinion about the translation of Moses's books into Greek before the Persian Empire, is rejected by some Learned men, therefore I shall not lay much stresse on it, yet why may we not assert with Eusebius, that Plato (as Pythagoras) might have a sight of Moses's writings (not as translated into Grerk, but) by rea∣son of his skill in the Oriental Languages, especially the Egyptian, which was but a Dialect of the Hebrew, as has been before mentioned Book 2. ch. 5. §. 8. of Pythagoras, of which more hereafter. To this

testimonie of Aristobulus is consonant that of Josephus the Jew,* 1.557 as Selden de jure Nat. Hebr. l. 1. c. 2.

* 1.558§. 3. To these Testimonies of Pagans, and Jews, we may adde ma∣ny of the learned Christians, both Ancient, and Moderne. As for the Ancients Clemens Alexandrinus does once, and agen inculcate, that Plato derived his Philosophie from the Jews, so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1.5. and he ex∣presly calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew Philosopher: and in many places he does affirme this,

That the Greek Philosophers generally were Thieves, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That they took the choicest of their Dogmes from Moses, and the Prophets without thankful acknowledge∣ment.

So Justin Martyr Apol. 2.* 1.559 (and after him Theodoret) assimeth

that Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 drew many things from the He∣brew Rivulets; yea, and that whatsoever he said devoutly of God, or of his Worship, he stole from the Hebraick Philosophie.

The same Johannes Philoponus frequently asserts.* 1.560 So of the Creation of the world, l. 6. c. 21. pag. 249. he tells us, that what Moses affirmed of man, that he was made after the Image of God, Plato transferred to the whole visible world, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a visible image of the invisible God. The like he mentions lib. 7. c. 11, 12, where he shews, how Plato imitated Moses, Gen. 1.31. in bringing in God rejoy∣cing, and recreating himself in the works of his hands, as very good, &c. Eusebius lib. 2. praep. Evang. conceives, that Plato learn∣ed from the Mosaick doctrine, both the Transmutation of the world, and the Resurrection, and the last Judgment, &c. Amongst the La∣tine Ancients Ambrose gives a full Testimonie hereto,* 1.561 who affirmes, that

Plato for Learning's sake took a journie into Egypt to informe himself touching the things done, and written by Moses, the Oracles of the Law, and the sayings of the Prophets, &c. of which see Selden de Jure Nat. l. 1. c. 2.

But amongst all the Ancients, none speaks more fully to this, than Augustin de Civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 11.* 1.562 Some saies he,

joyned to us in the grace of Christ, wonder when they hear, and read, that Plato conceived such things of God, which they acknowledged are most congruous to the truth of our Religion. Whence some have thought, that he, when he went into Egypt, heard the Prophet Jeremie, or that he read in his peregrination the Pro∣phetick Scriptures, whose opinion I have laid down in some of my Books: But the account of times being diligently computed accord∣ing

to the Chronick historie, it appears, that Plato was born almost 100 years after Jeremy prophecyed; wherefore Plato in that his pergrinati∣on could neither see Ieremy, who dyed so long before, nor yet read the same Scriptures, which were not as yet translated into the Greek Tongue: unlesse peradventure in as much as he was of a sharp judg∣ment, he by an Interpreter learned, as the Egyptian mysteries, so the sacred Scriptures, not that he did by writing translate them, as Pto∣lomy by the LXX, but by conference he understood what they con∣teined, so far as his capacitie would reach. That which enclines us to this persuasion, is, that the book of Genesis begins (chap. 1. v. 1.) In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth &c. which Plato in his Timaeus also declares. God saith he, in that work, first joyned Earth, and Fire. For it's manifest that by Fire he understands the Heaven: Thence those two middle Elements, which by their interposition joyn together with these extreams, he calls Water, and Air; whence tis thought he understood this from what is written, Gen. 1.2. The Spirit of God moved upon the Waters. For he little attending in what manner the Scripture was wont to style the Spirit of God, and be∣cause the Air is called a Spirit, he thought that the Four Elements were mentioned in that place. Agen, in that Plato saies a Philosopher is a lover of God, nothing is more manifest in the sacred Scriptures. And especially that which has almost brought me fully to assent that Plato was not without those sacred books, when it is said to Moses (Exod. 3.14.) I am that I am. He that is has sent me, &c. This Plato vehemently held, and diligently commended, &c. Thus August. By which it's evident, what a full conviction he had of the truth of our conclusion.

As for the particulars, of these Platonick notions, we shall hereafter, we hope, examine them, and prove that they were traduced from the sacred scriptures. As for Moderne Christians, we have the most learned of these last Ages of this persuasion, that Plato derived the choicest of his Contemplations, both Physical, and Me∣taphysical from the sacred scriptures, & Jewish Church. So Lud. Vives on this text of August. Civ. l. 8. c. 11.

Justin Martyr (saith he) in para∣clesi ad Gentos, & Euseb. in praeparat. evang.; and Theocritus of the Greek affections write, that Plato translated many things out of the Hebrew books into his own.

Hence Numenius the Philosopher said, what is Plato, but Moses Atticizing? &c. The same is affirmed by Steuchus Eugubinus on Plato's Timaeus, and Selden de jure Natur. Hebr.

l. 1. c. 2. Where he proves our conclusion at large. Thus Luther, Tom. 1. Genes. 1. a. in cap. 1. Plato, saith he, while he was in Egypt Col∣lected

as it were some sparks out of the Speeches of the Fathers, and Prophets, therefore he comes nearer (than Aristotle) as to the Ori∣gine 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.* 1.563

I cannot (saith he) consent with Eusebius, that Plato had seen Moses his works, but that he certainly received by Tradition ma∣ny things,* 1.564 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 Inqui∣sition 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 repre∣hend Plato, because (saith he) Plato sought knowledge from the E∣gyptians, and the Chaldeans, neglecting the Jews, and the Books of Moses; Eusebius, Cyrillus, and Origen find reason to believe the con∣trarie, 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 acknow∣ledge 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 Dei∣tie, 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 Mo∣ses, and inserted them into his Writings. For Numenius of greatest Authoritie amongst the Pythagoreans, saies that Plato stole out of Mo∣ses's Writings, whatsoever he has of God, and the Ʋniverse. To whom the more sage Fathe••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 Cae∣lius 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 borrow∣ed, whatever hath any verisimilitude, or shaddow of t••uth, from the sacred Scriptures. The same Eusebius attempts in his book a∣gainst 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 Lo∣crian, Epicarmus, &c. Plato's travels into Egypt where he inform∣ed 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 Pla∣to

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 Philoso∣phie, &c. Plato's Academie, his Character, and Works.

* 1.565§. 1. WE have in the foregoing Chapter by inartificial De∣monstration, or Testimonies proved, that Plato traduced the choicest of his Contemplations from the Jewish Church, and Scrip∣tures. We now proceed to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; to demonstrate the same from the causes, means, and wayes by which Plato gained these Jewish traditi∣ons. For the clearing whereof we shall give some brief historical rela∣tion of Plato's Life, Praeceptors, and Travels, whereby it will be mani∣fest, what advantages he had to acquaint himself with the Jewish Phi∣losophie, and Mysteries. Austin de Civit. l. 8. c. 4. gives us this good, though short account hereof.

But amongst the Disciples of So∣crates, 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 emprov••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 great∣ly esteemed, and taught there; and thence coming into those parts of Italy where the fame of the Pythagoreans was celebrated, he learn∣ed 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.

* 1.566§. 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

••peaking of Solon, calls him his Kinsman, &c. Plato's first Praeceptor was Socrates with whom it's said he lived Eight years,* 1.567 in which time he committed the substance of Socrates's discourses to writing, but with great mixture, and addition of his own; which gave much offence to Xenophon his condisciple, who in an Epistle to Aeschines Socraticus (mentioned by Eusebius Praepar. Evang. l. 24.) upbraids Plato

for corrupting Socrates's Philosophie by Pythagorean, Barbarick, Egyptian, and his own intermixtures.

And Diogenes lib. 3. writes, that there

was little friendship, but much emulation 'twixt Plato, and Xeno∣phon. For they both writ their Symposium, their Apologie for Socra∣tes, and their Moral Commentaries. Plato in his books of Laws saies, that Xenophon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was fictitious. Though they both great∣ly extol Socrates, yet they make little mention each of other.

From Socrates it was, that Plato received the chiefest of his Morals, as 'tis generally confest; and shall be hereafter mentioned. After Socrates's death Plato applyed himself to Cratylus, the Diciple of Heraclitus, from whom we may presume he received good instructions, for he makes him the chief subject of one of his Dialogues. Plato primitus Heracliti secta imbutus, postea vero Socratis Disciplinae traditus, Clarissimus omnium Philosophorum evasit. Plato being first of all of the Heraclitian Sect, and afterwards determining to be of the Socratick Discipline, became the most famous of all the Philosophers. Apul. l. 1. de Philos. Plato after∣ward addresses himself to Hermogenes, who followed Parmenides's Phi∣losophie, from whom we may suppose he borrowed many of his Me∣taphysick Contemplations about Divine Ideas, of which he discourseth at large in his Dialogue called Parmenides. After these Plato had re∣course to Euclid the founder of the Megarick Sect: whence he went to Cyrene to be instructed by Theodorus the Mathematician, &c.

§ 3. Plato having a natural affection,* 1.568 and strong inclination unto the Pythagorick Philosophie, as that which carried with it most of Divine Mysteries, & therefore suited best with his luxuriant Phansie, he travels into Italie, that part which was called Magna Graecia, where Pytha∣goras had Philosophized, and left behind him many Admirers, and Sectators of his Discipline. Amongst these Pythagoreans Plato heard at Tarentum Archytas the Elder, and Euritus.* 1.569 Amongst the Locrians he heard Timaeus the Locrian, from whom he is supposed to have bor∣rowed many of his traditions touching the Origine of the Universe, its parts, &c. So Ludov. Vives on Aust. in Civ. lib. 8. c. 11. Speaking of Plato's

Timaeus, saies

he, called this book so, because Timaeus the Locrian is induced disputing of the Universe, whom he heard in Italie, who also writ in the Dorick tongue of the Universe, from which Book Plato borrowed many things. Thus Ludov. Vives. Yea indeed Plato's ve∣ry Dialect in his Timaeus is Dorick, (differing from his other Dia∣logues) which argues, that not only the matter, but also the very words, and style were taken from Timaeus his Book of the Universe.

So also Jerome in his Apologie against Ruffinus tells us, that

Plato was in∣structed in the Pythagorean Learning by Archytas the Tarentine, and Timaeus the Lorian.

Farther, at Croto Plato heard Philolaus the Py∣thagorean. Besides, Plato received light, and instruction from other Pythagorean Authors, namely, Lysis the Pythagorean, whom he makes the subject of his Dialogue called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: also from the Books of Epicarmus, alias Cous that famous Pythagorean Philosopher. So Lud. Vives in Austin Civ. l. 8. c. 11.

Alcinus (saies he) in his books, he writ to Amynthas teacheth, that Plato borrowed his opinion of I∣deas out of the Books of Epicarmus, who was Cous a Philosopher of the Pythagorean Sect, whom in times past they make to excell others of the Learned, as the Sun amongst the Stars, and the Sea amongst the Rivers:

He writ of the Nature of things, &c. From Plato's great affectation, and imitation of the Pythagorean Philosophie it came to passe that in the writings of the Ancients, the Names of Platonists, and Pythagoreans are oft confounded. So Eusebius lib. 14. Praecep. ca. considering Plato himself in himself, we call him a Pythagorean. The like Apuleius Flor. 15. Plato differing little, or nothing from this Sect does Pythagorize. And the same Apuleius lib. 1. de Philos. gives this account of Plato's diverting from the Socratick Philosophie to the Pythagorean.

When Socrates had bid farewel to Human affairs, Pla∣to deflected from the Socraticks, whose affaires were then doubtful, to the Pythagoreans, seeking what proficience he might gain among them. And he went twice into Italie, where he heard the Pythagore∣ans Euritus, and Archytas the Senior. Thus Hornius Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 14.

And that Plato indeed greatly valued Pythagorean writing, is evident by what Laertius relates, namely that three Pythagoreans Books cost him no lesse than One Hundred Attick Pounds, i. e. 3000. Karoles; for an Attick pound consists of 20 Karoles, as Vossius de Philos. Sect. cap. 12. §. 3. As for the time of Plato's abode in Italie, Cicero in Catone writes, that Plato came to Tarentum when L. Aemi∣lius,

and Ap. Claudius were Consuls: though according to Livie this account will not hold. Now that the Pythagorick Philosophie was traduced from the Jewish Oracles we have before sufficiently proved, Book 2. chap. 5. §. 2.

§. 4. But the greatest advantage,* 1.570 that Plato had to informe him∣self in the Jewish wisdom, and mysteries, was his travels into Egypt, which Laertius makes to have been after his departure from Italie, though Austin in what was before cited, supposeth him to have tra∣velled from Egypt into Italie: Others reconcile both, by affirming that Plato went first unto Italie, thence into Egypt, from whence he re∣turned back again into Italie. Plato non contentus disciplinis quas prae∣stare poterant Athenae, non Pythagoraeorum, ad quos in Italiam naviga∣verat, Aegypti quo{que} Sacerdotes adiit, at{que} eroū arcana perdidicit. Quincil. lib. 1. cap. 19. Plato not satisfied with what Learning Athens could afford, nor yet with that of the Pythagoreans, to whom he had made a Voyage into Italie; had recourse also to the Priests of Egypt, and became throughly acquainted with their Mysteries, Thus Quintil. But the account of Laertius seems most probable, (which Vossius ad∣heres unto) who supposeth, that Plato's last Voyage was into Egypt, wherein he was accompanied with Euripides, or, as Vossius, with Eud∣oxus, where he had 13 years conversation with the Egyptian Priests, as Strabo lib. 17. Cicero tells us, that

Plato's design in Travelling to Egypt, was to informe himself in Arithmetick, and the Celestial Specu∣lations of the Barbarians, &c.

That under this notion of the Bar∣barians must be understood, if not exclusively, yet, inclusively,* 1.571 the Jews, is a common received persuasion of the Learned, both Ancient, and Moderne, as Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epipha∣nius, Serranus, &c. And this is most certain, that about the time of Plato's abode in Egypt, there were great numbers of the Jews who resorted thither, and we may no way doubt, that he, who had such an unsatiable thirst after Oriental Traditions, and Mysteries for the satisfying whereof he left no Persons, Places, or Records unexa∣mined, would let passe such a considerable partie of men, as the Jews were, who pretended unto, and that upon good grounds, the most an∣cient Records, Traditions, and Mysteries. Surely we cannot rationally judge, that Plato's curiositie, or humor so greedie after mysterious wis∣dom would neglect so great opportunitie, as he had for the instruct∣ing himself in the Jewish Wisdom, whilst he was in Egypt.

Besides, we have before, (Book 1. Chap. 3.) proved, that the choicest parts of the Egyptian Philosophie, were of Jewish extract; so that what Plato gained here, may well be reckoned to be of Jewish Origi∣nal.* 1.572 This will be farther evident, if we take a view of some par∣ticular Collections which Plato made whilst he was in Egypt. We are told. 1. (Epist. Socrat. 26.)

that Plato having taken a view of the chief parts of Egypt, at last setled himself in the Province of Sais, where he was instructed by the Wise men, touching their Opi∣nions of the Universe, whether it had a beginning? &c.

Now that all Plato's Traditions about the Origine of the Ʋniverse were of Jewish Origination, we shall hereafter prove. 2. Pausanias affirmes, that

Plato learned also from these Wise men of Sais, the immortalitie of the Soul, &c.

which was evidently a derivation from the Jewish Ora∣cles. 3. Origen (against Celsus, lib. 4. pag. 189.) conceives,

that Plato, by converse with the Jews in Egypt, received some notices of Adam's fall, which in his Symposiacks, he Symbolically sets forth un∣der the Fable of Porus (i. e. Adam) his being Drunk with Nectar, and going into Jupiters Garden, (i. e. Paradise) &c.

This he con∣ceives more probable, because of Plato's manner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to hide

his great Phaenomena's, or Dogmes, under the Figure of some Fable by reason of the vulgar.

And in what follows, he makes mention of Plato's Artifice in discolouring, and disguising those Traditions he re∣ceived from the Jews, lest by owning them, as the Authors of his Learning, he should disgust the Fabulous Greeks, who had no re∣spect for the Jews, &c. 4. Yea, indeed the chiefest part, if not the whole of those Divine Mysteries touching God, his perfection, and unitie; his Divine Ideas, and Providence; also concerning the Uni∣verse, its Origine from God, its formation, and animation by the Spirit of God, which he calls Anima Mundi: in like manner, touch∣ing the Soul, its Nature, Perfection, in Innocencie, and corruption by the fall, and such like Divine Traditions, which Plato pretends to have learned from the Egyptians, &c. are plainly Jewish, as hereafter. Plutarch de Iside, & Osiride, tells us, that Plato, whilst in Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is said to have heard Chonuphis the Mem∣phite. Clemens Alexandrinus saies, that he did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, use for his Praeceptor Sechnuphis the Egyptian, perhaps the same with Plutarch's Chonuphis, and both one and t'other refers to

some Jewish Master he found in Egypt, Austin lib. 2. de doct. makes mention of Plato's converse with Jeremie, the Jewish Prophet in E∣gypt, where he went with the Tribe of Juda, and Benjamin, &c. but this Opinion he in his de Civit. l. 8. c. 11. refutes,

for that Jeremie dyed before the Persian Empire began, whereas Plato's being in E∣gypt, was about the end of the Persian Empire.* 1.573

Yet we need no way doubt, but that the memorie of Jeremie, who was so famous a Prophet, and had foretold such great events of Providence, even the destruction of his own People, &c. could not but remain very fresh and illustrious, even to Plato's time: especially if that storie prove

true, that Jeremie being buryed under a heap of stones at Tanis in Egypt, was worshipped by the Inhabitants for a present remedie they found at his Sepulchre against the biting of Serpents.

Eusebius re∣fers the beginning of Jeremies Prophecie to the 36^th Olympiad; and Plato's birth to the 88^th Olympiad: so that we may better, with Lud. Vives, suppose

Pythagoras whilst in Egypt, to have had confe∣rence with Jeremie, as before.

Yet may we safely conjecture, that Plato, whilst in Egypt, received some notices of Jeremie his Fame, and Prophecie, which might engage him to inquire thereinto, as al∣so into the Mosaick Books. So Learned Vossius, de Philos. sect. par. 2. cap. 2. §. 3. having shewen the invaliditie of that Opinion touching Plato's personal Conference with Jeremie, addes thus:

Plato might notwithstanding read Moses, if there were any Version of him be∣fore that Translation of the LXX: of which we have elsewhere debated. And although this might not be, yet it is granted, he might have conference with the Hebrews, and be taught by them; which is made very likely by that Agreement there is of Plato with Moses in many things: whence that of Numenius the Philoso∣pher, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉?

Thus Vossius.

1. We shall not insist upon any Version of Moses's Books into Greek as ancient as Plato, though Lud. Vives asserts it, as before,* 1.574 chap. 2. §. 2. yet may we, and that upon warrantable grounds, suppose, that Plato, (as Pythagoras before him) had some sight of, and capacitie to read Moses's Books, with Jeremie's Prophecie, &c. not by means of any Greek Version, but by virtue of the skill he had in the Egyp¦tian Language, which differed from the Hebrew only in some Dia∣lect, as has been before once, and again asserted, and proved. Neither can we well imagine, that Plato, who is said to have continued in

Egypt 13 Years, could be unacquainted with the Egyptian Language: who knows not, but that a Scholar when he Travels for Learning, the first thing he does, is to get the Language of the Countrey? Thus, as we afore observed, Pythagoras did in his Travels into Egypt, and Chaldea; and this we need no way doubt, Plato made his first busines after his coming into Egypt. 2. Yea, it seems to me somewhat pro∣bable, that Plato wanted not skill in the Hebrew Tongue: For in his Cratylus, where he gives us the Origination of many Greek Words, he saies such, and such came from the Barbarians, implying (as before) the Jews. Amongst many others, he mentions these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies darkness, and is evidently derived from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 1.2, 5. for so Plato useth the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to express the Chaos by. The like he saies of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which came from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 explo∣ration: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Heb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. as Serranus in his Pre∣face to Plato's Cratylus. Now how could Plato so exactly know, that these, with other Greek words, were of Barbarian, or Hebrew origi∣nation, if he had not some skill in the Hebrew Tongue. This is the Opinion of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 18. where he shews, that Plato, while he was in Egypt, learned the Hebrew Tongue. But this is refuted by some, as Hornius, Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 14. 3. Far∣ther, there 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 sub∣stance with the Hebrew, as before. That Plato drew much of his Phi∣losophie 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, given to Mercature, familiar to the Greeks: also they sent several Colonies into various parts of the World. Nothing hinders therefore, but that Plato might attain to a more intimate Knowledge of their 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 ap∣plicable to Plato; or else, if this may seem to bold, because a novel

Assertion, 4. We may with Austin, and other Learned, both Anci∣ent, 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 genu∣ine import thereof: as in the fore-going Chap. §. 3. This is the Opi∣nion 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.* 1.575 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 e∣very 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 Phe∣nician Philosophie, and Theologie, seems more then probable from Plato's own Confessions; for he oft makes mention of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Syrian, and Phenician Fable or Tradition, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Hea∣thens; and thence 'tis no wonder, that Plato calls them ineffable Fa∣bles. Indeed, the most of his Jewish Traditions, which he gleaned up in those Oriental parts, especially such as referred to the Jewish Mysteries, and Divine Worship, were to him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ineffable, and unintelligible, and therefore he calls them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fables: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣cording 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fables, they are called by Aristotle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philomythists, Lovers of Fables, or My∣stical 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 Dia∣lect 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 Chalde∣ans (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 Wis∣dom, and Traditions originally Jewish: also, what an huge advan∣tage he had for the gratifying his Curiositie herein, first, by his Tra∣vels 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 Di∣vine Mysteries, which he greedily embraced, without any real under∣standing of their genuine import and sense, whence he turned the glorie of God into a Fable, as he calls his Traditions: or as the Scri∣pture 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 peregri∣nations, given us by Hornius, Hist. Philos. l. 3. c. 14. out of Madau∣rensis, 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 Eu∣ritus,* 1.576 and Archytas the Pythagoreans. He had also bent his mind to∣wards 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, cal∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Academie, which was, as Laertius tells us, a woody, and marshy place, and so very unhealthie; in former times possessed by one Ecademus an Heroe, who after his death became a Daemon, for Eupolis Comicus calls him a God. Plutarch in his Chesew, tells us, that this Ecademus was the first who made discoverie of Castor, and

Pollux, of Helena stolen away by Theseus,* 1.577 whence the Lacedemonians had him alwaies in great honour. From him this Place was called first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Laertius, Hesychius, and Stephanus in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whence afterward, by the change of a Letter, it was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aca∣demie (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 to the Muses in this place. And Aelian, lib. 3. saies, That the ancient Philosophers so reverenced this place, as that they counted it not lawful to laugh here, because they would have it kept pure from all dis∣solution of mind. There were at Athens besides the Academie, other Scholes, the Lyceum, Prytaneum, Canopum, Stoa, Tempe, Cynosar∣ges, &c. as Lud. Vives, in August. Civit.. l. 8. c. 12. Athens was in∣deed the Eye of Greece, thence called by Euripides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Greece of Greece; by Diadorus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by Thucidides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by Strabo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

§. 7. As for Plato's Character, we find him greatly,* 1.578 and I think too greatly extolled by some: Lud. Vives in Aug. Civit. l. 8. c. 4. saies of Plato,

that many have written his Life, and famous Acts: many place him for his Wisdom and Morals, above all humane elevation; but truly I would count them so far short in their Estimation, and love of him, as that if I were not assured they were greatly addict∣ed to him, I would suspect they envyed his praises. He is deceived in my ••pinion, whosoever he be, that counts Plato not something more than a Man, or truely not of the best and rarest so••t of Men.

Thus Lud. Vives. So again, in Aug. Civi••. l. 22. c. 28.

There are three things (saies he) which gained not only Greece, but the whole World to Plato; namely, his Integritie of Life, his Holie P••ecepts, and his Eloquence.

Seneca, Epist. 44. gives Plato this concise Character, Platonem non accepit nobilem Philosophia, sed fecit. Philosophie found not Plato noble, but made him so. Eusebius lib. 10. praep. c. 3. saies, that Plato excelled all that went before him in Philosophie, also in Elo∣quence, and in Prudence. The usual Title they gave him, was the Di∣vine, which was the highest Honour. Others there are, who de∣presse him as much. But it is most certain, Plato was a Person of vast

Naturals: he had a Spirit sublime, penetrant, and comprehensive, e∣ven to marvel: a Phancie most luxuriant, and pregnant; a Concepti∣on readie, and vivid; a Discourse mature, yet weightie; a Reason harmonious, and masculine; a Pen polite, and flourishing. In brief, his Natural Capacitie seems cloathed with many eminent Qualities, seemingly opposite with great Lights and heats, force and stabilitie, moderation and promptitude, extention and profoundnes, &c. Yet was he not, as to Morals, without great Blemishes, which stained all the Glorie of his Intellectuals. Pride, which is the Philosophers Ori∣ginal Sin, had a great predominancie on his Spirit: whence Antisthe∣nes, seeing a Vessel wherein Plato's Vomit lay, said, I see Plato's bile here, but I see not his pride; meaning, that his pride stuck too close to him to be vomited up. So Diogenes the Cynick coming into Plato's Schole, tramples upon his Bed, saying, here I trample on Plato's vain∣glory &c. He seemed also addicted to covetousnes, which he is accus∣ed of for receiving 80 talents from King Dionysius (contrary to the practice of his Master Socrates) which occasioned that question 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whether a wise man should study gain? &c.

* 1.579§. 8. Touching Plato's works they are common, and well known. There are ten Dialogues in which the whole of his Philosophie is thought to be comprehended. In which we must distinguish bewixt Plato's proper opinion, and the opinion of others. His own he layes down in the person of Socrates, Timaeus &c. other mens opinions he layes down in the person of Gorgias, Protagoras &c. Amongst these Dialogues some are Logical, as his Gorgias, and Eutydemus. Some are Ethical, as his Memnon, Eutyphro, Philebus, Crito: some are Poli∣tical, as his Laws, and Common-wealth: some are Physical, as his Ti∣maeus: some are Metaphysical, as his Parmenides, and Sophista, which yet are not without somewhat of Logick. His Epistles are by some thought spurious. The Platonick Definitions, adjoyned to his Works, are supposed to be compiled by his Successor Pseusippus: of which hereafter.

CHAP. IV. Of the Academicks, and New Platonicks of Alexandria.

The difference 'twixt the Old, and New Academicks, as to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 limited to matters only doubtful. Whether Plato Dogmatized? The New Academies, and their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The difference betwixt the New Academicks, and the Scepticks, &c. The Original of the New Platonists, and their famous Schole at Alexandria. Of Potamon, Ammonius, Plu∣tarch, and Philo the Jew. Of the great Ammonius, the head of the sacred Succession at Alexandria. How he borrowed the choicest of his Platonick Notions from the Scriptures, and the ad∣vantages he had for such a design. Of Plotinus, Porphyrie, Iam∣blichus, Syrianus, Proclus, Johannes Grammaticus. These New Platonists chose out the best of all Sects, & were thence called Ele∣cticks. The general design of these New Platonists to reforme Phi∣losophie. Ammonius the head of these Reforming Platonists. The defects of this Platonick Reformation, with its evil Effects. 1. In delivering Scriptural Mysteries, as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. under a con∣celed Forme of Platonick Traditions. 2. Too great Idolizing Platonick Philosophie more particularly. The sad Effects of this Platonick Reformation. 1. As to the strengthning of Paganism. 2. As to the corrupting of Christianitie.

§. 1. HAving given some relation of Plato's Travels,* 1.580 and the vari∣ous waies by which he informed himself touching the Jewish Wisdom, and Mysteries; we now proceed to his Schole, Disciples, and Suc∣cessors, and the waies by which they gained further information in the Jewish Doctrine, and Institutes. The Schole where Plato Philosophized, was, (as we have observed) stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Academie; whence his Sect was called Academicks: amongst whom there was a consider∣able difference, which arose from the firmnes of their Assent, or Sus∣pension, as to the truth of things. The Original of this difference was laid in Socrates's Schole, who out of his modestie, pretending to know nothing, would not in matters dubio•• assert any thing perem∣ptorily,

but left his Scholars to dispute pro or contra, as they listed. This Problematick mode of Philosophizing, was followed by Plato in his Academie; yet with a considerable difference from the New Aca∣demicks. For in Plato's Academie they affected not an universal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, suspension, but limited the same to things disputable, and dubious. Plato (and the Old Academists) held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That Being was always one and the same without generation, and that therefore it was truly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, knowable. In which rank he placed all notions of God, of happiness, of the other Life, wherein there is a discrimination of good from evil Men. Of these matters Plato allowed not a libertie of Disputing pro and contra; but either laies them down peremptorily as certain, and indubitable Principles, or else from infallible Principles proves the same infallibly, whence he draws down true and eternal Conclusions. But as for things natural, and sen∣sible, wherein there was little Certaintie, or Evidence, he taketh, and alloweth his Scholars a Latitude of asserting, and denying things; which laid the foundation of the Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension. And that Plato made this difference betwixt assent to things certain, and things dubious, is evident from his distinction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Opinionative, and Demonstrative Character. He held, that all things were not to be believed, not all things to be dis∣believed; but that things certain were certainly to be believed, and things dubious to be left 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, undetermined; wherein he allow∣ed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Problematick Libertie of disputing pro or contra. This gives us a good decision of that great question amongst the An∣cients:* 1.581 Whether Plato Dogmatized? By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they mean to im∣pose a Dogme, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to impose a Law: in which sense 'tis used, Col. 2.20. where it signifies not only a Dogme decreed, but the De∣cree it self, and its imposition. Laertius lib. 3. gives us a good solu∣tion hereof. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those things Plato comprehend∣ed, he asserts; those things which are false, he refuted; and about those things which are uncertain, he suspended. We find much the same mention'd by Sextus Empericus the Sceptick, cap. 31.

Some saies he) hold Plato to be Dogmatick: others conceive him to be Aporematick, or suspensive: others think him in some things Dogma∣tick, in some things Aporematick: For in his Gymnastick Discourses, where Socrates is brought in disputing with the Sophists, they af∣firme,

he has a Gymnastick, or Aporematick Character; but when he declareth his own opinion, he is Dogmatick, &c.

We have this more particularly expressed by Diogenes Laertius lib. 3. where he distinguisheth betwixt what Plato asserted as true; and what he left un∣certain by the persons whom he brings in disputing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Concern∣ing the things, which he asserted, he produced his opinion by four persons, Socrates, Timaeus, his Aethenian Host, and his Eleatick Host.

But in the refuting of falshood he introduceth Trasymachus, Callicles, Polus, Gorgias, and Protagaras: adde moreover Hippias, and Euthy∣demus, &c. By all which we see, how far the Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sus∣pension was allowed in the Old Aecademie instituted by Plato, who was succeeded therein by Speusippus his Sister Potona's son, who taught in the Academie 8 years, but for Hire, contrarie to the practice of Socrates, and Plato, for which he was upbraided. This Speusippus is supposed to be the compiler of the Platonick Definitions subjoyned to, and (as I gather by comparing them) abstracted from Plato's Works. After Speusippus succeeded Xenocrates the Chalcedonian, who was of a dull wit, wherefore Laertius tells, that Plato should say, Xenocrates wanted Spurs, but Aeristotle a bridle. Unto Xenocrates succeeded Polemo, who was followed by his Disciples Crates the Aethenian, and Crantor, who is said to be the first, that Commented on Plato: so Proclus in Timaeus l. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And thus far continued the Old Aecademists, who insisting on Plato's steps, neither asserted, not denyed all things; but what they comprehended, they affirmed, and what they found uncertain, they left so, without any peremptorie definition.

§. 2. After Crantor succeeded Arcesilaus,* 1.582 or (as the Latines) Ar∣cesilas who founded the second Academie, wherein they maintained an universal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incomprehension, and suspension. The ground, which Arcesilas proceeds upon to defend his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or co∣hibition of assent, was indeed originally laid in Socrates's Schole, and therefore he makes use of Socrates's Authoritie to defend himself, who affirmed he knew nothing, that so by this his modest concession, he might refute the immodest, and proud assumings of his Adversaries, who pretended to know all things. So Lud. Vives in August. de Civit. lib. 8. cap. 12. This (saies he)

is the old Academie which by Pole∣mon the disciple of Xenocrates was delivered over to Arcesilas, who

essayed to reduce the mode of disputing to the Socratick manner, to affirme nothing himself, but to confute what others maintained: which was called the New Academie; whence the name Academick was appropriated to Arcesilas, &c.

It cannot be denyed, but that Socrates (and Plato after him) especially in his Gymnastick disputes u∣sed, and allowed a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a probationarie mode of diputing, for, and against both parts; but yet his designe was not to introduce an universal suspension in things certain, but only to beat out Truth in things uncertain. For it is most certain that Socrates, and Plato both asserted, and determin'd many things, whence they are generally accounted Dogmatick, though in things doubtful they used to suspend, and allow a Libertie, as before. But now these New Academicks Arcesilas, and his adherents asserted, that all things were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incomprehensible, and therefore, that there was no room for a firme assent, but that we ought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to suspend in all things; wherein they differed greatly from the old Academicks instituted by Plato: though it must be still confessed, they received their original from them, as it is well observed by Serranus in his Preface to Plato.

There is no doubt, saies he, but that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and dubitations of the New Academicks were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and corruptions of the old opi∣nion, &c.

This Old Opinion he elsewhere acquaints us withall, shewing how it was the mode in Plato's Academie, in matters sensible, such as were only probable, and doubtful, to give, and take a Libertie of disputing for either part, the Affirmative, or Negative, so that the Position was still left 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 undetermined, whence by these, and such like Quodlibetick Disputes, or Sceptick Questionings of every thing, men at last began to believe nothing: for nothing is more natural, saith Jansenius, than for men from Peripateticks (i. e. contentious di∣sputers) to become Academicks.* 1.583 But that which superadded much strength to this Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension, was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eristick Logick, founded in the Eleatick Schole, and assumed by the New Academicks, of which before. Unto Arcesilas succeeded Laeys his Disciple, who had for his successors, Telecles, Evander, and Hegesip∣pus, the last of this second Academie. For Carneades the Cyrenean, who succeeded, is made the Institutor of a Third Academie, which differed from the Second Instituted by Arcesilas in two Points: 1. In that Carneades, acknowledged something true and something fals, only he affirmed there was not in us a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or skill to difference the truth from falshood. 2. Carneades though he asserted an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet he denyed not, but somewhat was probable, or not. Others there be, who adde a Fourth, and Fift Academie. We have a good account of all in Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. 1. cap. 33. There were Academies, as they say, more than Three.

The first, and most Ancient of Plato: the second, and middle of Ar∣cesilas: the third, and new of Carneades, and Clitomachus.

There are who adde a fourth of Philo, and Charmidas, and a fifth of Antiochus, &c. As for Philo's Academie, it came near the old, in that it allowed a Wise man to Opine or Entertain some opinions, which Carneades de∣nyed. And Antiochus Philo's hearer, who lived about Cicero's time, seemed wholly to restore the old Academie save only in this, that as to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or facultie of Judging, he enclined to the Stoicks. But these four last Academies are usually comprized all under the stile of the New Academie (though some came nearer to, and some were more remote from the old) which some confound with the Scepticks: but Sextus Empiricus (cap. 13.) gives us this difference.* 1.584

Those of the New Academies (saies he) though they affirme all things are In∣comprehensible, yet they differ from the Scepticks, perhaps in saying, that all things are Incomprehensible; for they assert this: but the Sce∣pticks admit it possible, that they may be Comprehended. We differ also from the New Academie as to what belongs to the end. They use in the course of life what is credible: we following Laws, Customes, and Natural affections, live without engaging our opinion, &c.

§. 3. After various transformations of the Academie,* 1.585 those who adher'd to Plato's Dogmes, rejected the name of Academicks, and espoused that of Platonicks, so that the stile of Academicks was confined to the Secta∣tors of Arcesilas, who maintained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Incompre∣hension, and Suspension: thus Lud. Vives on August. Civ. l. 8. c. 12. Arcesilas who attained to bring in the Socratick mode of disputing, to affirme nothing, but to refute the affirmations of others,* 1.586 constituted the New Academie. Hence they, who illustrated things, and assert∣ed certain Dogmes which they conceived to be the opinions of Plato, these were called Platonicks, not Academicks; for I conceive, the name Academick stuck too fast in the Schole of Arcesilas: thus Lud. Vives. The first revivings of the old Academie, or Platonick Philoso∣phie seems to owe it's original to the famous Schole of Alexandria in Egypt, instituted by Ptolomaeus Philadelphus, who out of his great zeal for the advancing of Learning, caused the Egyptian Wisdom, which had

been before confined to the Egyptian Priests, and Language, to be translated into the Greek tongue, to which he added the Greek ver∣sion of the sacred Scriptures, commonly called the LXX, which rendred this Schole of Alexandria most renowned. He also called hither Learned Men from all parts, as well Jews, as Grecians, erected a fa∣mous Librarie; searched farre and near for Learned Records to adorne the same withall, and instituted Colleges for the encouragement of the Learned Professors, & Students. This same design was carried on by his Son Euergetes, who gave great encouragement to the Jews, and others to resort hither, to this famous Schole of Alexandria which proved the most flourishing, that ever was before or since, especially for Plato∣nick Philosophie, which revived, and flourished here for many gene∣rations, as has been before observed, Book 1. chap. 3. §. 10, 11. of this second part.

* 1.587§. 4. The first famous Platonist (according to what observation we have made) that flourished in this Schole of Aelexandria was Pota∣mon, who lived in the times of Caesar Aeugustus, and Tiberius; as Laertius in his Preface: So Suidas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 'Potamon the Alexandrine Philosopher, who was before, and after Aeugustus, &c. The same Suidas tells us that he left behind him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Commen∣tarie on Plato's books of Common-wealth; and we may presume he writ other pieces, though he has nothing extant at present. To Potamon, we may adde Ammonius (not the famous Master of Origen, and Ploti∣nus but) the famous Master of Plutarch, who lived in the time of Nero, and Vespasian. Yea Plutarch himself, who had his education in this Schole of Alexandria, and flourished under Domitian, was not only famous for Philologie, and Historie, but also for Philosophie, and principally the Platonick, as appears by his Writings, &c. To whom we may subjoyn Philo the Jew, who was of this Schole of Alexandria and drencht in Platonick Philosophie, as it appeares by his works: So Lud. Vives in August. Civ. lib. 17. cap. 20.

This book (saies he speaking of that Apocryphous Book called the Wisdom of Solomon) is thought to have been composed by Philo the Alexandrine Jew, who lived in the times of the Apostles, and was a Friend to them, and was so much adorned with the Greek speech and Eloquence, as that the Greeks said of him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either Philo doth Platonize, or Plato doth Philonize.

§. 5.* 1.588 But Platonick Philosophie never flourished more than under Ammonius, that famous head 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the sacred succession of this Schole of Alexandria, continued by Origen, Herennius, and ••lo∣tinus, &c. This Ammonius is supposed to be different from Ammo∣nius the Praeceptor of Plutarch, as well as from Ammonius the Monk, Disciple of Proclus, and Interpreter of Aristotle, as Vossius de philos. sect. cap. 21. §. 6. There was a great Controversie betwixt the Learned Christians, and the latter Platonists, whether this g••eat Am∣monius dyed a Pagan, or Christian. Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 19. and Jerom. assure us he was a Christian, though Porphyrie denies the same. Thus much is generally confessed, that he borrowed the choicest of his Contemplations from the sacred Scriptures, which he mixt with his Platonick Philosophizings. And indeed he had a mighty advantage to informe himself, not only in the sacred Scriptures,* 1.589 of the Old Testa∣ment translated by the LXX, but also in the New Testament Records, and Doctrines propagated by the Disciples, and Apostles of Christ. For without doubt Philo, that learned Jew bred up in this Schole of Alexandria (& as Lud. Vives tells us, a friend to the Apostles) with the rest of the Jews there, could not but have a full relation of Christ, his Acts, and Doctrine. Besides there was in this Town of Alexan∣dria a famous Christian Church, and Schole setled by Mark the E∣vangelist, and continued by Panthenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, &c. whose Doctrine, Discipline, and sacred Mysteries, we cannot conceive such a person as Ammonius would let passe unexamined. Yea far∣ther, so glorious, and ravishing were the first dawnings of Gospel light, which brought such glad tidings of Salvation to Mankind, as that not only the Jews, but also some sober minded, inquisitive Gentiles rejoy∣ced in this Light for a season (according to that Observation John 5.35.) who yet never had a through work of Conversion on their hearts: amongst this number we may reckon Seneca (whom some think to have had conference by Paper with Paul) Epictetus, Plinie the younger (who Apologized unto Trajan in the behalf of the Christians) & this famous Ammonius of Alexandria with some others. Yea I see no reason to the contrarie, but that we may allow these, and some other unprejudiced Noble Gentiles, as well as the unbelieving Jews, to have had some common irradiations, and illuminations of the Spirit over and above that objective Light, and Revelation of the Gospel, which shone so brightly round about them. He that shall read the Works of Seneca, Epictetus, Hierocles, and these latter Platonists of Alexand••ia, who had

the glorious beams of Gospel Light waiting on them, will find their Philosophizings about Divine Mysteries to be of a much higher Ele∣vation, and Raisure, than any of their Predecessors; which we may impute not only to the objective Revelation of Gospel light external∣ly communicated to them, but also to some internal subjective, though but common, and transient irradiation of the Spirit, which usually at∣tends in some degree the external Revelation of the Gospel, especially at the first publication thereof in any place. That it was thus with many carnal Jews at the first publication of the Gospel by John, & Christ, is most evident: and why may we not affirme the same of many Gentiles, who being of more raised, and generous spirits, could not but make some inquisition into those stupendious Miracles, and Reports, touching Christ, and that Redemption brought to light by him; which Enqui∣ries of theirs, being attended with some Common Light, and Heat of the Spirit, raised their Spirits, and Philosophick Contemplations to some higher Elevation, than what their Predecessors attain'd unto. And that which might animate the latter Platonists to such Enquiries, into those Divine, and Sacred Mysteries, was their correspondence, and agreement with the choicest of their Master Plato's Contemplations, who treated much (though without understanding rightly the matters he treated of) concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The very Being, Self-Being, Word, Mind, Idea of the choicest Good, Soul of the World, Chaos, &c. And the latter Plato∣nists Ammonius, &c. finding these their Masters Notions so fully, and clearly explicated in sacred Revelations, both of the Law, and Gospel; this made them more affectionately inquisitive thereinto, and after their curious inquisitions, finding a great Symbolization, and Harmonie betwixt many of their Platonick Principles, and the Divine Scriptures, they made what use they could of the Latter to Reforme, Refine, and Strengthen the Former. This designe was first set on foot by Ammonius the chief of that Sacred Succession, who if he were not a real Christian, yet he seems to have had, with Agrippa, some almost persuasions, and affectionate inclinations to the Christian Religion; the Principles whereof he does incorporate so far as he durst with his Phi∣losophick Notions, with endeavours to infuse the same into his Scholars, Origen, Herennius Plotinus, with the rest. Some conceive that Am∣monius imparted those more divine Mysteries, which he collected out of Sacred Revelations into his Platonick Philosophizings, with an ad∣juration of Secrecie to his Scholars. How far this design of Ammoni∣us

to reforme Platonick Philosophie by mixing Divine Revelations therewith took place, and what emprovement Platonisme received hence, together with the poysonous influences it has had on the the Christian faith, we shall hereafter shew. What we have alreadie mentioned sufficeth to prove, that Platonick Philosophie received a mightie elevation, and advance in this Schole of Alexandria under Ammonius, by virtue of his affectionate searches into, and Collections from the Sacred Scriptures, attended with some common illuminations, though perhaps without any saving light of Life from the Spirit of God. Whence also his Scholars, Origen, Herennius, and Plotinus together with their Successors in this sacred Schole of Alexandria, Porphyrie, Iamblichus, &c. received their choicer, and more sub∣lime contemplations, albeit they concele the same, pretending, these more refined Notions to have been derived to them from the Pythago∣rean, and Platonick source; whereas they were indeed no other than derivations from the sacred fountain of Divine Revelation, communi∣cated by the hands of Ammonius the chief of that Sacred Succession, as they call it.

§. 6. To Ammonius Succeeded Plotinus,* 1.590 born at Lycop••lis a Citie of Egypt, and instituted in the Platonick Philosophie at Alex∣andria under Ammonius. He left behind him, besides other things, 54 Books divided into Enneades, which though obscure,* 1.591 and cloudie according to the Platonick mode, yet are they esteemed the most exact∣est model of Platonick Philosophie extant: so Aeugust. de Civit. l. 9. c. 10.

Truly Plotinus who lived near to the times of our memorie, is extolled for his understanding Plato more excellently than others, &c. So agen, Austin lib. 3. Acad. writes, that Plato seemed to be revived in Plotinus. Thus was he Plato's most refined, and lucid Mouth in Philosophie, and abstracting the Clouds of error, Macro∣bius makes him the Prince of Platonick Philosophers, next Plato, as Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ. lib. 9. cap. 10.

Plotinus had for his Disciples Amelius, and Porphyrie. He lived under the Emperours Galienus, and Probus. His Life is writ by his Disciple Porphyrie, and premised to his works. Porphyrie gives him this Character.

Who, saies he, expounded the principles of Pythagorick, and Platonick Philosophie, more clearly, as it seems, than all ••hat went before him: neither do the Writings of Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus, and Thrasyllus come near unto the accurate diligence of Plotinus, &c.

* 1.592§. 7. Porphyrie Disciple first of Plotinus, and then of Amelius, was Born at Tyre, and according to the Language of the Tyrians was called Malchus after his Fathers name, which signifies a Prince, or King: so Suidas: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Porphyrie was properly called Basileus. He was a Tyrian Philosopher, Disci∣ple of Amelius the Scholar of Plotinus, but the Master of Iamblichus. He lived in the times of Aurelianus, and reached even to the times of Diocletian the Emperor.

Suidas here rightly translates Porphyrie's Phenician name Malchus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a King, for so in the Hebrew, (from which the Phenecian Language differs only in some Dialect) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies, as Vossius. Yea Porphyrie himself in the Life of Plotinus gives us the reason, why he was called a King.

Amelius, saies he Dedica∣ted his Book to me, and in the Inscription named me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 King: for that was my Name: and in the Language of my countrie I was called Malchus, by which Name my Father was also called. And Malchus translated into Greek signifies a King: thus he.

Eunapius in the Life of Porphyrie gives us an account, how his name came to be changed. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Accord∣ing to the Syrian tongue, he was first called Malchus, which word signifies a King, but afterward Longinus named him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Por∣phyrie.

He was called Porphyrie, from Purple, which is the colour of Kings, as Vossius; or perhaps because Purple was the great Commodi∣tie which Tyre afforded. Austin de Civit. Dei hints, That this Porphyrie was first a Christian, but afterwards apostatized, and a bitter Enemie of the Christians. He was a great admirer of Apollonius, Tyanaeus, that Pythagorean Sorcerer, and endeavours to make him equal in point of Miracles unto Christ; wherein he was refuted by Eusebius. Ludov. Vives in August. lib. 8. cap. 12. doth thus Characterize him.

Porphyrie was a person of an unsound bodie, and minde, of a judgment uncon∣stant, and of an hatred sharpe, and cruel, even unto madnes.

He had notwithstanding the name of a great Philosopher, or Sophist, as well as Historian. He writ the Lives of the Philosophers, whereof there is extant only the Life of Pythagoras, which was at first published under the Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Book Cyril cites against Julian, and ascribes to Porphyrie. Concerning Porphyrie see more largely Lucas Ho••stenius, and Vossius de Histor. Gracis lib. 2. cap. 16. Edit. 2. pag. 244.

§. 8. After Porphyrie, succeeded Iamblichus his Disciple,* 1.593 who was born at Chalcis in Syria, and flourished in the times of Constantine the Great, and his Sons; as also in Julian's time:

He was,* 1.594 saith Lud. Vives▪ of a better natural Disposition, and Manners, than his Ma∣ster Porphyrie.

Vossius calls him a Platonick Philosopher, though Lud. Vives saies (according to Jerom) he was not so much a Platonick,* 1.595 as a Pythagorean: Yet he confesseth, that as

to Divine matters, all the Platonists did Pythagorize.

There are extant two of his Protre∣ptick Orations for Philosophie; also his Historie of Pythagoras's Life, wherein he follows his Master Porphyrie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; out of whose Book he transcribes many things with very little, if any alteration of the words. There are three Epistles of Julian the Apostate to Iamblichus yet extant, which argues a Friendship betwixt them, and 'tis likely the same continued even whilst Julian made some profession of the Christian Religion. Suidas tells us out of Damascius, that Isidorus esteemed Iamblichus the most excellent of Writers after Plato. We have Iamblichus's Life described by Eunapius, also by Vossius, Hist. Graec. l. 2. c. 10. p. 208. August. de Civit. l. 8. c. 12. saies, that

a∣mongst the Platonists the Grecians, Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyrie, were greatly noble, &c.

§. 9. Syrianus Alexandrinus,* 1.596 Fellow-Citizen, and Sectator of Iam∣blichus, follows next in this Sacred succession of Platonick Philoso∣phers. He lived about the Year, 470. and writ four Books on Plato's Common-wealth; also on all Homer, with other things, as Suidas relates. Isidorus the Philosopher had a great esteem for him, who after Plato, next to Iamblichus, placeth Syrianus his Sectator as the most ex∣cellent of Writers. So Suidas out of Damascius.

§. 10. Proclus Lysius, Disciple of Syrianus, succeeded him in this famous Platonick Schole. This Proclus flourished about the Year 500.* 1.597 as 'tis evident, though some, upon a great mistake, make him to have lived almost 300 Years before. Suidas calls him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Platonick Philosopher. He was usually called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dia∣dochus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by reason of his succession in the Platonick Schole. He writ many things; as ten Books of the Agreement betwixt Or∣pheus, Pythagoras, and Plato in Oracles; also six Books of Platonick Philosophie, which are yet extant: likewise a Commentarie on Plato's Timaeus, and on his Books of Common-wealth, yet extant also; with other Pieces lost, of which Suidas makes mention. Proclus's Life was writ

by his Scholar, and successor Marinus, who tells us, that he had some taste of Aristotle's Philosophie from Olympiodorus, which he cursorily ran thorough in two Years space. The same Marinus tells us also,

that he was accurately skilled in Grammar, Historie, and Poesie, in the Mathematicks perfect, and well versed in Platonick Philosophie.

His Mode in Philosophizing is cloudie, and obscure; as that of Plo∣tinus, and the rest of the New Platonists: He endeavours, according to the Symbolick mystical manner of Platonists, to reduce all things to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trinities. He took (as Vossius thinks) the occasion of heaping up so many Trinities, from Plato's lib. 2. de Repub. where he treats of those three Types of God, Bonitie, Immutabilitie, (or Unitie) and Veritie. Whence Aristotle also received his three affections of Eus, Bonitie, Unitie, and Veritie. This Proclus was a bitter enemie to the Christians, and the first after Porphyrie, that turned his Pen dipt in Gall against the Christians. He is answered by that great Christian Philosopher,* 1.598 Johannes Grammaticus, as hereafter. Proclus in his Pla∣tonick Theologie, lib. 1. cap. 1. gives us some account of this Sacred Succession in this Platonizing Theologick Schole; how that after many Ages, Plotinus the Egyptian succeeded therein, who was followed by A∣melius, and Porphyrie his Disciples; as also these by Iamblichus, and Theodorus their Successors, &c.

* 1.599§. 11. We may not omit here the mention of Johannes Gramma∣ticus, alias Philoponus, that famous Christian Philosopher, who, though the most of his Works extant are Commentaries on Aristotle's Text, yet it's evident, that his Spirit was deep drencht in Platonick Philo∣sophie, especially as it was refined by Ammonius that famous Head of the sacred succession at Alexandria: For so the Title of his Commen∣taries runs, Extracts out of Ammonius, &c. Indeed most of those Greek Philosophers, who take Aristotle's Text for their subject; namely, Porphyrie, Proclus, with his Scholar Ammonius, and Simplicius, were in their Spirits Platonists. For Aristotle came not in to be Master in the Schole, till Abenroes, and the rest of the Arabians advanced him in Plato's Chair. Such was this Johannes Grammaticus, who for his unwearied Studies, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philoponus. He follows ex∣actly the Design of Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, and more particularly of the great Ammonius (whom he owns as the source of his Philosophie) in endeavouring to prove, that Plato borrowed his choicest Notions touching the Origine of the World, &c. out of

Moses, and the Prophets: he gives sundry Instances herein, as that of Plato's calling the World a visible Image of the invisible God,

which, saies he, was but a mistaken Tradition of Gen. 1.27.

Also he makes Plato's Discourse of God's beholding the Works of his hands as very perfect, and rejoycing therein, &c. to be taken from Gen. 1.31. This Johannes Grammaticus, in his excellent Treatise of the Soul (proaem. ad Arist. de anima) endeavours to prove, that Aristotle asserted God to be the first Mover, and Cause of all things, &c. Also he proves out of Aristotle's Canons touching the Soul, its immaterialitie, spiritu∣alitie in operation, and immortalitie, &c. Proaem. fol. 6. &c. In his choice Piece of the Creation, he proves the World's Origine by God out of Plato, &c. And whereas Proclus endeavours to reconcile Plato with Aristotle, shewing how Plato, when he treats of the World's Origine, meant it not as to time, but Causalitie, &c. This Learned Philoponus writes two Books against Proclus, confuting these his false Impositions on Plato, &c.

§. 12. To the fore-mentioned Greek Platonists, we may adde Ma∣ximus Tyrius,* 1.600 who flourished in the time of Commodus the Empe∣rour, as Suidas, and was well versed in Platonick Philosophie, as it appears by his Writings, wherein we have many of Plato's choicest Notions delivered to us more clearly, and nakedly, than in other Pla∣tonists of greater vogue.

§. 13. Neither must we let passe Alcinous,* 1.601 another Greek Platonist, who hath left us a short Abstract of Platonick Philosophie, on which Jacobus Carpentarius, that Claromontane Professor (an inveterate Ene∣mie of Ramus, and, as it's said, the Original of his being Massacred) hath given us a good Commentarie. In what Age this Alcinous lived, it's not certain. Eusebius de Praeparat. Evang. lib. 11. cites a good part of this Alcinous's Epitome, under the name of Didymus: whence it is conjectured, that Didymus Alexandrinus was the Author of this Book; or that he transcribed that place quoted by Eusebius out of Al∣cinous: so Vossius de Philos. sect. cap. 16. §. 5.

§. 14. Amongst the Latin Platonists, we may reckon Apuleius,* 1.602 whose Book de Dogmate Platonis, is yet extant, August. de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 12. tells us, that Apuleius the African Platonist, grew very fa∣mous in both Tongues, &c. Augustin often quotes him, and makes much use of his Notions, and Testimonie to confirm the Christian Religion. To him we may adde Chalcidius,* 1.603 another Latin Platonist,

whose Commentarie on Plato's Timaeus is yet extant. Neither should we forget Marsilius Ficinus,* 1.604 who though but a Moderne Author, and Roman Catholick, yet deserves praise for his elaborate Studies, and endeavours to explicate Platonick Philosophie, especially for his Treatise de Immortalitate Animae, of the Soul's Immortalitie, which he proves by strong convictive Arguments, wherein he takes occasion to illustrate the chief Points of Plato's Philosophie.

* 1.605§. 15. Thus we see how the Old Academie or Platonick Philoso∣phie was revived by the New Platonists, especially those of the Sa∣cred Succession in the Schole of Alexandria, where the Platonick Phi∣losophie was mostly in vogue, though not exclusively, as to the other Sects. For we must know these New Platonists did not, at least the most of them, wholly devote themselves to Plato, so as to exclude all other Sects; but made it their busines to choose what they found ex∣cellent in any other Sect: whence they were called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Elective Sect; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Electicks, because, saies Suidas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They chose out their Placites from every Sect. Thence Festus Pompeius calls them Miscelliones. Po∣tamon Alexandrinus is said to be the first of this Sect. So Diogenes La∣ertius in his Preface, There is, saies he, of late an Elective Sect, intro∣duced by Potamon Alexandrinus, who chose what he pleas'd out of every Sect. Sotion, Seneca's Preceptor, was of this Sect, who, though he past under the name of a Stoick, yet was he a great Admirer of Pythago∣ras, &c. as Seneca, Epist. 58. I am not ashamed to confesse, what a love of Pythagoras Sotion infused into me, saies seneca, who was also of this Sect. The like may be said of Hierocles, who though mostly Stoick, yet was he a great esteemer of Pythagorean Philosophie, as appears by his Commentarie on Lysis's Golden Verses, which passe un∣der the name of Pythagoras. Ammonius, Plutarch's Master, is said to be of this Elective Sect. That Plotinus affected an universal mixture of all Philosophie, is evident, partly by what was before mentioned, §. 6. how he mixed Platonick, and Pythagorick Philosophie, &c. as also by what is mentioned of him by Porphyrie in his Life, That he mixed in his Writings the secret Dogmes of the Stoicks, and Peripateticks. So Iamblichus mixeth Pythagorean, and Platonick Philosophie. Por∣phyrie, Proclus, Johannes Grammaticus, and Symplicius, mix Platonick, and Aristotelian Philosophie. And it is an Assertion generally owned by the Learned, that all those New Platonists of this Alexandrine

Schole, did, as to Theologie, Pythagorize; wherein they did no more than their Master Plato: for Proclus spends ten Books in drawing a parallel betwixt Plato, Pythagoras, and Orpheus, as to Divine Ora∣cles, &c. This Elective Sect of Philosophers, is mostly approved by Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I call Philosophie not the Stoick, neither the Platonick, or the Epicurean, and Aristotelick, but whatever is said to be taken from each of these Sects rightly, teaching righteousnes with pious Science, this altogether select∣ed, I call Philosophie. Origen also seems to have been of this same perswasion: And that, which made these generous Spirits to keep themselves disengaged from any particular Sect, was their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, love to Truth, commended so much by Plato. So Ammonius on Arist. Categor. pag. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It was Plato's Speech: Socrates truly is dear, but truth is dearer to us: And elsewhere, we must regard Socrates in some things, but Truth much more. Thence Porphyrie in the Life of Pythagoras, tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Truth only can make men near to God. So Iamblichus, ex∣pressing the mind of the Pythagoreans, saies, that next to God, Tru••h is to be worshipped, which alone makes men next to God. Yet in as much as they thought Truth was no where so fully, so lively represented to them, as in Plato's Works, they judged it their interest, and honour to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philoplatonists; wherefore they usually passe under the name of the New Platonists, though indeed their Principles were not so clung, but that they could embrace Truth, where ever they found it amongst any of the other Sects; especially the Pythagoreans, with whom they ever held an intimate Fraternitie, or Consociation. See more of this Elective Sect in Vossius de Philos. sect. cap. 21.

§. 16.* 1.606 What has been mentioned gives us some discoverie of the general Designe of these New Platonists; which was not to espouse any particular Sect so far as to exclude all the rest, but to make an uni∣versal Inquisition into all Opinions, which carried a shew of Wisdom. This Noble Design, had it been as nobly managed as they pretended, without prejudice, and private affection, it had led them into higher

discoveries of Truth, than ever they attained unto. For they had the greatest Advantages that might be (as before §. 5.) to informe themselves fully touching the great Doctrines, and Mysteries of Sacred Philosophie, or Wisdom, that shone so brightly in the Christian Churches: but this was too glorious, and dazling an object, for their carnal and weak mindes to gaze long upon: only some of the more Noble, and Ingenuous of that Sacred Succession at Alexandria, seem∣ed pretty willing to be dis-abused from some of those grosser Conce∣ptions they had sucked in together with their Platonick Infusions: in order whereto, after enquirie made in the Sanctuarie of Sacred Scri∣ptures, they find a necessitie of Reformation. The head of these Re∣forming Platonists was that great Ammonius, Master of Plotinus, and Origen, who if he were not really, and altogether a Christian, yet cer∣tainly he had a great kindness for those of the Profession, and a parti∣cular affection for their Sacred Oracles; which put him not only upon the studie of the same, but also on this great designe of Collecting what he could out of these Holy Scriptures, and incorporating, or con∣tempering the same Collections with the Systeme, or Bodie of his Platonick Philosophizings. And certainly these endeavours of his could not but give a great sublimation, refinement, and advance to Pla∣tonick Philosophie, though all proved but a bitter, yea poisonous root of those dangerous Errors, and Apostacies, which have ever since befell the Churches of Christ; besides the advantages, which those of that Alexandrine Succession, who continued Pagans, got hence to refine, and strengthen Paganisme. The evidence both of the one, and the other, will follow upon some particular reflections on this Platonick Reformation.

* 1.607§. 17. First, Ammonius the great Promoter of this Platonick Re∣formation, if he were really a Christian (as Eusebius, and Jerome af∣firme him to be) was in this greatly blameable.

1. That he durst not make open Profession of the Christian Religion, which he believed to be the true. But more particularly,

2. For bringing the Sacred Scriptures into one, and the same con∣temperament, or composition with Platonick Philosophie, whereby the for∣mer was greatly adulterated, though the latter received a great em∣provement. This Tertullian takes special notice of, with complaints, that such stript Christianitie of her mantle, to cloath Philosophie therewith∣all; or plundered Divine Truth, to maintain, and enrich Philosophie; with such like Expressions.

3. But Ammonius was yet farther blameable, in that he following Plato's steps, conceled, at least from his Pagan Disciples, and Succes∣sors, the Sacred Fountain, and Original from whence he derived his more sublime, and choicer Notions, which he delivered over unto them as Platonick Derivations; whereas they indeed owed their Ori∣ginal to the Divine Scriptures. 'Tis possible, his designe in thus con∣celing the Sacred source of his Philosophizings, if it proceeded not from carnal fear, might be pretty tolerable, though the effects of it were very sad. For hereby, First, Many of those more sublime, and mysterious Revelations, which he got from the Sacred Scriptures,* 1.608 and foisted into his Philosophie, passed for Platonick Contemplations. In this series, I presume, we may rank the Platonick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trinitie, on which Plotinus his Scholar, and Proclus after him, spend such Mysti∣cal, and sublime Discourses. It's confest, that Plato gave some foun∣dation for such an imaginarie Trinitie: for he makes mention of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Father, the Word, or Mind, and the Universal Spirit, or Soul. Also in his Rep. l. 2. he speaks of Bonitie, Immutabilitie, and Virtue, as before; which Mystical Contemplations I have elsewhere proved were traduced to him originally from the Jewish Church. But yet I cannot remember, that I ever met with, in any part of Plato's Works, any particular express mention of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trinitie, in such a sense as Plotinus, and the rest of the New Platonists Philosophize thereon; and therefore we have ground sufficient to conclude, that this Platonick Trinitie was traduced to these latter Pla∣tonists, not from Plato, but from Ammonius their more immediate Master, who had it from the Sacred Scriptures; though conceling the same, and finding some imaginarie Conceptions thereof in Plato, he delivers it over to his Disciples as a Platonick Tradition. The like may be said of many other of those more refined, and raised Noti∣ons, which we find amongst the New Platonists, which were commu∣nicated to them by Ammonius under the forme of Platonick Deriva∣tions, though they were Originally Christian Traditions. 2.* 1.609 Whence followed another general Evil of this Concelement, which Ammo∣nius made touching the Sacred Fountain of his choicest Notions; namely, hereby Platonick Philosophie, being cloathed in the beauti∣ful dresse of Divine Revelations, and Mysteries, grows more de∣sirable in the eyes, not only of Pagans, but also of some carnal Chri∣stians, than her Mistress the Divine Scriptures, cloathed only in her

own naked garb of Gospel simplicitie. And in truth, this Idolizing humour of crying up Platonick Philosophie, and making it equal to, if not above the Scripture, did not only diffuse it self amongst the Pagan Platonists, but had too great influence on many of those whom we count Christian Fathers, especially Origen; and does continue to this very day among many Platonists, who finding many excellent No∣tions amongst those Alexandrine Platonists, Plotinus, &c. and some af∣finitie betwixt their Philosophick Contemplations, and Scripture Reve∣lations, are very apt, at least in their inward esteem, to equalize, if not prefer their Platonick Philosophie to the Sacred Scriptures, as it has been excellently well observed by Learned Stilling fleet, Origin Sacr. Book 3. Chap. 3. §. 13.

* 1.610§. 18. We have shewen what are the general Evils, that attended this Platonick Reformation, begun by Ammonius in the Schole of A∣lexandria: we shall proceed to Particulars, with endeavours to de∣monstrate what sad Effects this mixture of Divine Revelation, with Platonick Philosophie, had both on Pagans, and Christians. First, as for Pagans, Plotinus, Amelius, Porphyrie, Iamblichus, Hierocles, Syri∣anus, Proclus, Marinus, Damascius, and the rest of that Sacred Succession in the Schole of Alexandria, all the use they make of this Platonick Reformation begun by Ammonius, is, First to enhance, and greaten the value of Platonick Philosophie. 2. To cast the greater slur, and contempt on the Christian Religion, and Scriptures, as want∣ing those Flourishes which their Philosophie was adorned withall. 3. Following Ammonius's steps, they pick out of the Christian Faith what ever might suit with their Platonick Contemplations, or any way serve their turnes: and to concele their stealth, they artificially dis∣guise their stol'n Notions, by wrapping them up in a cloudie Sym∣bolick Forme, after the Platonick mode; as also by professing invete∣rate prejudices against, and opposition to the Christian Religion. 4. But the worst use they made of this their Platonick Reformation, was there∣by to refine, and reforme their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Natural Theologie, commended to them by Pythagoras, and Plato; especially their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Daemon Worship. For these New Platonists of the Ale∣xandrine Schole, observing upon daylie contests with the Christians, many things in their Natural Theologie grosly absurd, and contradi∣ctorie to the remainders of Natures Light, they endeavour to remove these prejudices by some gradual refinement, or partial reformation of

their Daemon-Worship, which carried in it the Spirit of their Natural Theologie. Hence they contract the infinitie of their fictitious Gods unto a small number; asserting but one supreme God, whom they make to be the Sun; which seemed to them the most glorious Being, and that which influenced all lower affairs, as it appears by Julian's Oration to the Sun. As for all other Gods, they esteemed them no o∣ther, than the Papists do their Saints, Daemons, or Mediators betwixt them, and the Supreme God, &c. Thus they pare off many luxuriant branches, which their Natural worship had in the course of time pro∣duced, and reduce it to a more natural, and as they conceive, rational account, and all this by virtue of that Platonick Reformation begun by Ammonius, &c.

§. 19. Neither did the noxious influences of this Platonick Re∣formation seize on Paganisme only, but also on the whole bodie,* 1.611 yea (may we not say) on the vitals of Christianitie. For Origen, Scholar to this famous Ammonius, though a professed Christian, yet he followes his Master's steps, in mixing Platonick Philosophie, and the Doctrines of the Gospel together, hoping thereby to gain credit to the Christi∣an Religion, though indeed it proved only the sophistication thereof, and an effectual door to let in all the great errours, and Antichristian Abominations, which have layen in the bosome of the Church ever since. For so long as the Christian Religion kept her self in her own native beautie, and virgine Simplicitie, she was not troubled, with these great errours, which befell her upon this cursed mixture of Pla∣tonick Philosophie with Christianitie. Had these Christian Platonists Origen, and his followers, made it their designe to reduce their Plato∣nick Notions unto, and reforme them by Scriptures, they might have proved useful; but on the contrarie they rather affected to reduce the Scriptures, and make them stoop to Plato's Dogmes, and Schole, which proved a mighty honour, and emprovement to Platonisme, but a reproach, and corruption to Christianisme, of which see Stillingfleet's Orig. Sac. book 3. c. 3. sect. 13. The full demonstration hereof is a main subject of the following book, where we endeavour to prove, First that the great corruptions amongst the Fathers, had their original from this Platonick Schole at Alexandria, as Book 5. chap. 5. sect. 8. 2. That Samosetanus received his poison from Plotinus's Philosophizings in this Schole about the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Arrius his. Book 5. chap. 5. sect. 9. 3. That all Pelagianisme had it's rise from this Schole. Book. 5. c. 5. §. 10.

4. That all Antichristianisme received it's rise from this Schole, as c. 6. 1. Monastick Life, and Institutes, as chap. 6. §. 1.15. 2. All their Mystical Theologie Ib. 3. All Antichrists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Daemon, or Saint-worship. chap. 6. §. 4, &c. 4. All Popish Abstinences, Satis∣factions, Merits, &c. chap. 6. §. 16. 5. Purgatorie. chap. 6. §. 17. 6. All Papal Hierarchie had it's foundation here. chap. 6. §. 18. By all which we see, what cursed fruits followed this un-Christian design, of drawing the Christian Religion into one Systeme with Platonick Philosophie.

CHAP. V. Plato's Pythagorick, and Socratick mode of Philo∣sophizing, with the Original of both from the Jewish Church.

Plato's Pythagorick, and Symbolick mode of Philosophizing: The advantages of Symbols, as well for the illustration of truth, as for the delighting of phansie, and fixing the memorie. The regular use of Symbols, not so much for pleasure, as truth. Plato's Symbolick mode of Philosophizing from the Jews. How far Plato affected the Socra∣tick mode of Philosophizing, with his differen••e there-from. 1. Plato was more Dogmatick than Socrates. 2. Plato's mode of Dialogi∣zing was more Symbolick, and Metaphorick than that of Socrates. Plato's mode of Philosophizing by Dialogues of Jewish original. Luke 5.21.22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luke 6.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Luke 11.35. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dispute by Questions. Luke 22.68 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if I propose any Arguments, &c.

§. 1. HAving given some Historical account of the Platonists, both Old, and New, with the particular advantages they had to acquaint themselves with Jewish, and Christian Mysteries, we now proceed to the Essential parts of Platonick Philosophie, and their tradu∣ction from the sacred Scriptures.* 1.612 First, as for the Forme, or Mode of Plato's Philosophizings, it is partly Pythagorick, or Symbolick; partly Socratick, with somewhat peculiar, and proper to himself: Of each

distinctly. 1. That Plato abounded much in the Pythagorick, or Symbolick mode of Philosophizing, is evident to any, that is verst in his Philosophie. So Vossius de philos. sect. cap. 12. §. 16.. Plato ac∣cording to the Pythagorean mode, very oft abounds in Symbolick Philoso∣phie. The like Cael. Rodig. lib. 9. cap. 12. He is no Platonist, who thinks that Plato must not be understood Allegorically, unless he will with Aristotle triumph over Plato's words, and not regard his profound sense. So Serranus on Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 symposium, or Dialogue of Love.

It was (saies he) the mode of the Ancient Philosophers to represent Truth by certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Symbols, and hidden Images. That Plato followed these, is put beyond doubt by this his Symposiack Disputa∣tion, in which he makes express mention of Hesiod, and Homer, with whom we find the first true rudiments of Ancient Philosophie. And truly this mode of Philosophizing was accurately polished by the Pythagoreans, the whole of whose Philosophie was wrapped up in the covert of Symbols, or Allegories.

The like he mentions in his Preface to Plato, where he also gives us the advantages of this Symbo∣lick mode of Philosophizing.

It was (saies he) the Ancient man∣ner of Philosophers, to set forth Truth by Symbolick Images. That Plato followed this custome is no way to be doubted, whilst he discourseth of Learning received from them. Neither are there want∣ing reasons which encline unto such a method of teaching: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such a Symbolick Image of things, is exceeding efficatious to strike mens minds, who are greatly moved with such Images. For seeing the truth of things lies wrapt up in much obscuritie, we more compendiously, and safely arrive unto it by such Corporeal gradati∣ons; she lying couched under these shadows, does more powerfully insinuate into mens minds. Neither is there wanting pleasure (the guide, and promotor of Disquisition) in such Symbolick studies, and indagations. These Corporeal Images, and designations of things by their Notes, doe very much conduce in like manner to Memorie, which being excited by the Novitie, Beautie, and matter of admira∣tion which it finds in these Symbols, receives a more deep, firme, and constant impression of these things wrapped up therein.

The like he mentions again in Plato's Symposium, fol. 167. shewing how this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Image-coyning Philosophie, leads men gradually, and sweetly, yet most powerfully towards the contemplation of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 First Being, &c. And indeed Plato himself gives us the

best account of the many excellent advantages,* 1.613 which accrew by this Symbolick imitation, if duely regulated, and managed: so Plato Phaedr. fol. 229. tells us,

that under the covert of his Fables, Ttuth lay wrap'd up, and therefore we must not acquiesce in the Symbol, or Fable, but make enquirie after that truth, which lay hid under it. So in his Repub. 6. fol. 510. Plato, admonisheth us so to read his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Allegorick Images, as not to terminate in the Images them∣selves, but to penetrate unto the things couched under, and repre∣sented by these Symbolick Images. But more fully in his Repub. 10. fol. 598, &c. he acquaints us that this his ••ymbolick imitation did only represent the Image, or Shadow of the thing which is far remote from the truth, as a Limner gives the Picture of a man; and therefore he, that would get the true knowledge of the thing, must not acquiesce in the 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, All Imitation must be judged not by pleasure, or o∣pinion, but by Truth.

So in his de Legib. 5. as elsewhere, &c.

* 1.614§. 2. That Plato, as Pythagoras before him, traduced this Symbo∣lick mode of Philosophizing from the Jewish Church originally, is a ge∣neral presumpion of the Learned. So Serranus, in his Preface to Pla∣to'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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of a Syrian, and Phenician fable, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 dissipa∣tion, and transmigration-. Lastly, whereas in those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Pa∣triarchs, Moses's most ancient Historie demonstrates. Neither is it to be doubted, but that they drew many things also from the clear foun∣tains of the Sacred Bible, which yet they Contaminated with their own muddie mixtures. Hence Plato acquired the name of the Al∣legorick Philosopher, because he used that peculiar way of teaching by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Symbols, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Idols, and from their more abstruse doctrine asserts many Paradoxes.

Thus Serranus: wherein he fully grants, that Plato's Symbolick mode of Philosophizing came original∣ly from the Jews, though immediately from the Egyptians. And the rea∣son 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 de∣nies) 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, re∣ceived 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 Cud∣worth 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 Marri∣age, &c. Yea Serranus is enclined to think that Plato's whole 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Love Dialogue, not that I would seem willing to compare Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Love Songs with Sacred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Py∣thagoras; but only Metaphorick, and Allegorick, answerable to the Jewish Types, and Parables. See more of this difference Book 2. chap. 2. §. 6, 7.

* 1.615§. 3. Plato abounds also much, yea mostly in the Socratick mode of Philosophizing. So August. de Civit. l. 8. c. 4.

And because Pla∣to 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 intelli∣gence, he tempers with, or wraps up under his Master Socrates's Iro∣nick 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 affir∣mation, 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.

* 1.616This Mode of Discourse Plato very much affected, as it appears in his Dialogues, where he brings in Socrates discoursing after his o••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 ig∣norance he conceles his own judgment, with endeavours to evince, and confirme the Hypotheses he designes to prove from the concessions of his Opponents,* 1.617 which he draws forth by a powerful Induction. Hence Arcesilas the founder of the New Academie defends his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Authoritie of Socrates, as before chap. 4. §. 2. But now Plato, though he allowed in many natural, and abstruse Questions, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension, and thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a probationarie mode of disputing pro, & con. yet he greatly asserted some things, and

strongly proved others, as necessarily true; whence the New Acade∣micks, and the Scepticks ever reputed Plato, and his Successors of the old Academie, as Dogmatists, as before chap. 4. §. 1, 2. Yea Am∣monius on Aristot. Categor. tells us, that Plato himself confuted this Sceptick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as that, which was most irrational, and absurd:* 1.618 of which else where. Secondly, Socrates's mode of Philosophizing was more plain, and familiar. 'Tis 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 Ma∣ster 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. 'Tis confest, such Poetick, and Metaphorick flourishes, wherewith Plato's Dialogues so much a∣bound, 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 Demonstra∣tion of Truth. Whence that old saying, Plato Teacheth, and Aristotle Proves. Hence also the Greeks usually stiled Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Divine, and Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Daemon. And they say, if Jupiter had been minded to discourse in Greek, he would have used Plato's tongue; so eloquently, and floridly is he conceived to have Philosophized. Yet learned Vossius de philos. sect. cap. 12. §. 15. gives him this dash.

Mean while (saies he) the discourse of Plato is lesse proper for Philosophie, For he fails in this (some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must pardon me) that he much delights in Metaphors, and those not beseeming, but presumptuous, and altogether Poetical, whereas a discourse more proper, or Metaphors more received, and common, agree better with 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 artifici∣al Logick, and method; neither indeed was it the mode, or fashion of those times to dispute in Mode, and Figure; for this Forme of Syllo∣gizing owes it's original to his Scholar Aristotle, that great artificial Methodist. Before Aristotle, the great Logicians were those of the Ele∣atick Schole, Zeno the Eleatick, and his successors, whose mode of Disputing was by Dialogues, or Interrogations, and Answers, as it is evi∣dent 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 Beau∣tiful, 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 affect∣ed, as that, which suited best with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pregnant Mimetick Phancie, which greatly recreated it self in those Jewish Mysteries, he had gleaned up in his Oriental travels, but not through∣ly 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 Tradi∣tions, 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 Alle∣gorick 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 signi∣ficant.

* 1.619§. 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 Ratiocinati∣on, is evident by what footsteps we find hereof in the sacred Scriptures, where we find the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 frequently used to express the Jewish mode of Disputation: so Luke 5. 21. Luke (who was exactly skilled in the Greek Dialect) expresseth the Scribes, and Pharisees their disputings against Christ by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Dialogize, or to reason by Interrogations, and Answers. So agen v. 22. 'Tis said that Jesus knowing their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Reasonings by Dialogues, he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, why doe you Dialogize, or rea∣son by Dialogues, &c. The like we find Luke 6.8. He knew that thoughts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their reasonings, or conferences, &c. We might produce Multitudes of Scriptures of the same import, which

clearly discover, that the Jewish mode of Disputing was by Dia∣logues, or by Interrogations, and Answers. This is farther confirm∣ed, 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. 'tis said the Scribes and Pha∣risees began to urge him vehemently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. to urge him vehemently for an extemporarie replie to their interrogations. Thence it follows [and to provoke him to speak.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This word, saies Grotius, is one of those wherein Luke discovers his intimate skill in the Greek: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a word evidently taken from the Scholes, where the Masters mere wont to place their riper Di∣sciples over the younger, that so the former might pose the latter by Interrogations, which was stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There∣fore 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 En∣snare, 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 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) something out of his mouth. By which it's apparent, this their dispute was managed by Interrogations.

So agen Luke 22.68. saies Christ, If I ask you, &c, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which Grotius renders [If I pro∣pose 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. Pytha∣gorick. 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 The∣ologick.

* 1.620§. 1. HAving discoursed of Plato's Forme, or Mode of Philoso∣phizing; we now proceed to the Matter of his Philoso∣phie, with it's traduction from the Jewish Church, and sacred Scri∣ptures. 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 Anci∣ents unto the Pythagorick, Heraclitick, and Socratick. So Laertius in the Life of Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

He mixed the Discourses, or Reasons of the Heracliticks, Pythagoricks, and Socraticks.

For in sensibles he fol∣lows Heraclitus, in Intelligibles Pythagoras in Politicks, Socrates. 1.* 1.621 That Plato collected the choicest materials of his Philosophie, e∣specially of his Theologie, out of the Pythagorean, has been before de∣monstrated chap. 3. sect. 3. where we have shewn, how he was instru∣cted by Archytas the Tarentine, Timaeus the Locrian, Epicarmus, and other Pythagoreans, whilst he had his ••bo••e in Italie; besides the In∣structions he gain'd from Pythagorean Books. Aristotle in his Metaph. lib. 1. cap. 6. stiles the Platonick Philosophie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in many things conformable to the Pythagoreans. And Lud. Vives tells us, that the Platonists, as to Theologicks, doe generally Py∣thagorize.

More particularly; Plato Symbolizeth with, and there∣fore seems to have derived from Pythagoras these following Notions: namely, 1. That God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. according to his de∣scription, Gen. 3.14. 2. That God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ʋnitie, &c. 3. That God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One, and many; One in Divine Essence, and many as to his Divine Ideas, or Decrees. 4. That all things are made, Go∣verned, 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 Py∣thagorick 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,* 1.622 Hera∣clitus's Disciple, whom Plato after Socrates's death heard. The maine Principles, that Plato imbibed from the Heraclitick Philosophie, re∣ferred 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 Hea∣vens were Fire; of which hereafter. Now that Heraclitus was (ac∣cording to Aristotle's Character of those Ancient Philosophers) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that greatly affected, and admired Oriental, Jewish Tra∣ditions, touching the first Origine of the Universe, is evident by what Plutarch in the Life of Coriolanus reports of him; where, having di∣scoursed of Gods Omnipotencie, and man's Incredulitie thereof, he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Many of the Divine operations, or traditions, accord∣ing 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,* 1.623 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 Na∣tural Philosophie. By which it's evident, that this Distribution of Plato's Philosophie is not to be taken strictly, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: for it's evident, that he received also from the Pythagoreans not only Theolo∣gick, but also some Politick, and Natural Principles, as his Commu∣nitie 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.

* 1.624§. 2. A Second Distribution of Platonick Philosophie is into Con∣templative, and Active: so Austin de Civit. Dei. lib. 8. cap. 4. There∣fore (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 govern∣ment of Life, i. e. the institution of Manners, but the Contemplative to the inspection of Natures causes, and the most sincere Truth. So∣crates is reported to have excelled in the Active, but Pythagoras to have insisted, so far as his Intelligence would reach, on the Contem∣plative. 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 persecu∣tion) which drew on this distribution of their life into Active, and Con∣templative, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gymnastick, or Active, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Musick, whereby he ex∣presseth 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 Contempla∣tive Discipline he reduceth the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Musical Theoretick virtues, which consist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Contemplation; and the Queen of all he makes to be Religion, whence he calls the Contemplation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Idea of the chiefest good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the highest Discipline, &c. Philo Judaus that great Platonist discourseth at large

partly on Jewish, partly on Platonick principles, touching Contempla∣tive, and Active Philosophie: Aristotle also seems to approve of the same distribution, though under different termes of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Practick, and Theoretick Philosophie. The Ori∣ginal of this distinction came from the different products, and objects of the one, and other, according to that famous Maxime, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Practick philosophie is effective of Virtue, but Theoretick of Truth.

As for the subdivisions of this distribution, they are comprehended in what follows.

§. 3. But the chief Distribution of Platonick Philosophie in regard of it's matter, is into Moral, Natural, and Rational:* 1.625 which also comprehends the foregoing, of Contemplative, and Active: so Austin de Civit. lib. 8. cap. 4. Having spoken of Contemplative, and Active Philosophie.

Thence (saies he) Plato by joyning both together, is said to have perfected Philosophie, which he distributes into three parts; One Moral, which chiefly consists in action, another Natural, which is deputed to contemplation, and a third Rational, whereby Truth is differenced from falshood; which though it be uncessary both for Contemplation, and Action, yet Contemplation chiefly ap∣propriates to her self the consideration of Truth, wherefore this threefold partition of Philosophie is not contrarie to the foregoing, whereby it is distinguished into Contemplative, and Active:* 1.626 thus Austin.

That this partition of Platonick Philosophie was of Jewish o∣rigination, is affirmed by Eusebius, l. praeparat. Evang. where he tells us,

That this Section of Plato's Philosophie had it's derivation from the Hebrews; for the proof whereof, he brings the opinion of Atti∣cus a Philosopher, who opens this division more fully, and shews how Plato connected all the parts of Philosophie into one bodie, which lay before dispersed, like Pentheus's Members. For Thales, and his Disciples addicted themselves wholly to Physicks: the Six other Wise men to Ethicks, Zeno the Eleatick, and all his adherents, to Logick. Plato collected all these together, and brought forth to men a Philosophie not broken, but intire, and absolute. Whereunto accords Aristotle himself, lib. philos. Laertius in Plato. Philosophie in times past was employed only about Physicks: Socrates came, and added Ethicks; Plato added a third part to Philosophie, namely Logick, whereby he gave a full consummation thereto. Apuleius (in

Dogmate Platonis) speaking of Plato, saies, wherefore he exactly enqui∣red into the inventions of Parmenides, and Zeno: thus he filled his Books with whatever was singular, and admirable, so that he was the first, who connected a threefold Philosophie, & shewed that these parts, so mutually necessarie each to other, did not only not differ a∣mongst themselves, but also afforded mutual assistance each to other.

Thus he; as Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 4. after him. This distribution of Plato's Philosophie seems very natural, and comprehensive of all parts of Philosophie, as it is easie to demonstrate: for Natural Philo∣sophie takes in Physicks, and Mathematicks, (or else we may reduce the Mathematicks to Rational Philosophie) Moral Philosophie compre∣hends Ethicks, Oeconomicks, and Politicks, Rational Philosophie accord∣ing to Plato takes in, not only Logick, but Metaphysicks, or the Con∣templation of the first truth, and principle, &c.

* 1.627§. 4. Ammonius (the Disciple of Proclus) in his Comment on Aristotle's Categories pag. 11. distributes Philosophie in general into Organick, and Essential, or Principal. By Organick Philosophie, he understands Logick, or (as he stiles it from the principal part) De∣monstration, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,, a Diacritick, or di∣scretive Organ, whereby Truth is severed from Falshood in Contempla∣tives, and Good from Evil in Actives, As for the Essential, or princi∣pal Members of Philosophie, he divides it first into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Theoretick, or Contemplative; and Practick, or Active. Theoretick Philosophie he makes to be that, which regards Truth, and Falshood; Practick that which considers Good, and Evil. 1. Theore∣tick Philosophie he subdivides into Physiologick, which is the Contem∣plation of Sensibles, not in their Individuals, but as they lye in their ab∣stract specifick Idea, or univocal common nature, and principles. 2 Ma∣thematick, which is the Contemplation of Sensibles in their Quantitie chiefly, and as abstracted from their Materialitie. 3. Theologick, which is the Contemplation of Beings Metaphysical, and purely abstracted from all Corporeitie, and Matter. 2. As for Practick, or Active Philoso∣phie; he subdivides it into, 1. Ethicks, which respects men in their single capacities,* 1.628 or personal Morals. 2. Oeconomicks, which respects mens Morals, as in Familie consociation, or capacitie. 3. Po∣liticks, which considers men under Citie, or National confederation. This Distribution of Philosophie, though it seem more Comprehen∣sive, and Artificial, yet it suits not so well with Plato's Philosophie,

as the forementioned, but seems rather to be calculated for Aristotle's method as hereafter. For Plato though he makes use of this Distri∣bution of Philosophie into Contemplative, and Active, yet he seems to make these members, thus distributed to be as Disparates only, not as diametrically opposites, i. e. he makes Contemplation though differ∣ent from, yet not opposite unto Action. Yea following the designe of his Master Socrates (of which before chap. 1. §. 5.) he reduceth all Contemplative Sciences unto a subordination, and subserviencie unto Active: he accounts no speculation regular, but what ends in practice; no Contemplation legitimate, but what ends in the admiration, affecti∣on, and imitation of God: whence he calls the knowledge of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supreme Discipline, and his Logick he stiles the In∣troduction of the Soul, from it's night ignorance to the knowledge of the first Being, as Repub. 7. Hence also he makes the end of his Philo∣sophie to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 assimilation to God, so far as 'tis possible: This he makes the Forme, Spirit, Soul, and Measure of his Philosophie, which ought to informe, and influence all matters, parts, and things, as the Soul the Bodie. So Ammonius in Arist. Cat. pag. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Matter of Philosophie is things, but the end is assimilation to God. By which it's evident, that the common distribution of Philosophie into Theoretick, and Practick, as understood by Aristotle, and the Scholes for a division of the whole into opposite parts, is no way agreeable to Plato's Philosophie, who following Socrates herein, makes Contempla∣tive Philosophie subservient unto Active, especially to Divine affecti∣on, and assimilation to God. And thus indeed Grotius in Epist. 16. ad Gallos pag. 39. giving his advice about the studie of Philosophie, addes this caution:

Whereas Philosophie is divided into Contempla∣tive, and Active, you ought chiefly to studie the latter; and the for∣mer no farther than it subserves this latter. The common Instrument of both is Logick, with which you are to begin, &c.

A Golden Rule indeed for young students.

§. 5. Having laid down these Four Distributions of Philosophie,* 1.629 we shall take up the Fifth, which seems most Platonick, and native, as the frame of this discourse, yet not without some addition from the ••est, so far as it may conduce to our more methodical procedure. For whereas Plato seems to reduce the contemplation of God, &c. to Dialoctick, or Rational Philosophie, we shall give it a distinct place of

it's own, confining rational Philosophie unto Logick. And so Pla∣tonick Philosophie may be distributed into Organick, or Rational, and Essential, or Real. 1. Organick Philosophie is Logick,* 1.630 which Plato calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dialoctick (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to dialogize, which was his mode of disputing) and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the manuduction of the Soul, as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a way, or method, with other such expressi∣ons; which supposes it to be a rational organ, or Key to all other parts of Philosophie, whence it is rightly stiled by Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Logick, Diacritick, or discretive organ. 2. As for Essential, or Real Philosophie, it may be according to Plato's mind, di∣stributed into Natural, Moral, and Supernatural.

* 1.631§. 6. As for Natural Philosophie, it either regards things Natural, as Natural, under that reduplication, or mode of consideration; or else it regards things natural, as abstracted from their naturalitie, materia∣litie, or sensibilitie, with respect only to their Quantitie. 1. Natural Philosophie, that considers things Natural as natural, i. e. under that reduplication 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or mode of considering, it may be subdivided into Contemplative,* 1.632 and Active. 1. Contemplative Natural Philosophie is commonly stiled in the Scholes Physicks, or Physiologie (from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nature) whereof they constitute two parts, one General, which treates of Natural Bodies in general, their first Principles, Affe∣ctions, Generations, and Corruptions▪ another particular; which di∣scourseth of particulars, as 1. touching the Heavens. 2. The Inferi∣or World. 3. The Meteors. 4. Inanimates, as Minerals, &c. 5. Ani∣mates, or Vegetables, which have a growing Life, but no sense, as Plants, &c. 6. Animals, which have not only growth, but also Sense, and Motion, though without Reason. 7. The Rational Soul, and hu∣mane Bodie, their nature, parts, affections, and operations. There are the particulars which come under Contemplation in Physiologie. Though Plato seems to make the main of his Physicks to be no other than a Na∣tural Historie of the Creation, or Origine of the Ʋniverse, as it appear∣eth by his Timaeus, which is the seat of his Physiological Philosophizings. As for the Humane Soul, that is reduced to his Metaphysicks, or Super∣natural Philosophie. Active,* 1.633 or Operative Natural Philosophie (which is the end of Contemplative) refers either to Plants, and Animals, and thence is stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Agriculture, &c. or else to the Humane bodie, and so 'tis stiled Medicine, whereof Plato does much Philosophize. 2. Natural Philosophie, as it considers Naturals, under an Abstraction

from their Naturalitie, and Materialitie, with respect only to their Quantitie, is commonly stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mathematicks, which re∣gard, 1. either the corporeitie, Dimensions, and Figures of Bodies, and so 'tis called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Geometrie, from the measuring of Grounds at first in Egypt: 2. or the description of Countries and Places, and so 'tis named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Geographie: 3. or the account of Numbers, and so 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Arithmetick: 4. or the Situations, Constella∣tions, Motions, Conjunctions, Influences, and Effects of Celestial Bodies; and so they call it Astronomie, or Astrologie. 5. Opticks, which regards Vision. 6. Musick, which refers to sounds. 7. Navigation. 8. Tac∣ticks, or Militarie Discipline. 9. Architecture, with other Mathe∣matick Sciences: Plato studied the Mathematicks under Euclid, and Theodorus, &c.

§. 7. Moral Philosophie respects Men:* 1.634 1. in their individual, per∣sonal capacitie, in relation to their Morals, and so 'tis termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ethicks: or 2. it considers Men in their Familie-relation, and thence 'tis stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Oeconomicks: or 3. it refers to Mens Politick capacitie, as under civil combination, and confederation, and so they call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Politicks. Plato discourseth of each, but most large∣ly of Politicks.

§. 8. As for Supernatural Philosophie, commonly called Metaphysicks,* 1.635 or Natural Theologie, Plato abounds mostly herein. 1. He treats very Metaphysically of God, whom he termes, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. according to Exod. 3.14. 2. He asserts also the Unitie, Simplicitie, and Immutabilitie of God. 3. He proves likewise the Eternitie of God from this, that he was the first Principle of all things. 4. He demonstrates the All-sufficiencie of God from his being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 5. Whence also he stiles God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Superessential; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Infinite. 6. Hence also he demonstrates the Incomprehensi∣bilitie, and Omnipresence of God. 7. He also clearly proves the Holy∣nesse, Justice, and Faithfulnesse of God. 8. He makes some mention of God's Omnipotencie, as also of his Goodnes, &c. 9. He treats very largely, and Metaphysically of the Divine Ideas, and Decrees of God, with his prevision of all things resulting thence. 10. He dis∣courseth very Divinely of God's production of, and Providence over all things; as also of his particular regard to good Men. 2. Plato seems to have had very great notices of Religion, and Divine worship, accord∣ing to the Scripture notion. He positively affirmes, 1. That the Di∣vine

Will▪ and Pleasure, is the only rule and measure of Divine Wor∣ship. 2. Hence that an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Worshiping of God accordingly is more acceptable to God than all the pompous inventions of Men, whereby the superstitious (Heathen) endeavoured to pacifie the angry Deitie. 3. That none can worship God aright but the pure, and holie. So in his Book de Legibus, Parmen. &c. 3. Plato Philosophizeth very Metaphy∣sically of the humane Soul, its resemblance to God, immaterialitie, in∣finite capacitie, immortalitie, and perfection: likewise of its faculties, offices, objects, acts, &c. 4. Plato in like manner seems to discourse, though imperfectly, and under Symbolick Images, of the state of In∣nocencie; the fall of Adam; the restauration of Mankind by Daemon Mediators; the infusion of Divine knowledge, and Grace, against Free∣will, &c. 5. Yea, Plato seems to give some hints of the Divine Scri∣ptures, which he expresseth by Divine Oracles, Enthusiasmes, Traditi∣ons. 6. Lastly, Plato is supposed also to discourse of the last Judge∣ment, and future state, which he expresseth under Symbols.

CHAP. VII. General Ideas of Platonick Philosophie, and Philosophers.

Plato's Ideas of Natural Philosophie. 1. Its Genus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. The object 1. Complex Science. 1. Intelligence, 2. Science, 3. Faith, 4. Imitation. 2 Simple. 3. The Act 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 4. The End, Truth. 2. Of Moral Philosophie. 1. Its Genus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which connotes Prudence: wherein consider, its Objects, Offices, and Acts, which are, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dexteritie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saga∣citie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. The subject of Moral Prudence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and particularly the Conscience: Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Law of Conscience. 1. In the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a seat of Princi∣ples. 2. In Syneidesis, which is a reflective Light, and springs from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sensation. 3. The Rule of Moral Prudence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is either subjective, or objective, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what Rom. 2.14, 15. James ••.8. 3. Plato's Idea of Divine Philosophie, in the contemplation of

God, &c. which he stiles, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which is, 1. The supreme, 2. most ravishing, 3. genu∣ine, 4. affective, 5. transformative. Characters of a Philosopher. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2. good institution, 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 4. devotion to Phi∣losophie, 5. Liberal. 6. Musick, &c.

§. 1. BEfore we enter upon the Severals of Platonick Philosophie, we shall give some general Characters of Philosophie, and Philo∣sophers, according to what we find laid down in Plato. Philosophie, according to Plato's mind, has not one and the same Idea, but may be distributed according to its object into Natural, Moral, and Divine. The Idea of Natural Philosophie,* 1.636 is thus given us in the Platonick De∣finitions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Philosophie is the appetition of the Science of Beings always the same, Theoretick (or contemplative) of Truth, as Truth.

In which Definition we find as Considerables, a Generick Notion, an object, a Specifick Act, and a Terme, or End. 1.* 1.637 The Generick notion of Philosophie is an appetition, &c. and so much the very Notion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports; as also that other Terme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby Plato expresseth it. This Plato in his Parmen. stiles a Divine impetus, or im∣pulse, towards the studie of Sciences, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· There is a beautiful, and Divine impulse, by which men are impelled towards reasonings. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, appetition, is well de∣fined by Simplicius, in Epict. cap. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the extension of the Soul towards its object desired; which, as applyed to our present purpose, implies the natural inclination of the mind to know∣ledge. For the mind, as 'tis observed, has it's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, extension, or inclination to its object, as well as the Will: Yea, as Aquinas notes,

every Forme has some inclination appendent to it; and by how much the more perfect the Forme is, by so much the more impetuous, and strong is the inclination: whence the mind, which is a Rational Forme, must needs have a very strong impulse, or inclination to its object, which is the knowledge of things.

§. 2. The object of this appetition appendent to Philosophie,* 1.638 is [the Science, or knowledge of things always the same] wherein we have somewhat complex, or notional; and somewhat simple, and real. The complex notional object of Philosophie, and its appetition, is expressed in that notion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Science, or Knowledge. Now the Sci∣ences,

which Philosophie is conversant about, are either contemplative, or active. So Plato acquaints us, that the mind's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, chiefest incorruptible beautie consists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Theorie, and Practice, Theoretick, or contemplative Sciences are such, as properly refer to Truth: whereof Plato, de Repub. 6. fol. 511. gives us these four Species, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And take from me these four affections in the Soul: give to Intelligence the supreme place: the second to Dis∣course or Science (properly so termed) the third to Faith: and the last to Imitation.

1. The first piece of Knowledge Plato here mentions, is Intelligence, which in the Platonick Definitions is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.639 the beginning of Science, i. e. (as Aristotle interprets his Master's mind) The Knowledge of first Principles: These first Princi∣ples are called by Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hypotheses, which he makes to be certain indemonstrable Principles, on which Sciences are founded: So in Platon: desini••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

An Hypothesis is an indemonstrable Principle, or the summe of an argument,

i. e. it is a first Principle, which gives evidence to all following Conclusions, but receives evidence from none, being in its self most evident,* 1.640 &c. 2. Next after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to Plato's order, follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Discourse, or Science, properly so called, which he thus describes, de Repub. 6. fol. 510. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Science is that, which pro∣ceeds from simple Principles, &c. Plato here makes Science, or Dis∣course, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonstrative Philosophie, which proceeds from firme, and immobile Principles, to the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, indemonstrable principle, which no way depends on the fore∣going Hypotheses, &c. This is well explained by Johan. Grammaticus, in Arist. Anim. proaem. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Dis∣course is a progress from Principles to Conclusions, whence the ve∣ry name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, q. d. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, passing through the understanding.

Then he gives us the office of this Discourse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

By this Discourse our Soul is raised up to the contemplation of In∣••ligibles, which is the Souls perfection.

3. Next to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plato

adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Faith,* 1.641 which is an assent to a Conclusion upon the Testi∣monie, and Authoritie of some person; whereby 'tis differenced from the fore-going Science, which is an Assent to a Conclusion, as grounded on some certain immobile Principles. 4. Lastly, after Faith follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fantastick▪ Imagination (which elsewhere Plato calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Imitation) which is nothing else,* 1.642 but the lively representation of notions, or things, by sensible Formes, visible Images, or any other Symbolick shadows, whereof Plato discourseth at large in his de Re∣pub. 6.510, &c. also de Legib. 2. fol. 669, &c. as elsewhere. But so much for the complex Object of Natural Philosophie. 2. As for its simple real Object,* 1.643 'tis expressed under the notion [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of things always the same: whereby we must understand, 1. That Phi∣losophie is employed not only about the shadows of things, but about the things themselves. This Plato every where inculcates; namely, that the Object of true Philosophie, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which truely is: wherefore he stiles those, who are verst only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about that, which is not, or the shadows of things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, false Philoso∣phers. 2. Whereas these real Beings, as the object of Philosophie are said to be [always the same.] Hereby we must understand them as exi∣sting in their specifick Nature, not as subsisting in their Individuals, for so they are variable.

§. 3. Having finisht the Generick Notion,* 1.644 and Object of Philoso∣phie, we now proceed to its Specifick Act, expressed under the noti∣on [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Theoretick, or Contemplative: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to contemplate, according to its native origination, imports steadfastly to behold. Plato discourseth very much of Contemplation, which he makes to be the proper Motion, as Truth is the proper food of the Soul: so in his de Repub. 2. he divides Disciplines into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gymnastick, or A∣ctive; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Musical, or Contemplative. These Musical Di∣sciplines, he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Theoretick, whereof he makes Reli∣gion the head; whence he affirmes, that the Contemplation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the chiefest Idea of Good is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supreme Di∣scipline. Agen he tells us, that God is the first Beautie, the Contem∣plation whereof makes us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, friends to God. Yea, he saies, that by Contemplation a man makes God familiar to, and in-dwelling in him. And lastly, he saies, the best Exemplar of Contemplation is in Heaven. As for the Qualities of this Contemplation, it must be according to Plato's Doctrine, and mind. 1. Congenial, and Natural,

not forced, or strained: whence he stiles a Philosopher, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.645 one akin to Truth:

for (saith he) as there is in our Eyes a congenial kind of cognation, or similitude to the Light, which ren∣ders the Contemplation thereof very pleasing; so 'twixt the Mind, and Truth, &c.

2. This Contemplation of Truth must be distinct, and evident: so in his Rep. 6. fol. 504. Plato tells us, that a dark ad∣umbration of things may not suffice, but there must be a perfect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or exact Forme, and Image of the thing impressed on the mind. 3. This Contemplation must be firme, and stedfast. This fol∣lows upon the former: for what is pleasing, and distinct, is not soon worn off. Thence, saies Plato, Rep. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Science forced upon the Soul is no way permanent. Hence also in his Meno, fol. 98. Plato makes this difference 'twixt Scientifick, and Opinionative Contemplation; that the former is fixed, and perma∣nent, whereas the later is only fluid, and transient. Fourthly, This Contemplation must be intuitive, and not only abstractive, i. e. a true Philosopher contemplates the things themselves in their proper exi∣stences, not only their abstract Species, Formes, or Images.

* 1.646§. 4. As for the terme, end, and effect of this Contemplation, it is Truth, as Truth [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] under that reduplication where∣by 'tis differenced from active Philosophie, which also contemplateth Truth, yet not as Truth, but as conducing to Action. That the great scope and designe of Philosophie is to discover, and contemplate Truth, is evident from the whole of Plato's Philosophizings. So in his de Repub. 6. fol. 490. Plato tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Truth the mind truly lives, and is nourished: whence he calls Philosophie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a love of Truth; and a Philosopher 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a friend and kinsman of Truth: also he makes this the main office of a Philosopher, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to serve Truth. Hence also Plato Timaeus, fol. 9. calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Philomathist, or Philosopher,

one that burnes with impetuous desire after Truth, having this pettie god indwelling in him, which renders him happie.

Whence he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The universal Medicine of eve∣ry thing is only this, to render to all their proper foods, and moti∣ons: the proper food and motion of the soul, whereby it most re∣sembles the Divine Being, is the contemplation of Truth, &c.

This (addes he) we lost in our Head (I suppose he means Adam) but we have it restored by Intelligence, or Divine Wisdom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to our old nature.

Yea Plato (de Repub. 5. fol. 475. affirmes,

that those only are true Philosophers, who are versed about the contemplation of the highest Truth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thence he makes the mind to labour under an infinite thirst after Truth, which is never satisfied till it arrive to the con∣templation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of very Being, or the supreme Truth: as in his Phaedr. fol. 251. and in his Sympos. fol. 206, &c.

Thus much for the Definition of Philosophie, as it regards natural contem∣plative Sciences.

§. 5. We find another Idea of Philosophie, as it relates to Morals,* 1.647 and active Sciences in the Platonick Definitions, fol. 414. thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philosophie is a prudent, or stu∣dious consideration of the Soul according to right reason: wherein we may consider. 1. The Genus. 2. The Subject. 3. The Measure, or Rule.

1. The Genus in this Platonick Definition of Moral Philosophie,* 1.648 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies a prudent Inspection, studious Considerati∣on, or sollicitous Care, commonly stiled by Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pru∣dence, or Moral Wisdom, which we have thus copiously described in the Platonick Definitions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· Prudence is a facultie of it self effective of humane happines. Wherein we have, 1. The Specifick reason,* 1.649 whereby it is differenced from Contemplative Science, expressed by that notion Ef∣fective. 2. Its Ʋltimate End, which is to make men happie. Again, Prudence is defined in the same Platonick Definitions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Science of Good, and Evil. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Disposition whereby we judge what is to be done, and what is not to be done. In all which Definitions laid to∣gether, we have these Considerables.

1. The Ʋltimate End, and supreme object of moral Prudence,* 1.650 or Philosophie, namely humane Happines, which is the measure of all moral Acts, and the first thing treated of in moral Philosophie, ac∣cording to that of Aquinas: The end of moral Virtues, is the chief prin∣ciple of Prudence, as Luke 10.41.

2. We have here the intermediate Objects of moral Prudence, which are in general all Agibles, or Practicables; that is, 1. Singulars.

2. Things present. 3. Things in our power. 4. Things good, or evil. 5. The subjects of good, and evil; the Affections.

* 1.6513. Here is also considerable the proper Exercises, or Offices of Pru∣dence, which are according to Plato (in his Charm.) 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to do what belongs unto us. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to understand a mans self. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to use all things well, i. e. with respect to our supreme end. 4. Rightly to di∣stinguish 'twixt good and evil. 5. To conserve the rectitude of the will. 6. To moderate the Affections. 7. To governe the whole Life.

* 1.6524. This moral Prudence may be considered in its Integrals, which are according to the Platonick account three; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Providence,* 1.653 which in the Platonick Definitions, fol. 414. is thus described, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pro∣vidence is a preparation (or provision) for somewhat future: which im∣plies, 1. An universal Comprehension of all Circumstances, means, difficulties, encouragements, which may make for, or against our End. 2. Serious consultation about, and prudent determination of what is to be done. 3. Prudent precaution of what may impede, &c. this is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, caution, according to that of the Stoicks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a wise man ought never to fear, but always to use caution, &c. 2. Another part of moral Prudence, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a dexteritie,* 1.654 or sagacitie in judging things, which in the Platonick Definitions, fol. 413. is thus defined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, facilitie of judgement is a connate abilitie of reasoning, or discerning. And Plato, de Repub. 4. fol. 428. saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, facilitie of judgement is certainly some kind of Science, &c. This perspicacitie of finding out things, Plato makes to be an excellent kind of Prudence, or a natural Invention, which directs the Reason to find out things wrapt up in Nature: which he elsewhere calls a saga∣citie of Nature: so in his Epino. fol. 976.

There remains (saies Plato) a marvellous facultie, whereby we easily, and expeditely learne any thing; and having learnt it, can faithfully commend it to memorie, and, as occasion serves, by an happie celeritie recall it, which some call Wisdome, others good Nature; but others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sagacitie of Nature.* 1.655

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or natural sagacitie, Plato makes to be the same with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good nature: So Plato, Defin fol 412. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sagacitie is a natural generositie of mind, whereby a per∣son is enabled happily to conjecture what ought to be done: agen 'tis stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an acumen of Judgement. This Natural Sagacitie, Plato Repub. 2. fol. 376. makes very essential to a Magistrate, in order to his more exact judging of persons, and things, and final decision of Controversies. Solomon we know was endowed with this Natural sa∣gacitie, even to admiration; which discovered it self in the decision of that arduous case between the two Harlots, 1 Kings 3.23, 24, &c. as also in resolving the Queen of Sheba's Questions, 2 Chron. 9 1. which kind of sagacitie Politicians call King-Craft. This Natural sa∣gacitie is elsewhere stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a facilitie of Judgement, which in the Platon. Definit. fol. 414. is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.656 a good judgement apprehensive of what is most eligible. Agen, this Na∣tural sagacitie passeth sometimes under the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is defined (Platon. Defin. fol. 412.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an habit elective of what is best. One great office of this Natural sa∣gacitie, consists in the knowledge of Men their several Humours, In∣clinations, Designes, Interests, and Combinations, &c. 3. Another part of Moral Prudence is Experience, which Plato calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.657 and makes very essential to a true Philosopher. So Plato, Rep. 9. fol. 582. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The expe∣rienced person, endowed with Prudence, is the only true Philosopher: then he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thence (in the same Book, Rep. 9.) he joyns Prudence, and Experience toge∣ther with reason, which he makes the best Judges of humane Affairs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, We rightly judge by Experience joyned with Prudence, and Reason. And Plato in his Gorgias gives us the reason, why Experience is so essential to Prudence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Experience makes our life to passe away according to rules of Art, whereas inexperience makes us live casually. Then again; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, There are many Arts experimentally found out among men, from several Experiments, &c. And because Experimental Prudence is gained by sense, and sensible observation: thence Plato Timaeus, fol. 103. defineth it a subtiltie of sense, or good sensation of the Soul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ex∣perience is indeed the main Seminarie of humane Prudence. 1. In that it furnisheth us with the choicest Observations of past and present

times, whereby we are capacitated to make some prudent conjecture of what is likely to succeed. 2. Experience draws down general Rules, and Precepts of Wisdom, to particular, and proper use. 3. Experi∣ence gives men a more inward feeling, and lively apprehension of themselves, and others. Thence Plato makes this self-knowledge the highest piece of Prudence, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good sensation. 4. Experience does much greaten, and adde to the quantitie of our knowledge, by furnishing the mind with fresh Observations; whence Plato brings in Solon speaking thus (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The longer I live, the more I know, and teach. 5. Expe∣rience addes not only to the quantitie, but also to the qualitie of our knowledge, by rendring it more clear, and distinct. For experience reduceth particular Observations in themselves confused unto a re∣gular Series, and Order, whence general Rules are framed, which makes our knowledge more distinct, and certain. 6. Experience great∣ly fixeth, and confirmeth our Notions of things.

* 1.658§. 6. Having finished the Generick Notion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which con∣notes Moral Prudence, we now proceed to the subject thereof, ex∣pressed in the Platonick Definition by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Soul: for indeed Moral Prudence moveth, and influenceth the whole Soul, and there∣fore it is not unjustly seated therein; though the proper seat thereof be the Practick Judgement, which Divines terme Conscience, which is as a Pettie God, or God's Vice-gerent, and Vicar in the Soul, to com∣mand, or threaten; to accuse, or excuse; to justifie, or condemne. This Vicarious Divine office of Conscience, Plato seems to have had some Traditional Notices of, whence he termes Conscience 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fame, and makes it to be a kind of Daemon, or Pettie God in Men. So Plato, de Leg. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This Law of Fame partakes of a marvellous facultie, seeing no one durst to breath other∣wise, than according to the Dictates of her Law.

Serranus here ac∣quaints us,* 1.659

that Plato calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Law of Fame, that Im∣perial power of Conscience well known to all; which comprehends those common Principles, that God is to be feared, &c. This Law of Conscience he saies is unwritten, yet notwithstanding there is in all Mens minds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Sacred Law, whose force, and efficacie tames ev'ry Soul, and compels it by few to obey positive Laws. From the authoritie of this Law it is, as the Philosopher

teacheth, that Men come to understand the difference of good, and evil.

Again Serranus addes,

Our Philosopher calls this Divine Law of Conscience, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Law of Fame; and saies, that it is connate in all Men, it being a Science that teacheth the difference of good, and evil; and the conservator, and vindictor of all Laws; and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Praecursor of that most excellent Chorus of Virtues: whose admirable faculties, and actions, slow from no other Fountain, then the sparks of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

This Law, or Light of Conscience is twofold.

1. Habitual, which is called in the Scholes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Synteresis.

2. Actual, which is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Syneidesis.

1. The Synteresis, or habitual Light of Conscience,* 1.660 is defined in the Scholes a natural habit of active Principles. For as speculative Rea∣son discourseth of Speculatives, so Practick Reason of Practicks: as therefore there are naturally implanted in us certain speculative Princi∣ples, which appertain to Intelligence, so also are there certain active Principles, which belong to that natural habit of Conscience, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Synteresis, as Aquinas, Part. 1. Q. 79. And this habitual Light, or Law of Conscience, is the same with Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Law of fame, which is elsewhere by him termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Right reason, as anon. 2. The Actual Light,* 1.661 or Law of Conscience called by the Ancients 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is Conscience strictly taken. So So Aquinas part 1. Quaest.. 79. Art. 13.

Conscience taken properly is not a power, but an Act, whereby we applie our Science to what we undertake; which application is followed by Testification, or Ligation, or Excusation, and Accusation.

By which it appears, that the proper office of this Syneidesis is self reflection, whence follows ac∣cusation, or excusation, &c. as Rom. 2.15. And because this Re∣flexive Light of Conscience does necessarily suppose inward sense, hence 'tis oft called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sensation, also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 synesis, or sensate judg∣ment: So Aquinas,

Synesis, or sensate judgment imports a right judg∣ment about particular operables.

So Plato in his Th••aet. makes all true Science to be a kind of Sensation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and more particularly (in his Timaeus fol. 103) he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pru∣dence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a good sensation: which exactly answers to the Scripture Phraseologie, which sets forth this reflexive act of Conscience by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Phil. 1.••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and thence Heb. 5.14. we read of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The life of the new Creature, as well as of the old,, consists in these self-reflective Acts of Conscience which

spring from inward sense, and feeling. And Plato in his Alcibiad. fol. 133, 134. tells us

That he, that reflects upon himself, his own Soul, and Wisdom, thereby becomes as it were omniscient; where∣as they, who know not themselves, know not what is good, or evil for them, nor yet what belongs to themselves, or to other men: such therefore can never make good Politicians, or Oeconomicans, &c.

In brief; Self-reflexions, or our actions upon our selves, are of all the highest, and noblest, and those by which we live, and work as men, and perfect that part of the Soul called Conscience, which directs all we doe according to Right Reason, &c. Thus much for the Subject of Pru∣dence.

* 1.662§. 7. As for the Measure, or rule of Moral Prudence, we find it expressed in the forementioned Platonick definition under this notion [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] according to right Reason. This Platonick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is asserted in like manner by the Stoicks, and others) right Reason is the same with the Light, or Law of Nature, which is two∣fold. 1. Subjective. 2. Objective.

* 1.6631. As for Subjective Right reason, Light, or Law of Nature, it is no other, than those common Principles of Moralitie seated in that part of Conscience, which they call Synteresis, of which in the fore∣going §. 6. This seminarie of engrafted active notions, or moral Principles is stiled by the Stoicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Common Law, also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 right Reason, against which, say they, nothing is to be done; As Diog. Laert. in Zeno. 'tis termed by Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Law of Being: so Plato Minos fol. 315. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] where saies Serranus, by this appellation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plato understands

the Eternal law of Nature, which amidst the various laws of Nations, and their vic••ssitudes continues uniforme, and the same; and thence is truely termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Being; therefore he calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the right Reason of the Eternal Law: and because our actions are to be measured by the Rule of these common notions, therefore Plato names this Law 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Royal Law.

So agen, Serranus in Plato de Legib. 8.

The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 delineation of this Eternal Law is this. There is in the minds of all, as soon as they are borne, a cer∣tain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sacred Law.

2. He, that consecrates this law in his mind as a certain sacred, is thereby furnished with an excellent remedie aganst the insolence, and impotence of human lusts, as it was said of the Tyrant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These Active principles, contained in this internal law of conscience, are generally stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 common notions:* 1.664 they were named by Zeno 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Comprehensions, because they com∣prehended the first seeds, or principles of knowledge. Cicero tells us, that Epicurus called them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Anticipations (as he translates the word) because they supposed a Previous formation of things in the soul. The Stoicks used the same terme likewise. Chrysippus defined this natural law, or conservatorie of common principles, a natural Intel∣ligence of those things, which vniversally are. Cicero stiles these com∣mon notions, Inchoate Intelligences, of which see Lud. Vives in August. Civ. lib. 8. cap. 7. The Scripture also stiles these Common principles fixed in Conscience, a Law; so Rom. 2.14, 15. where the Gentiles are said to be a Law to themselves, &c. And indeed these common seeds of natural light are a private Law, which God has deeply engra∣ven on mens Consciences, and is vniversally extensive unto all, though with a latitude of degrees; it being in some more, in some lesse, but in all in great measure obliterated, and defaced since the fall. It is al∣so by Divines generally termed the Light, or Law of Nature, because it slows in, and with, and from Human Nature, either immediately, or mediately.

2. As for the Objective 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.665 Right Reason (which Plato seems to have had some traditional notices of) it contains those broken traditions of the Moral Law, which were scattered up and down amongst the Gentiles. That Plato had received some fragments of Gods Law; and that by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Right Reason, he does im∣port the same, seems very probable, both from that expression in his Minos fol. 315. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Law of Being, i. e. of the first Be∣ing, as he usually stiles God: as also from that other expression of his, Minos 317 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This Right Reason is the Royal Law, i. e. Gods Divine Law, which is so stiled Jam. 2 8. In this sense Right Reason may be said (as the Scholes will have it) to give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 esse morale, or moralitie to human Acts: so Stobaeus de Virtu Sera. fol. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

Virtue is a conformitie according to Right Reason, and Sin is a transgression against Right Reason. Where by Right Reason we must understand not the subjective light, or Law of Consci∣ence, which is imperfect, but the objective light of Nature comprized in the Moral Law.

In this sense we must understand that Principle

in the Scholes, that Right reason gives the esse morale to moral Beings. Thus much for the Platonick Definition of Philosophie relating to Morals.

* 1.666§. 8. But if we will have the Genius, and Spirit of Plato's Philo∣sophie, it seems evidently resolved into the Contemplation, Affection, and Imitation of God: for saies Plato to Philosophize, is to know, to love, to imitate God. This affectionate active knowledge of God Pla∣to calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Idea of the chiefest Good, also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supreme Science: and more particularly he stiles it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the genuine Philosophie, which he thus describes, Plato Repub. 7. fol. 521. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The traduction of the soul from a kind of twilight (or natural darknesse) to the true knowledge of the first Being (or God.) This genu∣ine Divine Philosophie Plato supposeth to be affective, effective, and transformative of the Soul into the image of God, which renders men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theophilos, or friends to God, and so 'tis opposed to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Je••ne, emptie Speculations, as also to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 twilight Philosophie of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Divine Philosophie Plato sometimes stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dialectick, because it does by a Divine kind of Ratiocination,* 1.667 or Discourse reason men out of their dreaming ideas, or apprehensions into clear discoveries of God: So in his Book de Repub. 7. fol. 521. Plato tels, that

those, who are bound in the chains of their native ignorance, contemplate only the sha∣dows of things, whereas his Dialectick is a Science, that leads men from their night dreaming knowledge, to the contemplation of the First Being.

Agen, Plato sometimes terms this his Divine Philosophie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intelligence.* 1.668 So in his Book de Repub. 7. fol. 513. he makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Intelligence, to be the supreme Science, which is conversant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about the First Being, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 namely from firme, and eternal principles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having banished the Ministrie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Idols, it quits not it's contemplation, until 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it graspe by its Intelligence the chiefest Good.

Serranus on this place observes,

that Plato makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intelligence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the most perfect, and supreme Science, which is conversant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about Being it self, and all other Arts, even 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Science it self, are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 subservient thereto.

Hence Definit. Platon. fol. 513. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intelligence is the Principle of Science. Agen, some∣times

Plato makes his Divine Philosophie the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pru∣dence; so Plato Repub. 7.* 1.669 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This Art of Pru∣dence has of all the most Divine nature, which never loseth it's effi∣cacie.

But the most proper notion, whereby Plato expresseth his Di∣vine Philophie, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wisdome, which in the general is thus defined.* 1.670 Defin. Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wisdom is an indemonstrable Science: agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Science of things alwaies the same, and Lastly 'tis desined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Theoretick Science of the causes of Beings, i. e. of God. And Plato treating of the One Infinite Being, tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. He that once has tasted of this one Infinite Being, having got a Treasurie of Sapience, is filled with joy. Hence also de Rep. 5. fol. 475. Plato defines a Philosopher 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that thirsts after Sa∣pience, i. e. addes he, not of any particular, but of Vniversal Sapience, which he makes chiefly to consist in the Contemplation of God, which (saies he Phileb. 16.) gives light, and evidence to all other Arts, and Sciences. Agen,* 1.671 Plato termes his Divine Philosophie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the knowledge of the First Being, i. e. God, as he explains it, Thaeet. 176. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The knowledge of this first Being God is Sapience, and Virtue, &c. And he gives this reason why true Philosophie is most conversant about God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as very Being, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which alwaies is, is alwaies most knowable; and therefore addes he, they who contemplate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Many Beauties, but not this first Beautie, or supreme Being, they can be said only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dream about all things, but to know nothing; whereas a true Philosopher contemplates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Being, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not by opinion only, as other Arts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but essentially; that his Soul may be converted to, yea transformed in∣to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Idea of chiefest good. This Divine Wisdom,* 1.672 con∣sisting in the contemplation of God, Plato calls, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supream Science. 2. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the best of all Exstacies. 3. Farther he calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that genuine law, which leads the Soul to true Felicitie. 4. Agen,* 1.673 Plato Repub. 9. fol. 586 acquaints us, that this contemplation of God brings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. the proper, best, and truest pleasures. 5. Lastly he affirmes, that this Divine Philosophie makes men not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Theophilos, lovers of God, but also one, and the same Idea with God so Rep. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Philosopher contemplating on this Divine Beautie, becomes, so far as man is capable, Divine, and Beautiful. And then he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he becomes an imitator of, and alike to those things Divine. whence Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The matter of Philosophie is things, but the end is assimilation to God.

* 1.674§. 9. Having given some general account of Platonick Philosophie, in regard of its Natural, Moral, and Divine Idea's; we now proceed to Plato's Character of a True Philosopher, his Qualities, and Of∣fices.

* 1.6751. Plato requires, that a Philosopher have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good natural ingenie, which in the Platonick Definitions is thus defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Good nature is a quicknesse in learning: agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a na∣tural virtue, which is also stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a facilitie in learning, which is defined thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Plato Rep. 6. fol. 486. tells us, that a Philosopher must not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, un•• but prompt to learn. This good natural ingenie, or promptitude of nature to learn, Plato makes to consist in a natural acumen, or sagacitie of judgment, & a good memorie. So Plato Epino. fol. 976.

There remaines an admirable facultie, which some call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nature, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sapience, which consists in this, that a man learns with facilitie and expedition, faith∣fully committing to memorie what he has learned, and as occasion serves recalling it again with an happie promptitude; all which some call wisdom, some nature, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sagacitie of nature.

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sagacitie is defined, defin Plat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good nature of Soul, &c. also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an acumen of judgment. And touching the pregnancie of memorie requisite to a Philosopher, Plato tells us, Repub. 6. fol. 547. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

2. Plato requires in a Philosopher good Institution. So de Repub. 6. reckoning up the causes whence Philosophie comes to be corrupted,* 1.676 he mentions this as the maine, viz. evil Institution of youth

For (saith he) by how much the more generous their naturals are, by so much the worse Philosophers are they, if ill instituted, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may we not therefore say that the best natur'd Souls by reason of ill institution become most wicked?

3. Plato will have his Philosopher to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Philalethes,* 1.677 a lover of truth. So Rep. 6. fol. 485. This (saith he) is the nature of Philosophers, that they hate falshood, but love Truth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And it being natural to him that loves, to love all that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 akin, & proper to what he loves; and because nothing is more proper to wisdom than Truth, it is therefore impossible, that the same should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Philosopher & yet a lover of falshood. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He therefore, who will be a true Philosopher, ought even from his youth greatly to thirst after all truth. And Plato in what precedes Rep. 6. fol. 484. limits this love of Truth to such Truths as are invariable, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

True Philosophers are conversant about things alwaies the same.

i. e. about first truths. whence Plato makes his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Phi∣lalethia to consist not in any lower Acts, or Contemplations, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in Contemplating very Being, and the first Beautie. Thence, saies he, they who contemplate beautiful Pictures, and shadows of truth, but delight not in Beautie, and Truth it self, such are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lovers of opinion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lovers of pleasure, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pseudophilosophers, not true Philosophers.

4. Plato requires in a Philosopher, that he devote himself to the studie of Philosophie, so Rep. 6. fol. 485.* 1.678 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

He that wholly gives up himself to discipline, and is conversant a¦bout the pure pleasures of the soul, being abstracted from corporeal pleasures, he is truely a Philosopher, &c.

5. Another Character of a Philosopher is, that he be not cove∣tous, &c. so Plato Rep. 6. fol. 485.* 1.679 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for addes he, when the affections are vehe∣mently carryed to one thing, they are more infirme in other.

6. Plato will have his Philosopher to be of a Noble, not Sordid, Servile disposition: so Rep. 6. fol. 486.* 1.680 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Servilitie, and Sordidness is contrarie to the Soul, that would contemplate, &c.

* 1.6817. Plato requires in a Philosopher Courage; that he be not ti∣morous, or fearful of Death, &c. so de Rep. 6. fol. 486. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Therefore this Philosopher must not count death terrible; for a timorous, and servile nature never, as it seems, partakes of true Philosophie, whence Philosophie is made a Contemplation of Death.

* 1.6828. Plato in the same place requires that a Philosopher be not mo∣rose unsociable, unjust, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

* 1.6839. Plato will have his Philosopher to be a good Musician, of a Musical, Harmonious nature, thereby to allure men to the contempla∣tion of the first Being, &c. so Rep. 6. fol. 486. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He must not be of an Immusical, in••e••ent nature, and he gives the reason because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Truth is akin to ••mmetrie; whence he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We seek for one, that is harmonious, and compleasant to win others to the contemplation of the first being.

This he explaines more fully in his Timeus, fol. 104. where he makes Philosophie to be

the Musick, and Harmonie of the soul, appointed by God for its emendation, which sweetly compels the irrational part to obey the rational, so that the affection; neither move, nor stand still, but according to the dictates of reason, whence follows a Di∣vine Chorus of Philosophie, and Virtues.

Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the soul's traction, &c.

* 1.68410. Lastly, Plato makes this an essential Character of a Philo∣sopher, that he be Virtuous: so de Repub. 6. fol. 489, &c. Plato exa∣mining the ground, why Philosophie proved so uselesse, and even ••n∣xious, resolves all into some defect, not of Philosophie, but of the Phi∣losopher. Wherefore fol. 490. Plato requires, that a Philosopher be pious, and good: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Truth must first lead the way, which the Philosopher must follow step by step, till he arrive to goodness: for he that is vain, and futile can never be partaker of true Philosophie. Whence he addes; that every one, who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a true Philosopher, must affectionately as∣pire to the knowledge of the first Being; neither must he acquiesce

in mere opinions, but with a courageous mind pursue truth it self; neither must he desist from such a famous enterprize, until he has ar∣rived to the same, &c.

Whence he concludes: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Truth leading the way, we cannot conceive, that the Chorus of evils will follow, but wholesome regular manners, &c.

And fol. 492. he makes Virtue requisite to true Philo∣sophie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (sc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whence he concludes, fol. 494. that there are very few, who are conversant in Philosophie, as they ought.

CHAP. VIII. Of Plato's Logick, and it's derivation from the Jews.

Plato's forme of Logick consisting in Dialogues: their use in the Ele∣atick Schole, but their original use amongst the Jews. Scripture Logick in Dialogizing, as in Job, the Prophets, Mark 8.11. Luke 22.68. Rom. 11.1. Luke 11.53, 54. Logick an Organ, or key to all Sciences. Plato's Logick precepts. 1. A Logicia•• must be grave, and moderate, not contentious. Conten∣tious Disputes the cause of Scepticisme. 2. The Matter of Di∣sputes must be weighty. 3. To lay down good principles. 4. To proceed Methodically from particulars to generals, &c. 5. To illustrate by examples. 6. To distinguish duelie 'twixt Truth, and falshood. 7. To State will the affirmative. 8. Not to ex∣pect more exactnesse, than matters will bear. 9. To keep the Judgment free. 10. To make Reason, not Authoritie the mea∣sure of Truth. 11. Modestie, and Candor in Disputes. 12. In refuting Errors to reduce to absurditie. 13. To shew the rise of Error. Alcinous of Plato's Logick.

§. 1.* 1.685 PHilosophie may be considered in it's Essential constitutive par∣ticulars; or else in its introductorie universal Organ· The Introductorie universal organ, or key to all Philosophie is Logick;

which Plato makes much use of in all his Philosophizings, though not according to the mode, as now it is in use in our Scholes. For Plato imitating his master Socrates; and those of the Eleatick Schole, Par∣menides, and Zeno (who are supposed to be the first Inventors of Lo∣gick) affect a natural, plain, and familiar mode of Disputing by Di∣alogues, or Interrogations, and Responsions, much like the Scriptural, and Jewish way of Disputation. That the Mode, or Forme of Di∣sputing in Plato's Academie, was not by way of Syllogisme (which A∣ristotle brought in) but by Interrogations, and Answers, is apparent to any vers'd in Plato's Philosophie, which is wrapt up in Dialogues beginning with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or such like Interrogations. This is farther evident from the Origination of the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which Plato useth for the most part, if not altogether, to expresse Logick by) Dialectick, which is apparently derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the primarie notation whereof is to Conferre, or Dispute by Dialogues, or Colloquies. Thus Alexander 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dialectick makes discourses consisting of Interrogations, and Responses: for from these it wholly derived it's name. So Laertius l. 3. saies, That a Dialogue is an Oration composed of Interrogation, and Responsion, concerning matters relating to Philosophie, or Republick Affairs.

* 1.686As for the Original of this Dialogizing Mode, 'tis not certainly de∣termined whence Plato had it. Some say he himself was the Author of it; others derive it from Zeno the Eleatick, others from others. So Lud. Vives on August. Civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 7.

There are some, who refer this kind of Dialectick oration to Plato, as the Inventor thereof; as Favorinus: others to Alexamenus Teius, as Aristotle: there are not wanting some, who refer it to Zeno the Eleatick. Truly it is evident, that Plato polished, and adorned this mode of Dialo∣gizing (or arguing by Dialogues) which he fils with all kind of neat∣nesses, and learning, wherein if the artificial formules of Diale∣ctick (or Logick) are not delivered, yet all the precepts of this Art are really expressed, as also the method, how to use them. Plato gives us Demonstration in his Timaeus: the specimens of Sophistrie are delivered in his Eutydemus; whence Aristotle translated not a few of his Sophistick Elenches, or Fallacies: Plato's Socratick In∣duction is of all most potent, &c.

Thus Lud. Vives: wherein he gives us a good account of Plato's Logick, and its original; which as it seems most probable, was by him, or by his Master Socrates deri∣ved

immediately from the Eleatick Schole, from Parmenides, and Zeno: for the same Lud. Vives (in August. Civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 4.) tells us, that Plato diligently examined the Inventions of Parmenides, and Zeno the Eleaticks. And Aristotle in Sophista, as also Laer∣tius in Zeno acquaints us, that Logick was first found out by Zeno the Eleatick. So Vossius de Histor. Graec. lib. 4. cap. 2. agen, Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. lib. 2. cap. 11. §. 2, 3. And Hornius who succeeded him in his Professorship, agrees with him in his Opinion hereabout:

Plato primus Dialogos introduxit non quod ipse primus invenerit, (ante eum enim Zeno scripsit) sed quod expoliverit.

Hornius Histor. Philos. l. 7. c. 8.

Dialogues are said to have been first introduced by Plato, not as if he had been the first Inventor of them (for Zeno writ in that way before him) but because he very much po∣lished, and perfected that way of Arguing: to this purpose Hornius.

But whence ever Plato derived this Dialogizing mode of Logick, that it came originally from the Jewish Church, and Sacred Scriptures, we shall endeavour to demonstrate both by Artificial, and Inartificial arguments.

§. 2. First, Suppose we grant, that Plato,* 1.687 and Socrates received this forme of Dialogizing Logick from Parmenides, or Zeno the Elea∣tick; yet that these had their choicest notions from the Jews, we have afore, in our discourse of the Eleatick Philosophie, endeavoured to prove: and particularly that Zeno the Eleatick (who is supposed to be the Inventor of Dialectick Logick) was originally of Tarsis, or as o∣thers of Sidon, and so a Phenician, and borderer on the Jews, &c.

2. But to come to Plato's own confession: In his Thaeetetus, fol. 210. Plato brings in Socrates stiling this Art of disputing by Dialogues a playing the Midwife:

The true way of teaching (saith he) is by apt Interrogations, and Answers to bring forth the faetus, i. e. the sense of our minds into light: which is in regard of Discipline a commo∣dious 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, obstetrication, or doing the office of a Midwife. This art of playing the Midwife, or Dialectick Logick, Socrates (in the same place confesseth) that he received from God, his words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This Midwife art I, and my Mother received from God. i. e. the true God of Israel (of whom he seems to have had some notices) by some Jewish Tradition, as we may presume.

* 1.6883. That this Platonick mode of Disputing by dialogues, or inter∣rogations, and answers, exactly answers to (and therefore as we may justly presume was derived from) the Jewish mode of disputing, will be more than probable to such, as shall consider such disputes as are mentioned in Scripture. We find in the book of Job (one of the most ancient pieces of Scripture) several Disputes 'twixt Job, and his Friends carried on in a Dialectick mode, by questions, and answers. So in like manner, in the Prophets, God (condescending to the Jewish manner of reasoning) frequently argues, and debates matters with his people in a way of dialogue, or interrogation, &c. Yea this manner of disputing, or debating matters, continued amongst the Jews 'till our Saviour's time, as appears by his Disputes with the Jewish Doctors, Scribes, and Pharisees, as also their reasonings with him, which were for the most part, if not altogether, managed by questions, and answers; not by Syllogismes. So Mark 8.11. The Pharisees are said to dispute with Chri••: where Grotius on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 observes,

that the most ancient mode of Disputation was by Interrogations.

Thus in like manner on Luke 22.68. Grotius renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [if I shall propose any argu∣ments.] for addes he, the Hebrews, no lesse th••n the Grecians were wont to dispute by Interrogations. So agen, on Rom. 11.1. He with whom Paul disputes proposeth a question, to which Paul a••swers, &c. as Grotius. So on Luke 11.53, 54. Grotius observes, that the wo••d 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken from the Scholes, & signifies to pose by questions, &c. as before in Socrates's mode of Philosophizing.

Lastly, That the Ancients generally, before Aristotle, disputed by Interrogations is evident by what is observed by Aristotle in his So∣phistick Elenches, where he makes mention of a Fallacie amongst the Ancients called a Fallacie of many Interrogations. By all ••hich it ma∣nifestly appears, that the mode of disputing amongst the An••ients, particularly in Plato's Schole, was by Interrogations, and Responsions, conformable unto, and therefore, as we may justly presume▪ in deri∣vation from the Jews their mode of ••ialogizing. Thus was Logick a∣mongst the Ancients clothed in a more natural, familiar, simple dresse, suitable to things, without those cloudie Niceties, and dark crabbed Termes, which serve only to breed needlesse, and endlesse conten∣tions, as it has been well observed by Jackson on the Scripture, fol. 57.

as all the principal heads of the Grecian invention were derived for the most part from the Hebrews; although by successive artifici∣al

imitation, their varietie grows greater, and their resemblance of Divine Truth lesse, so likewise were Logical conceits first clothed like Natures Children, &c.

Thus much for the Forme of Plato's Logick, and it's cognation with that in use amongst the Jews.

§. 3. We shall proceed to make a more particular distinct inquisi∣tion into Plato's Logick, which he makes to be a key,* 1.689 or induction to all Philosophie: so in Repub. lib. 7. fol. 518. Plato calls his Dialectick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an introductorie Art. So agen fol. 532. he calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the way to other Sciences: & fol. 533. he stiles it a method, wherein by certain steps we at last ascend to the highest principles. Whence Plato makes his Dialectick but a gradation to his Metaphysicks, and therefore he oft confounds them, and mixeth them together in his Discourses. So in his Pa••menides, and Sophista he mixeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Me∣taphysicks, and Dialectick discourses together, as 'tis well observed by Lud. Vives ••n August. Civit. lib. 8. cap. 4^o. And herein Plato is fol∣lo••ed by his Scholar Aristotle, who calls his Logick also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Organ, or Instrument for the discoverie of other Sciences; only with this difference, whereas Aristotle seems to make Logick an organ, but no part of Philosophie, Plato 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it to be both. So Ammonius on Aristotle's Categor. pag. 8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Amongst the ancient Philosophers, some made Logick to be a part of Philosophie as the whole Chorus of the Stoa: o∣thers made it an Organ, as all those of the Paripatum: but Plato makes Logick both a part, and organ of Philosophie, &c.

The Anci∣ents were wont to distribute their Sciences into three parts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Dogme, or Principle, the Method, the Praxis. The Method of all Sciences belongs to Logick, for so Ari∣stotle, as well as Plato defines Logick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

a Method for the right disposing of every Probleme proposed:

only Aristotle calls this Method 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syllogistick, whereas Plato makes it to be Dialectick. So then we may according to Plato's mind, define Logick, an organ, meanes, way, or method for the disquisition, and finding out of the Truth. This fully agrees with the definition Plato gives of a good Logician. Plat. Repub. 7 fol. 537.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Thou callest a Logician him who penetrates the essence of things. For a Logician is a very accurate Inquisitor, or Inspector. This being the nature of Logick, and office of a Logician to make a serious Inquisition into the nature of things, in order to the disquisition of Truth, we shall endeavour to pick up such Methodical precepts, and Rules as lye scattered here and there in Plato's Philosophie, and seem to comprize the chief of his Logick,* 1.690 or Method for the finding out of Truth.

§. 4. First, as to the qualification of Logicians, and their regular procedure in Logical studies, and debates. Plato requireth, that a Lo∣gician be of a mature, and ripe judgment, moderate, and calme as to his passions, modest, candid, and ingenuous in all his disputes; not vain glorious, not contentious, but grave, and moderate in the whole of his deportment. Thus Plato de Repub. 7. (fol. 539. Edit. Stephan.)

That the miserable issue of vain contention may be avoided, be it provided that no one under 30 years of age shall taste of Dialectick Ratiocination; and then not without great caution, and circumspe∣ction. Thus Plato; who in what follows gives his reason of such his Institute: Because young men, when engaged in Dialetick disputes doe rather aime at Victorie, and vain glory, than the discoverie of Truth; and thence abusing this Art of Logick unto needlesse con∣tradictions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, using it alwaies for con∣tradiction, they like young Puppies often overcome, and are oft o∣vercome again, so long 'till at last they come to believe nothing at all.

But (addes Plato) your grave person of mature judgment 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.

would not willingly be partaker of this madnesse, be∣cause in his disputing he seeks rather Truth, than Victorie, or Glo∣rie, which is the proper effect of Childish Contentious Disputes. Agen he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Ancient Person is more moderate, or regular, and so adorneth his Province with gravitie, candor, and moderation, &c.

* 1.691Albeit Plato is thus severe against Contentious wrangling Logick, yet it cannot be denyed, but that there were, at least after his death, many vexatious questions, and contentious disputes in his Old Acade∣mie, which laid the foundation of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension of judgement

in the New Academie. For we must remember there was allowed by Plato in his Academie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a peirastick, or probatio∣nal mode of disputing: the Laws whereof allowed, that in some dubious points it was free for any to dispute pro, or contra, for, or a∣gainst the position, and at last to leave it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, undefin'd,* 1.692 or undetermined. And that which gave an occasion to this Sceptick mode of disputing was this, that although Plato held some things certain, and infallibly true, which ought to be certainly assented to, as the Existence of God &c. yet he held also many other points, especially in Physicks, to be very dubious, and uncertain, wherein he presumed there might be a Libertie granted of disputing pro, or contra, without prejudice to Truth: whence sprang many contentious disputes, which at last determined in the New Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suspension, or disbe∣lief of every thing. So Serranus in his Preface to Plato: It is no way

to be doubted, but that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and dubitations of the New A∣cademicks were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and corruptions of the old opinion: for Plato in some Arguments disputes both waies, &c.

And indeed nothing is more natural than that from disputes, & contentions pro, and contra, if not well mannag'd, Assent to Truth should be much weaken'd. This contentious kind of Logick made the Stoicks, & Cynicks ('twixt whom there was a great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or symbolization) reject ratio∣nal, & natural Philosophie, because it was man's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and chief end, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to live virtuously, as Diog. Laertius.

§. 5. Secondly, Another Logick Precept laid down by Plato, is this;

That the matter of Logical discussions be weightie, and useful,* 1.693 not frivolous, or unnecessarie:

So in his Phaedrus fol. 277. Plato compares a Logician to a skilful Seedsman, who soweth such Dialectick artificial notions, and discourses, as will bring forth the best fruit for use and advantage. This is the more diligently to be heeded, be∣cause in Dialectick Debates nothing is more easie to be found, than an occasion of disputing about Chimera's, &c. This Rule follows on the foregoing, and therefore needs not farther illustration.

3. A Third Rule given by Plato,* 1.694 in order to a Logical disquisition of Truth is

that we be sure to lay down sound, and substantial Prin∣ciples, as the foundation of all following discourse, and conclusions.

Thus Plato in his Philebus, being about to dispute, he will have them first lay down by common consent some few foundation Principles: His own words are fol. 20. these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let us lay down a few confessed principles before us: and then

addes the reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Principles fairly granted are immoveable. So agen Plato in Cratylus fol. 436. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every man ought about the first Principle of any undertaking to discourse much, and to consider much whether it be rightly laid or not. This is of great moment, because according to that measure of strength, or weaknes which is in the Principles, such will be the strength, or weaknes of the Conclusions. Whence that old max∣ime quoted by Aristotle, The Principle is half the whole. i. e. Lay a good Principle, and your work is half done. The first Principle gives light to all following Principles, but receives none from them.

* 1.6954. Rule for Dialectick discourse is this, That there be a methodick procedure from certain plain Hypotheses, or evident concessions, to those things, which are more general, obscure, and of an higher con∣templation. Thus Plato Repub. 7. fol. 533. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where Plato makes Logick to be nothing else than

a Method, whereby we proceed from some cer∣tain, and plain Hypotheses, by certain medium's or assents, to the high∣est, and first Principle, or Truth.

This Method which Plato commends, whereby we proceed from the particular to the general, from the effect, to the cause, and from the end to the beginning, is usually stiled in the Scholes Analytick method, whereof (as 'tis said) Plato was the first In∣ventor. Certainly such a procedure from effects to their causes, and from particulars to generals must be of great use for the discoverie of Truth. For there is nothing can be rightly known, 'till the first cau∣ses, whence it sprang, be made manifest. Particulars receive strength and certainty from generals, out of which they grow, and generals re∣ceive light, and evidence from particulars. In all parts of knowledge things most general are most firme, on which the certaintie of particulars depends. See les conferences par beaux Esprits. Tom. 1. Conf. 1. This also is commended by Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He that will exactly understand the nature of the whole, must exactly consider its parts.

* 1.6965. Rule. Plato prescribeth the use of Examples, and clear illustrati∣ons, as necessarie in Logick discourse for the evidencing of Truth. So in his Politicus fol. 277.

It is very hard (saies he) to demonstrate a∣ny thing, that is great, or transcendent without Examples:

for every

ones knowledge seems to be but dreaming: we are indeed ignorant of every thing. And Serranus on this place Comments thus,

Plato wils, that in our inquisitions into the natures of things more obscure, we place before our understanding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the exemplars, and adumbrations of things more known, thereby to make our investigation more facile, and speedie. Therefore in search∣ing into the natures of great things we are to make use of the exam∣ples of the least things.

Neither was this Plato's advice only, but his practice also. For none of the Ancients (yea may not we say of the Moderns also?) may be compared with him as to the use of proper, and accurate examples, and instances for the illustration of Truth. Whence that Proverbial speech, Plato teacheth, Aristotle proveth:

§. 6. Rule for Logical disquisitions is this;* 1.697 'To distinguish well be∣twixt Truth, and Falshood. So Plato in his Gorgias, fol. 507 tels us, that we must be exceeding exact in severing Truth from Falshood; for the better performing whereof, he acquaints us (Repub. 7. fol. 537.) that a Logician must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an accurate Inquisitor: and elsewhere he laies down this as requisite for one, that would exactly difference Truth from Falshood, that he have Sagacitie, good Disposition, and libertie of Judgment. Calvin tells us,

this is the best method for avoiding Er∣rour, to consider well the danger imminent on both sides.

And Be∣za in the life of Calvin gives him this Character:

That amongst o∣ther excellent graces these Two shined most brightly in him;

viz. 1. A singular vivacitie to discover where the difficultie of matters lay: and 2. A marvellous dexteritie to couch his responses without losing one word.

7. Rule, In order to the right distinguishing 'twixt Truth and Falshood, it's necessarie to state the affirmative well in some Theses,* 1.698 or Suppositions. So Plato tells us, 'tis but one and the same labour 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to establish the Truth, and revince the Errour: So agen, in his Sophist. Plato acquaints us,

that he who will understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Negative, must well understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Affirmative.

And the reason is evident: Because no Ne∣gative hath in it self the cause of it's Truth, but it is so by the Truth of the Affirmative; neither was there ever any proposition false, but be∣cause some other was true: nor can the falsitie of the one be known, but by the Truth of the other.

8. Rule.

In the Definition, or Description of things we may not expect more certainty, or exactnes than the matter affordeth,* 1.699 or re∣quireth.

So Plato (in Critias, fol. 107.)

When Painters (saith he) endeavour to Limne forth to us Divine things, we find our selves abundantly satisfied, if they expresse but some small image of those things.

So Arist. Ethick. lib. 1. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

It is the office of a learner to seek after so much exactnes in every kind, as the nature of the thing admits. For (addes he) you must not put an Orator to demonstrate by Logick, or a Mathe∣matician to persuade by Oratorie, &c. in Divinis, & maximis mini∣mum investigare maximum est, In great, and Divine matters to find out the least apex of Truth is of greatest moment:

as Plato.

It is a Ridiculous superstition (saith Cunaeus) to be alwaies sollicitous about definitions: for some things will not admit them.

* 1.7009. Rule.

In the examination of things there must be used Liber∣tie of judgment, without partialitie or prejudice:

So Plato de Re∣pub. 6. fol. 494,

Truth is acquired by none 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but such as, give themselves up as slaves to be possessed thereby.

Hence that great saying; it becomes a searcher after Truth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to sacrifice to Truth, not to be enslaved to an opinion. Whence Aristotle gives this good Character of a true Philosopher,

That he must yeeld himself up a captive to Truth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the extirpation of his own Phaenomena. Li∣bertie (saith Cunaeus) is an inestimable treasure, which some make to be the Soul of a true ••udgment. Indifferencie of judgment (saith Mede) without prejudice is sufficient to discover much Truth with little diligence, and without much Learning. but the miserie is, the world loves to be deceived, rather than to be taught; addes another: and yet another, Cujus animo semel sedet pervicax opinio, definit res vere discernere, he, whose mind is prepossest with a pertina∣cious Opinion, ceaseth to be in a Capacitie for discerning of Truth.

* 1.70110. Whence it follows,

that the Authoritie of Persons is not so much to be valued, as the weight of their Reasons: So Plato Phaed. 91. brings in Socrates advising his friends Simia, and Cebes, not to give credit to him with the losse of Truth. But doe ye (saith So∣crates) give credit to me only thus far, as to be sure ye make very much account of Truth,* 1.702 but very little of Socrates. Agen, Plato tells us, that a man is soon deceived by Authoritie of others: there is but one good Authoritie, and that is of Reason.

11. Disputes must be managed with Modestie, Candor,* 1.703 and Mo∣deration. So Plato Protag. fol. 337. They must debate things with an amicable familiaritie: the opinions, and reasons of Adversaries must be related bona fide: neither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must they rail, &c. There must be modestie used, which Plato defines thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a voluntarie yeelding to what is best.

12. For refuting Errors Plato gives this Rule (Hippias, fol. 362.* 1.704)

This is a commodious way of refelling Sophisters, to reduce them to absurd Consequences, whence the falsitie of their Antecedents will appear.

13. To which adde this. In confuting Errors, we must shew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first rise, and spring of the Error.

§. 7. If any one expects, or desires a more artificial account of Plato's Dialectick, the best, that I have met with,* 1.705 is that of Alcinous (a great Platonick Philosopher) in his Institution to Plato's Doctrine, where hav∣ing (cap. 3.) distributed Philosophie (according to Plato's mind) into Con∣templative, Active, and Rational; and (cap. 4.) explicated the founda∣tion of Dialectick which has it's seat in Nature, he proceeds (cap. 5.) to discourse of the proper Elements of Dialectick, which he reduceth to these 5. heads; Definition, Division, Analysis, or Method, Induction,* 1.706 or Di∣judication, & Ratiocination.

In the Elements of Dialectick (saith Alci∣nous) this was principally Plato's sentiment; that Firstly the nature of every thing should be considered, and then it's Accidents. What the Nature of every thing is, he searcheth out either from Superiors, by Division, and Definition: or from Inferiors, by Analysis, or resolu∣tion. As for Accidents, which inhere in Essences, he seeks them out, either from the Contents by Induction, or from the Continents by Ra∣tiocination. So that Dialectick Reasons are deservedly comprehended under Division, Definition, Analysis, Dijudication, and Raciocination. Division it is either the Distribution of the Genus into it's Species,* 1.707 or the Section of the whole into it's parts, or the partition of the word into it's significates. Agen, Division is either of the Accidents into their Subjects, or of the Subjects into their Accidents. The Division of Genus into it's Species is useful for the finding out the Nature of e∣very thing, which belongs to Definition.* 1.708 Now Definition springs from Division thus. The Genus of the thing to be Defined must be taken, as Animal of Homo.

Hence this Genus must be divided by it's next difference, 'till we descend to the Species. And then by adding the

next difference to the Genus, the Definition of the Species is constituted, as Homo est Animal Rationale. Analysis has Three Species:* 1.709 the one whereby we ascend from Sensibles to first Intelligibles: another where∣by we proceed from Demonstrates, and Sub-demonstrates to first Propositions, which want a Medium: the Third whereby we passe from a Supposition to those Principles, which are taken for granted, without a Supposition. The First kind of Analysis is thus exemplified: as when we passe from the beautie of the Bodie to that of the Mind: from this, to that which appears in men's Morals, or conversations; and from this to that, which shines in Politick constitutions, and Ad∣ministrations: from which at last we arrive to that immense Ocean of the first Beautie. See the other Two Species of Analysis in Alci∣nous.

* 1.710§. 8. Thence Alcinous proceeds to Induction

which (saies he) is a rational procedure from Like to Like, or from Singulars to Vniversals. This is most advantageous to excite Notions implanted by Nature herself.* 1.711 As for that piece of Oration which we call Proposition, it has Two Species: the one is Affirmation, the other is Negation. In Affirmations, and Negations some are Universal, as All evil is base, &c. some are Particular, as Some pleasure is not good. Of Propositions some are Categorical, some Hypothetical, or conditionate. The Art of Ratiocination is used by Plato in Arguing,* 1.712 and Demonstrating. He Argues, and Confutes what is false by Interrogations: but he Demon∣strates by teaching what is true. Ratiocination is an Oration in which some Propositions being laid down a conclusion by force of those Pro∣positions is drawn. Of Ratiocinations some are Categorical, some are Hypothetical, some Mixt, which have a complexion of both. Plato useth Demonstrative Ratiocinations in those Dialogues, wherein he ex∣plicates his own opinion: but against Sophisters, and young men he makes use of probable arguments: and against those, who were properly contentious, he useth Eristick argumentation; as against Euthydemus, and Hippias. As for Categorical Ratiocination (which has Three Figures) Plato Interrogates in each Figure. As in the First Figure thus,* 1.713 (in Alcibiades) Just things are they not beautiful? and beautiful things, are they not good? therefore are not just things good? So in the ••econd, and Third Figure Plato Interrogates in his Parmenides, &c. Touching Hypothetical Ratiocinations,* 1.714 we find many delivered by Plato, though by Interrogations, especially, in his Par∣menides.

He also gives some hints of Mixt Ratiocination— If we look for some account of Sophismes,* 1.715 and Fallacies, we shall find it in Plato's Euthydemus. Also he has given us some adumbration of the Ten Categories in his Parmenides,* 1.716 as in like manner in his Dia∣logues. He has comprehended the universal Forme of Notation in his Cratylus.* 1.717 And truely this man was admirably perfect in defi••ing, and dividing: which declareth that he had the chiefest force, or spirit of Dialectick. In his Cratylus he queries, whether names signifie from Nature, or from Institution? And he determineth, that what is right in names comes from Institution, yet not casually, but so as such In∣stitution must be consentaneous to the nature of the thing it self. For the rectitude of names is nothing else but an Institution convenient to the Nature of the things. This also belongs to Logick to use names aright:

Thus Alcinous. Albeit we may allow this learned Platonist, that some vestigia of these several parts of Dialectick are to be found in Plato's writings, yet 'tis most certain, that Plato never in∣tended to deliver over to posteritie any such artificial mode, or forme of Logick. All that he designes is, to give us some general Canons for a more methodical Inquisition into the nature of things, and for regular Disputation, or Ratiocination. The first, that gave us an artificial Systeme of Logick separate from the Praexis, was Aristotle (as hereafter) Plato affected a more natural, familiar, and simple method of Ratiocina∣tion (as before) yea so far is he from delivering any exact artificial forme of Logick, as that he confounds his Dialectick with Metaphy∣sicks, and other contemplations (as else where) Yet as to the Praxis of Dialectick, Plato abounds with accurate Definitions, and Divisions: also he gives an excellent Idea of Analytick method, whereof he is said to be the first Inventor. And as to Dijudication, and Argumentati∣on, he seems very potent in the use of the Socratick Induction. And all this with much harmonie, simplicitie, and plainnesse, without that Arti∣fice which Aristotle introduced. Amongst our Moderne Writers, no one seems to have made a better emprovement of Plato's Dialectick Precepts, and Praxis, than Peter Ramus, who (notwithstanding the contumelies cast upon him by his bloudie Adversarie Carpenter) seems to have had a thorough insight into Plato's mind, and to have reduced his principles to the best method for the Disquisition of Truth. The Abstract of his Logick we intend to give, when we come to Treat of Aristotle's Logick.

CHAP. IX. Of Plato's Physicks, and their Traduction from Sacred Storie.

Plato's Storie of the Origine of the Universe, from Gen. 1.1. &c. Plato asserted the Eternitie of the world, only in regard to Di∣vine Idea's. Plato own's God as the first efficient, according to Gen. 1.1. Gods Ideal efficiencie.. Plato's intelligible World. God's energetick efficiencie. Of Plato's Universal Spirit, or Spi∣rit of the Universe, from ••en. 1.2. [Spirit.] It's various regards. The bodie of the Universe, and its first matter, from Gen. 1.2. The Parallel 'twixt Moses, and Plato's first matter in Six parti∣culars. Of the Four Elements which immediately constitute the Ʋniverse, and their traduction from Moses. Gen. 1.1. with it's analysis. Plato's Forme of the Universe consists in Harmonie, and Order. Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Universe. 1. Perfection, from Gen. 1.31. How Plato calls the Universe the Image of God, from Gen. 1.27. 2. The Unitie of the Universe. 3. Finitenes. 4. Figure, Round. 5. Colour. 6. Time. 7. Mobilitie. 8. Generations. 9. Duration, &c. 2. Of the Parts of the Universe 1. Angels. 2. The Heavens their substance: Fire, or Air, or Water. That the Sun, and Stars are fire, from Gen. 1.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Fire, as well as Light. Arguments proving the Sun to be Fire. Of Light, and Darknes. 3. Of the inferiour world, Wind, Air, Water. Gen. 1.9. Meteors, &c. Of Active Physicks, Plants, Animals, &c. Of man's Original, and Formation according to the Image of God, Gen. 1.26.27. Of the humane Soul, it's Original, Nature, ••apacitie, Jmmortalitie, Perfection, and Faculties; the Understanding, &c. Medicinal Canons. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. For conservation of health. 1. The causes of diseases. 2. The exercises of Nature. 3. Rules for Diet. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or curative Medicine, with Plato's Canons, and Character of a Physician.

§. 1.* 1.718 The first great piece of Philosophie in vogue amongst the Ancient Grecians, especially such as were of the Ionick sect, was Physicks, or Physiologie, commonly called Natural Philosophie. For Thales and his Successors wholly busied themselves in Natural Inquisitions, and Disputes. Though Socrates perceiving the vanitie of such Physiologick speculations, wholly addicts himself to Morals; Plato affecting an universal perfection in Philosophie joyns both Con∣templatives, and Actives together. And thence his Physicks may be distributed into Contemplative, and Active. Plato's Contemplative Physick, or Physiologie is nothing else, but a Natural Historie, or Hi∣storical account of Nature, i. e. the Vniverse, it's Origine, Principles, Constitution, Affections, and parts; of all which he discourseth most amply, and Philosophically in his Timaeus (the chief seat of his Physio∣logick Philosophisings) and that in imitation of, and by tradition from Moses's Historical Narration of the Creation, as we no way doubt it will manifestly appear by these following Demonstrations, as well arti∣ficial, as inartificial.

§. 2. That Plato derived his Physiologick Philosophizings,* 1.719 touch∣ing the Worlds Origine, &c. from Moses's Historie of the Creati••n seem very probable by his own confession: for in Timaeus, fol. 29. being about to treat of the Worlds Origine &c. he makes this Prologue,

It is meet (saies he) that we remember that both I who discourse, and ye, who judge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That we have human nature, so that having received some probable Fable, or Traditi∣on concerning these things, it becomes us not to enquire farther.

Here Plato acknowledgeth, that concerning the Origine of the Ʋniverse, all the Notices they had were but some probable Fables, or Traditions; which without all peradventure were derived to them, if not immedi∣ately, yet originally from the Sacred Historie. This is farther con∣firmed by what we find in Johannes Grammaticus, alias Philoponus, of the Worlds Creat. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 4.

It is no wonder (saies he) that Moses, who was most ancient being about to draw men to the know∣ledge of God, institutes a discourse touching the Creation of the World, in this manner. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas Plato discoursing concerning the production of the Universe by God, imitates him in this, as also in many other things, &c. Thus Philoponus: who frequently

inculcates the same, as hereafter. Thus also Ludovicus Vives, de Ves rita••e fid. pag. 157. The Genesis, or production of the world (saies he) is so described by Moses, that thence the greatest wits have both ad∣mired the profunditie thereof, and also embraced the truth of the Narration. The Pythagoreans, and their follower Plato in his Timae∣us have imitated that Mosaick Description of the Worlds procreati∣on, sometimes almost in the same words.

So in like manner that great French Divine Mestrezat in his excellent Treatise de la vertu, de la foy on Heb. 11.3. [Through faith we understand that the worlds were made]

observes thus, Those extravagancies of the Philosophers, even of the principal of them, Aristotle, and the Stoicks concerning an eter∣nal 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 Di∣vine 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 De∣m••••stration of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or manner how Plato received these his tra∣ditions of the Worlds Origine from Sacred Revelation; to which we may adde those Notices Plato received hereof from the Pythagore∣ans; especially Timaeus the Locrian, who writ of the Origine of the Ʋniverse; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ affecters of Oriental, Jewish traditions. The same may be said for such Physiologick traditions, as Plato derived from Heraclitus, who was also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as before chap. 6. §. 1. Yea 'tis 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 Ʋniverse, 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.

* 1.720§. 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 So∣cratick mode of disputing by Interrogations) puts this question, whe∣ther

the World had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a beginning of Genesis, or creation, yea or no? To which he reply's that the World 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was made; and he gives the reason thereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for it is Visible, tangible, and Corporeal. And he afterwards saies more Catego∣rically, 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 Ploti∣nus, 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, there∣by 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 a∣gainst Proclus; as also in his Book of the Worlds Creation. And where∣as 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 evi∣dent, that Plato by his Eternal Matter, or World understands only that eternal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exemplar, Idea, or Platforme in the Divine Decrees,* 1.721 which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the intelligible world, which he opposeth to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accord∣ing to some proportion, or relation to the Divine exemplar, or De∣crees, not absolutely, and simply, as hereafter. Yea it seems evident by Aristotle's own confession, that all the Philosophers before him held the world to have had a beginning; his words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they all say, that it was made. Johannes Grammaticus of the Creation peremptorily asserts, that all the Philosophers before Aristotle held the beginning, and framing of all things to be from God. Mr. Bochart asserted the same in a Sermon at Caen, March 2. 1664. That which made Aristotle oppose this generally received tradition

was his Philosophick humour of opposing everie thing, that would not lye level with his Reason.

* 1.722§. 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We say, that whatever is made, must necessarily have some cause: but here lies the diffi∣cultie 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The products of Gods efficiencie, whence he makes God to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most Sovereign cause, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the cause of causes.

But to treat somewhat more distinctly of this Divine Efficiencie; which according to Plato's mind may be di∣stributed into Ideal, or immanent, and executive, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••a••sient. As for

* 1.7231. Gods Ideal efficiencie, it's well known, that none treats more professedly, and fully thereof then Plato. I shall not enter into a di∣scourse 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 Di∣vine 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

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 exem∣plar had a Genesis, or beginning, and is visible: where it's evident, Plato distinguisheth the Intelligible world, which he calls the exemplar subsisting in the Divine mind,* 1.724 from the sensible, which is but the imi∣tate of the former. And it seems evident that Plato by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intelligible World, which he here calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Exemplar, as else where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ideal, self-living,

alwaies-living world (I say by these he) meant no other, than that Di∣vine Idea, Image, or Exemplar inherent in the Divine Essence, accord∣ing to which the whole Universe was delineated, and fashioned. For the more full understanding whereof, take these propositions.

1. Plato supposeth, that God, who is the most wise Agent, acted not rashly, but as a skilful Artificer, had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 some most beautiful End, or Design, which was the measure, rule, or square in this great work of Creating the World.

2. Hence the infinite Wisdome of God, which the Scholes call His Simple Intelligence, having a full comprehension of all possible meanes, which might any way conduce to the promotion of Divine Glorie, the supreme end of this undertaking, and the Divine Sovereign Will, or Pleasure Decreeing what it judged most expedient in order hereto, seems to pass according to Plato's mind, under the Forme, or Notion of Divine Ideas, which he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, im∣material, Eternal, Immixed, and the original Prototype of the Uni∣verse.

3. These original Idea's which comprehend the Divine Wisdome,* 1.725 and Decrees, Plato makes to be productive of a Secondarie Idea (yet still immanent in the Divine Essence) which he calls sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Exemplar, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Image. The origi∣nal Idea he supposeth to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the self-subsistent, indivisible, and eternal efficient of the Second Idea, or Exem∣plar, which he makes to be the more immediate Delineation, or I∣mage of the whole work. For thus his words run, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making use of this Exemplar he frames the Idea, and Power, i. e. the sensible World. So that 'tis evident he distinguisheth his original Idea from his Ex∣emplar, making the forme•• to be first more Noble, and Causative of the l••tter: this seems to be much the same with that, which the Scholes call Gods Science of Vision, whereby he contemplates things Future, which is the result of his Decrees, and so differing from his Simple Intelligence, whereby he contemplates things Possible. I find all this excellently explicated to us by Learned Serranus in his Com∣ment on Plato's Timaeus, fol. 12.

whence, saies he, the first, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sovereign cause of this whole worke, which existed in the Di∣vine mind, was his supreme End. For the effecting this end, there was an Idea, i. e. an Eternal Decree: This Idea delineated to it self

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Exemplar of the future work, which was various ac∣cording to the varietie of the work.

Or else we may, if we please re∣fer this Original Idea of Plato to Gods Simple Intelligence, and his Ex∣emplar to Gods Science of Vision, of which see Book 2. chap. 8. §. 8. of Pythagorick Idea's. This gives us a more full account what Plato meant by his Intelligible, Ideal, and Eternal World, which he so stiled analo∣gically only with relation to Divine Decrees. The foundation of these Divine Idea's Plato seems to have taken from Moses, Gen. 1.31. And God saw every thing, that he had made, and behold it was very good.] i. e. answerable to his own Divine Exemplar, or Platforme. Plato in his Timaeus, fol. 37. speaks almost in Moses's words, thus.

After the Father of the Universe had beheld his workmanship, the framed image of the Eternal Gods, he recreated himself, and rejoyced therein.

That Plato herein imitated Moses, see Joannes Grammati∣cus of Creation, lib. 7. cap. 11, 12. of which more hereafter. This gives to understand how unjustly Aristotle, and his followers, have with so great heat contended against Plato's Universal Idea's, as though they were but Brain-sick figments, no where existing, but in Plato's vain imagination: whereas it seems evident that Plato by these Ʋni∣versal Idea's, understood no other (though more darkly) than what our Divines generally understand by the Ʋniversal Idea's inherent in the mind of God as the Exemplar of all things created. Thus much for Gods Ideal Efficiencie.

* 1.7262. As for Gods Executive, or Productive Efficiencie; according to Plato's Philosophizing, he is in general stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supreme Fabricator, Perfecter, and Es∣sentializer of things. The notions, by which Plato sets forth this Di∣vine Efficiencie, are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He adorned, ordered, figured, constituted, framed all things, &c. And more particularly as to the mode, or manner how God framed all things, we are told 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ev'ry thing was Essentialized by certain Prolifick, or Efformative words. This seems exactly to answer to that of the Psalmist, Psal. 33.6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth: which the Author to the Hebrews, chap. 11.3. more fully explains [The worlds were framed by the Word of God] i. e. Gods Fiat, or word was the Seminal prolifick principle of all beings, as Gen. 1.3. So the Stoicks reducing the whole of the Universe to two

principles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the efficient, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the matter: as to the for∣mer, they say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this being the Spermatick, or Seminal Word of the Universe, which formes, and shapes it, as the Seed the Faetus. Which suits well with the Scripture account hereof: or else we may reduce this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sper∣matick Word, which the Platonists, and Stoicks speak so much of, to Christ, who is by Solomon stiled Wisdom, Prov. 8.27, 28. and by John 1.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Essential word, and made Coeffector with God the Father in the Creation of the Universe, though the former seems more adequate to the Platonick mind.

§. 5. We may reduce also to the foregoing Divine Efficiencie,* 1.727 that which Plato stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the soul of the Ʋniverse, or the Ʋni∣versal spirit, which is so much spoken of, but as little understood in the Scholes. For the full understanding whereof, we must remember that Plato, according to his Allegorick humour, fancies the Universe to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a living, and intelligent creature, composed of bodie, and soul. As for the bodie of the Ʋniverse, what he means there∣by is evident, for he calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the visible,* 1.728 and tractable matter. All the difficultie lies in stating what he intends by the soul of the World. For the understanding whereof we are to remember (which is a general Clavis to Plato's Philosophie) that Plato affected an Allegorick mode of Philosophizing; wherefore his sense is more to be attended, than his words, as Caelius Rhodig. l. 9. c. 40. hath well ob∣served. And this discovers the great injustice of Aristotle, and his Ad∣herents in their Disputes against Plato in that quarelling with, and triumphing over his words, they regard not his sense, or mind wrap∣ped up under those Symbolick, and Metaphorick Notions. Thus here when Plato Philosophizeth of the soul of the Universe, or the Uni∣versal spirit, that animates this Universe, no•• minding his hidden sense they cavil against his Notion, as if he did indeed make the Universe a Monstre. But to come to the right understanding of this Notion: We shall endeavour to draw forth Plato's mind in these Propositions.

1. The original, and primarie notion,* 1.729 or mind of Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋniversal spirit, or soul of the Universe, seems to be but a broken Tradition from Gen. 1.2. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters; and so an imperfect reference to the third person in the Trinitie, whom Moses makes to be the more immediate fomenter, and influencer of all things. Hence the Platonists in their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trinitie, make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their Universal spirit to be the third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or

person. That Plato by his Spirit of the Ʋniverse, or Ʋniversal spirit, meant the Spirit of God, or God, is evident by his description thereof in his de Legib. lib. 10. fol. 896. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

The Soul, or Spirit of all things is most ancient, and the principle of motion, and of all good: this Soul also is the cause of all things, honest, and evil, of all things just, and unjust; and of all contraries.

This is a full description of the spirit's operation, and influx on all things both good and evil mate∣rially considered. But Plato discourseth more fully, & particularly con∣cerning this Universal Divine Spirit, his Prolifick Seminal Efformati∣on of the Universe in what precedes, fol. 395. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Soul or Spirit perme••ting, and en∣habiting all things, &c. Plato here proves, that God is the Soul of the World, from the Analogie, or Proportion he bears to the living Soul. For look as the Sensitive Soul conveighed from the Pa••ent, together with, and in the Seed, does by its Prolifick Efformative Virtue forme, and shape the faetus, till it be perfected: So God, whom he here stiles the Ʋniversal soul permeating, and enhabiting all things, is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and (as before) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first fashi••n∣er, or the Efformative, and Spermatick principle of the Ʋniverse. Or look as the humane spirit, though precedent to, and no way depend∣ing on the bodie, is notwithstanding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Aristotle phras∣eth it) the perfection, or perfective principle of the man; so Plato's U∣niversal Spirit, or Spirit of the Ʋniverse, though it be precedent to, and independent on the said Universe, yet is it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Effor∣mative, and perfective principle thereof. This Plato's indwelling soul of the Universe is the same with that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plastick, Effor∣mative, Power, Spirit, or Principle, which our Chymists take to be the Ʋniversal spirit, informing all things. And that all these Platonick ••o∣tions of this Soul, or Spirit of the Ʋniverse were but broken traditions derived originally from Gen. 1.2. The Spirit of God moved, &c. will I think, be evident to any, that shall consider, how parallel they are. For whereas 'tis said

Gen. 1.2. the Spirit moved;

some will have the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to imply such a motion, or agitation as carries with it an Efformative fomentation, like to that of a Broodie Hen, fomenting her Egges; The Spirit of God as it were (to speake with Reverence) set abrood upon the Waters, till it be Hat••hed, and brought forth the Ʋ∣niverse. To which Plato's Spermatick, Efformativs spirit of the Uni∣verse

exactly answers, as also to that Psal. 33.6. By the breath of his mouth•• Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Spirit of his Mouth. Neither is this only a Novel Observation: for Ludovicus Vives, who was well veri•• in Plato, is fully of this persuasion, as he layes it down in his Comment on August. Civit. lib. 10. cap. 23. If we will (saies he) more

exactly follow Plato, its easie to defend, that the Soul of the world is that spirit which moved upon the Waters, Gen. 1.2. which they seem to make imparting life, and essence to all things through the masse of the Universe.

Thus he; who gives us a good explication of Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

2.* 1.730 Plato's Soul of the Universe seems to refer sometimes to the Di∣vine Spirit, his Providential influence on, and concurse with all things. This indeed follows upon, and differs not really from the foregoing notion of Plato's Universal spirit. For look as the spirit of God was the first Fomenter, Framer, and Perfectioner of the Universe, so does he still continue the supreme Governour, Orderer, and Influencer of it, and of all its motions, &c. Parallel hereto does Plato make his Universal spirit to be not only the first Composer, but also the Disposer, and Or∣derer of the Universe, and all its Motions: so in his de Legib. lib. 10. fol. 897. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

It's manifest, that we must con∣fesse, the supreme soul provides for the whole world, and acts it, &c.

This is another reason, why Plato stiles the Universe a living Creature, as he himself acquaints us in his Timaeus, fol. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

we ought to say, that this world is truly a Living, and Intelligent Crea∣ture, because it comes under the Providence of God. Hence Plato stiles this Universal Divine spirit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that he does most wisely, and methodically dispose, and order all Providential occurrences, and natural affairs.

So in his Phileb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

All wise men agree that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Divine mind is King to us, both of Heaven and Earth.

So agen Phaedo, fol. 97. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

And we judge, if it be so, that the Divine Mind adorning adorneth all things, and placeth ev'ry thing in the best forme, and station that may be, which is more briefly, yet fully, in the Platonick Definitions thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Divine Mind is that, which adornes, and is the cause

of all things: we have all this fully expressed by the Stoicks according to the relation of Laertius in Zeno, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

The world is enhabited by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Divine Mind, and Providence; the Mind dispensing, administrating, or ordering every part thereof, as the Soul in you, which is a full Explication of Plato's Universal spirit, and doth exactly answer to the Scripture's relation of the Spirit of God, his preservation of, and providence over all things, as Psal. 104.30.

Thou sendest forth thy spirit, &c. So that we need no way doubt, but that Plato traduced this second Notion of his Universal spirit from the Sacred fountain.

* 1.7313. Plato seems also sometimes under the Notion of his Universal spirit, or Soul, to comprehend that Universal Symmetrie, Harmonie, Order, Beautie, and Form•• which appears in the Universe. So in his Timaeus, fol. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

The bodie of the Vniverse is framed by proportion, and friendship of the Four Elements, &c. where he makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ana∣logie, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 symmetrie, the bond of Union, Universal spirit, or forme by which all the parts of the Ʋniverse, in themselves opposite, & contrarie, by a friendly kind of discord are conjoyned, and agree to∣gether.

This piece of Plato's Ʋniversal Spirit is but the result of the former. For the Spirit of God having at first framed, and still order∣ing the Ʋniverse, and all its parts according to Eternal Wisdome, Law, and Contrivement, hence flows the most exact Order, Beautie, and Har∣monie, of all parts (though never so contrarie) mutually conspiring, and moving according to that Law of Nature imprest upon their be∣ings, and the particular conduct, or disposition of the Divine Provi∣dence to their appointed ends; so that Plato here puts the Effect for the Cause, namely Order for the Divine Spirit who is the great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Orderer, Collector, and Conjoyner of all these parts in the Ʋni∣verse. But of this more, when we come to Plato's Forme of the Ʋni∣verse.

* 1.7324. Some by Plato's Universal Spirit understand that Ignifick virtue, or Vivifick natural heat, which in the first Creation was infused into the Chaos, and afterward diffused through ev'ry part of the Universe for the fomenting, and nourishing thereof. This say they, Plato cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fire, or an Ignifick Spirit, which fashion∣eth

divers Effects, which Moses calls the Spirit of God, Gen, 1.2. Thus Beza, and out of him Serranus on Plato's Timaeus, fol. 10. But though Plato seems to own such a prolifick fire, or ignifick spirit diffu∣sed through the Ʋniverse, yet his Universal spirit, or chief Soul of the Universe seems distinct here-from, as much as the cause from its ef∣fect. Of this more hereafter.

§. 6. Having endeavoured to explicate Plato's Universal Spirit,* 1.733 or the Spirit of the Universe, we are now to proceed to its bodie, and ma∣terial Principle. The proper bodie of the Universe, according to the mind of Plato, is composed of the Four Elements, Fire, Water, Earth, Air: but the original matter of these Elements he makes to be the Chaos, which being first in order of Nature, and existence, ought firstly to be discoursed of. It was a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or principle universally granted by all the Ancient Philosophers before Aristotle, that the Universe had an origine; and that this Origine was from God: So that the great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or question was, what the material principle, or first matter of the Universe was? We find the several persuasions touching this mat∣ter distinctly, though concisely, given us by Clemens Romanus Recog∣nitionum lib 8^o

Pythagoras said, that the Elements, or principles of all things were Numbers; Callistratus Qualities; Alcmaeon Contrarieties; Anaximandrus Immensitie; Anaxagoras Similarie of parts; Epicurus Atomes; Diodorus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Impartibles, or Indivisibles; Asclepias 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we call Tumors, or Elations; Geometers Fines, i. e. Bounds; Democritus Idea's; Thales Water; Parmenides Earth; Plato Fire, Water, Air, Earth; Aristotle also a fifth Element, which he named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Unnameable.

Thus Vossius de Philos. part. 1. cap. 5. §. 13. Although this relation needs some emendation, yet 'tis the best I have met with in this kind, and therefore it must passe. Only as to Plato, we must know, that though he made the Four Ele∣ments before named, the compleat bodie, yet he made them not the first original matter of the Universe. For Plato in his Timaeus describes his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or first matter thus:

It is, saies he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Genus, or Species out of which ev'ry thing is composed; and he expresly saies that it is neither Fire, nor Water, nor Earth, nor Air, but the Common Mother, and Nurse of all these, which effuseth its seed, and virtue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Watrie, Firie, and receptive of the formes of Air, and Earth.

And indeed this Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 first matter,

or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chaos seems exactly the same with, and we need no way doubt but was originally traduced from that of Moses, Gen. 1.2. And the Earth was without forme, and void. Thus Richardson in the Exposi∣tion on his Divinitie Tables, Table 5. MSS. Materia]

This the Philosophers did find,* 1.734 stumbling upon it, but mistaking it very much. Aristotle had it from Plato; he had it from the Egyptians, they from the Jews.

This will easily appear by parallelizing the affections of the one and the other: which we shall endeavour in these following Pro∣positions.

* 1.7351. Moses makes Divine Creation the original of his First Matter, or Chaos, Gen. 1.1. So does Plato, as before, §. 4. answerable to that of Hesiod, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, First of all the Chaos was made, That Peripatetick dream of an Eternal first matter never came into Pla∣to's head, though some impute it to him, as before §. 3.

* 1.7362. Moses calls his First Matter, Gen. 1.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without forme, which P. Fagius renders out of Kimchi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very same word, which Plato useth to expresse his First Matter by; and little differ∣ent in sound, but lesse, or nothing at all, in sense from Sanchonia∣thon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, slime, which Philo Byblius stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Great Bochart conceives from the Phenician, and Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mod, which signifies Matter, as before, Book 1. chap. 3. §. 13, 14. Aquila on Deut. 32.10. renders this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 confused, or without or∣der, and Plato describes his first matter by the same word, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, confused, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, namely because it was without any substantial forme, order, or perfection: yea Plato expresly stiles his first matter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without forme, as Moses. Hence those Peripatetick descriptions of this first matter, that it is nec quid, nec quale, nec quantum, indefinite, and informe, yet capable of any forme, which have caused so much dispute in the Scholes.

* 1.7373. Moses makes his First Matter to be Gen. 1.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and void, whence some conceive, that Plato with the rest of the Greeks tradu∣ced their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: for by an usual change of ב into ב, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is turned into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Bochart makes the original of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chaos. But if we can∣not argue fully from the Names, yet as to Things we may draw an exact Parallel 'twixt Moses, and Plato as to this particular. For Plato, as well as Moses, makes his first Matter to be void of any Forme, or per∣fect principles, but yet the Seminarie, or Masse, out of which all

things were framed: So Plato tells us, that this Chaos was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

The receptacle, and as it were the nurse of all generations, though it were nothing perfectly.

So again in the same Ti∣maeus he acquaints us, that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e.

that it was a kind of anomalous thing, not clothed with Essence, yea little better than nothing, yet the common subject out of which all things were formed.

In summe, this first matter is according to Plato stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Seat, Receptacle, Mo∣ther, and Nurse of the Universe, proportionable to that of Sanchonia∣thon (quoted by Eusebius) who treating of the Chaos, saies,* 1.738 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

out of this came all the seed of the Creation; and the Generation of the whole.

So Plato in his Timaeus, fol. 95. saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Matter is as the Female, and Mo∣ther, and Nurse; but the Forme, is as the Male, and Father of the Uni∣verse. Thus we see how Plato in imitation of Moses describes the first matter as void of all substantial forme, and perfection; yet the seed, and receptacle of all things. Hence also we learne, whence Aristotle had his Physical Privation, which he makes one of his Principles ne∣cessarily antecedent to the production of Bodies. Hence also he calls his first matter a passive power, or Principle void of all formes, but inclinable to, or receptive of any forme. These Peripatetick notions, which make so great noise in our Scholes, were evidently but frag∣ments of Plato's Mosaick traditions.

4. Moses describes his First Matter, or Confused Masse to be,* 1.739 Gen. 1.2. Darknesse, &c. Hence Plato, in imitation of him, stiles his first Matter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tenebrous, obscuritie. The like we find mentioned in He∣siod, and by him applyed to the Chaos, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From the Chaos sprang the Erebo, and the dark night. And indeed both Plato, and Hesiod seeme to have traduced this affection of the Chaos from Sanchoniathon, who calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the tene∣brous Chaos, which Learned Bochart supposeth to bave been in the Phenician tongue (in which Sanchoniathon writ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Evening darknesse, which he proves was taken from Gen. 1.2. but the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Gen. 1.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and it was Eber, or Evening: this (saies he) Varro thus imitates; Erebo creata fuscis crinibus nox te in∣voco: So Bochart Can. lib. 2. cap. 2. fol. 783.

* 1.7405. Whereas Moses saies Gen. 1.2. [Darkness was upon the face of deep] Plato also seems to comprehend the same under his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or first matter, which, as we have before mentioned, is the same with San∣choniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 waterie mistion, or slime: so Orpheus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hilus, or slime was made out of water. This slime, or fluid wa∣trie matter the seed of all Creatures, is the same with Thales's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, water, which he made the first principle, or matter of all things: and all but broken traditions of Moses's description, Gen. 1.2. as we have proved at large, Book 2. chap. 3. §. 4.

* 1.7416. Lastly, Moses saies, Gen. 1.2. [The Spirit of God moved up∣on the face of the Waters] i. e. The Spirit of God by a Divine fomenta∣tion, agitation, or motion on this fluid matter, commonly called the Chaos, formed, and shaped every Creature, and brought it to that forme, and perfection as was appointed for it, by the Sovereign Eter∣nal Idea, Wisdome, and Pleasure. And does not Plato also give us a description hereof much to the same purpose? when he saies as in his Timaeus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is (as some render it) by an importune motion fluctuating, and not quiescing. This Divine fomentation, and agitation of the spirit on this fluid mat∣ter in order to the formation of every Creature, is by Sanchoniathon stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the spirit of dark air, or a blustering wind. To conclude; Plato in his Timaeus tells us, that God out of this first matter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, disorderly, and irregularly indigested, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, beautified, ordered, and configured, or formed the Universe. Yea he undertakes to expound the mode, or method, which the Divine Spirit took in thus fashioning, and reducing every Creature to it's proper Forme.

The matter, saies he, of all things being substracted, the mind of the Divine Opisicer by a prudent kind of persuasion compelled the same, which otherwise was tenebrous, fluid, inordinate, and informe, to passe into light, and order, &c. of which see Serranus on Plato's Timaeus, fol. 12.

By all which laid together, I think 'tis very probable, that Plato traduced these his Physiologick Philosophisings touching the First Matter, or Material Principle of the Universe,* 1.742 if not immediately, yet originally, from Moses's description of the Creation, Gen. 1.2.

§. 7. Having dispatched the Original, and First Matter of the Uni∣verse, we now proceed to it's compleat Bodie, which Plato stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the visible, and tangible. This bodie of the world he

makes to consist of the four Elements, Fire, Water, Air, Earth conjoyned together by a friendly proportion, or harmonie. So in his Timaeus, fol. 32. saies Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [sc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

By these, and of these Four Ele∣ments the bodie of the Universe is composed with an harmonious proportionable friendship, &c.

Yea Plato undertaketh to give us some account of the necessitie, and mutual combination of these four Elements. 1. He tells us, that the Earth is the most ponderous, least mobile, and the most impertransmutable of all the Elements, and therefore the basis of the rest. So in his Timaeus, fol. 98. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The earth is most ponderous, and leastly mobile, & a bodie impertransmutable into others, by reason of its being incommunicable, &c. Then he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Fire, by reason of its tenuitie, penetrates through every thing: Air through every thing save Fire: Water through the Earth: by means whereof all things being filled there is nothing left vacuous.

Whence Plato in the same Timaeus, fol. 99. concludes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Of these Ele∣ments God composed the world, which is tangible by reason of the Earth; but visible by Fire; which two extreams are connected toge∣ther by Air, and Water, with Proportion, that excellent bond. Tullie interprets Plato's words thus. It's necessarie, that the world should be corporeal, and visible, as also touchable: Moreover Fire pene∣trates all things, and nothing can be touched, which wants a solid ba∣sis. Now nothing is solid but what partakes of Earth: wherefore God being about to make the world, first joyned Fire, and Earth together, &c.

Lud. Vives in August. Civit. lib. 8. cap. 11. gives us Plato's mind touching the Combination, and Proportion betwixt these Elements thus.

To make a coherence 'twixt Earth, and Fire there is necessarily required a Bond; wherefore they needed two o∣ther Elements, which of themselves, and of the other Elements, they connected, might make up one Composite, or Bodie. Such are

Air, and Water, 'twixt Fire, and Earth. For the same Analogie, or Proportion that Water has to Earth, Air has to Fire: the same also Water, and Air have amongst themselves; which as ••onds doe so copulate the extreme Elements, Earth, and Fire, that by the almost imperceptible variations of Nature, either ascendent, or de∣scendent, there may be supposed to be one bodie, which waxeth hard in Earth, or is rarifyed in Fire.

Plato also makes each of these Four E∣lements to have various ••pecies, and properties. So Timaeus, fol. 99. he saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Fire has flame, light, and splendor, by reason of the inequalitie of the Triangles which are in each of these. Air is partly pure and drie, partly humid, and cloudie. Water also is either fluid, or congeled, as Snow, Hail, Ice. Humor is either fluid, or compact: Fluid as Honey, Oil: Compact, as Pitch, Wax. Compact humor, is either fusile, as Gold, Silver, Brasse, Tinne, Led, Iron; or fragile, as Sulphur, Bitumen, Nitre, Salt, Alume, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Stones Homogeneous.

Also in the same Timaeus, fol. 99. Plato acquaints us that heat has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a disgregative fa∣culty of the most tenuous parts, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, frigid is constrictive, and complicative of the Pores. Lastly Plato informes us that the more Noble parts of the Universe, as the Sun, &c. are composed of Fire, of which hereafter.

* 1.743§. 8. That Plato received this distribution of the Ʋniverse it's bo∣die composed of the 4. Elements from the Jewish Church, and parti∣cularly from Moses's description of the Creation, Gen. 1.1. &c. is acknowledged, both by Ancient, and Modern Writers. So Austin de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 11.

Plato (saies he) in his Timaeus affirmes, that God in the first Creation, first joyned Fire, and earth together. It's manifest that he gives to Fire the place of Heaven. Therefore this opinion has similitude with that, which is said Gen. 1.1. that In the Beginning God made Heaven, and Earth. Thence those two middle Elements by the interposure whereof these extremes are co∣pulated, he calls Water, and Air: whereby he is conceived to un∣derstand what is written, Gen. 1.2. And the Spirit of God moved upon the Waters. For little heeding in what manner the Scripture stiled the Spirit of God, because the Air is also called a Spirit, he imagined the Four Elements might he commemorated in that Place.

Thus Austin. That Moses in this Gen. 1.1, 2. describes the Creation of the Four Elements, and that Plato speaks conformable thereto, is af∣firmed

by learned Serranus in his Notes on Plato his Timaeus, fol. 10. thus.

This is the common opinion of our Divines, that Moses in verse 1. of Gen. 1. teacheth, that the first matter was created by God: and that in verse 2. he describeth the same by certain Notes.* 1.744 Yet as to the genuine, and plain interpretation of this place, the opini∣on of Theodore Beza my most Reverend Parent and Praeceptor doth mostly please me, who supposeth, that Moses in this place doth not treat of the first matter, but simply teacheth, that the Four Elements, viz. Earth, Water, Fire, Air, were in their order Created of God: and he gives these Reasons of this his opinion: First that Moses was wont so to propose things Physical, that he might wholly accommodate his speech to the Vulgar Capacitie: neither does he treat of them subtily, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sensibly, that they might be more comprehen∣ded by the ruder sort; wherefore the plain, and true sense of this place seemed to him this. In verse 1. Moses proposeth after this manner, a summe of the whole Historie of the Worlds Creation, and that in an Analytick order, which truly is a forme of Demonstration most apt for the teaching of Sciences. Moses therefore teacheth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 summarily, that in the beginning God created the Heaven, and the Earth, i.e. Gen. 1.1. When yet nothing existed God created this Universe, and what ever is comprehended in its compasse: which ac∣cording to the common manner of speech is understood by the termes of Heaven, and Earth. Moses having laid this summary Substratum of his whole discourse, he then proceeds to persue each part thereof, and Firstly to treat of the Elements: because they are the basis of the Universe, and the Matter which the Vulgar might comprehend as being discovered by certain ef∣fects. Therefore he affirmes that Moses in verse 2. teacheth the Creation of the Elements Earth, Water, Fire: but the Creation of the Air in verse 6. These Elements he describeth as Created 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by themselves, before their entering into the composition of Animants. Thus therefore Moses explains those first bodies, as that he first treats of the Earth; affirming that the Earth was in∣forme, &c. Therefore there was not yet extant any certain Dispo∣sition of things; neither was there any certain forme in that tenebrous Masse of the Elements: which notwithstanding God conserved by an infused natural heat, which was as it were the Seminarie of all things, and nothing else but the Element of Fire. For the Element

of Fire in this first Creation was nothing else but that ignifick force, and efficacie, which is variously diffused in the symmetry of the Ʋniverse for the fomenting, and nourishing of things according to their nature. This Natural, and Vivifick heat dispersed in things after their mode, even in Animants themselves, is by Moses properly called the Spirit of God, Gen. 1.2. Truly Plato calls this Natural heat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the Opificer of various effects. Thus, saies Beza, Moses shews, how the Earth, Water, Fire, were E∣lements Created by God the first day. That therefore the Air was Created the second day, which Moses calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Expansion. Truly Plato makes mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 expansion, as I conceive, in the same sense; which word is well accommodated to express the na∣ture of the Air which is most liquid, and expansive, &c. thus Serra∣nus.

Which accurate Analysis of the first Creation, though it has something novel, and disputable, yet it gives us a good account of the Cognation betwixt Moses, and Plato, in their description of the first Elements, which constitute the Systeme or bodie of the Ʋniverse.

§. 9. As Plato makes the bodie of the Universe to be composed of the Four Elements,* 1.745 so also the Forme thereof, according to his per∣suasion, is no other than the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Analogie, and Sym∣metrie, or harmonious contexture, and friendly conjuncture of these E∣lements, whence results the Order, Beautie, and Perfection of the U∣niverse. So in his Timaeus, fol. 32. Plato saies, that the Bodie of the Universe is constituted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Friend∣ship, and Analogie 'twixt these Elements, &c. Plato here in pursuit of his former Allegorie supposeth, the Universe to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a living intelligent thing consisting of bodie and soul: the Bodie he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the visible, and tractable part, or the Ele∣ments themselves; but the Soul he stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Analogie, and Symmetrie by which things in themselves contra∣rie are friendly; and by a kind of agreeable discord conjoyned together in the masse of the Universe. This Harmonie, Proportion, and Consent, which is found amongst the parts of the Universe, Plato makes to be the effect of the Divine Spirit, his Disposition, & Providence, which is by him on the same account, but in a more eminent manner stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Soul of the World (as before §. 5.) But here we are to take notice, that Plato make a twofold Forme of the Ʋni∣verse, the first Intelligible, inhering in the Divine mind: the second

Sensible, infused into singulars consisting in their proportion, order, &c. So in his Timaeus, fol. 49. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato here asserts a Twofold Forme of the Ʋni∣verse; the One Intelligible, which is that Idea, or Paradeigme subsisting in the Divine mind proportionable whereto all things were framed: the other, Sensible, consisting in that Proportion, Harmonie, and Or∣der, which God has put into every Creature, and their mutual com∣binations. This he more fully expresseth in the same Timaeus, fol. 69. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

These Elements lying confusedly together, God inspired into each of them, both in regard to themselves, and to other things a Symme∣trie, so that they are so far as 'tis possible Analogous, and Symme∣trous.

These Platonick notions of the Forme of the Ʋniverse seem very proportionable unto, and therefore but derivations from Gen. 1.31. where 'tis said, that God saw all things that they were good, i. e. Har∣monious, and proportionable amongst themselves, as also exactly pro∣portionable to their Divine Idea, and Exemplar. So Austin de Civ. Dei, lib. 12. cap. 5.

All Natures, saies he, because they are, there∣fore also have they their Measure, Beautie, or Forme, and a certain peace amongst themselves, wherefore also they are good, &c. Hence the Ancients made Love to be the bond of the Ʋniverse, namely be∣cause it's Perfection, and Goodness proceeded from the Harmonie Order, and Beautie of the parts.

All which is fully comprehended under Plato's Forme of the Ʋniverse, whereby he understood no other, than the Harmonie, Beautie, Order, and Perfection of the Universe, and its parts, though never so contrarie amongst themselves, answer∣able to Gen. 1.31. which is also Essentially couched under the notion of Forme: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by an easie transposition of φ, and μ, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Beautie, &c. Plato never dreamed of that essential Forme which Aristotle introduced as educible out of the passive power of the first matter, &c. No; he conforming himself to Moses's stile by Forme understands nothing but that Beautie, Per∣fection, and Goodness, which was in things resulting from their Order, Proportion, and Harmonie amongst themselves; as also from their conformitie to the Divine Exemplar, and original Idea.* 1.746

§. 10. Having discoursed of the Principles of Natural bodies, both

Effective, and Constitutive; we now proceed to their Adjuncts, or Af∣fections, which essentially, and naturally flow from their Principles And the first great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Affection which Plato attributes to the U∣niverse, and it's parts, is Perfection,* 1.747 So in his Timaeus, fol. 32. discours∣ing of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Affections of the Universe he saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

The first is that the whole Universe, because it is an animal greatly perfect, consists of per∣fect parts.

This Perfection of the Ʋniverse he had before given some intimation of under the notion of Goodness: So Timaeus, fol. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

God would, that all things should be good, and nothing evil: For 'twas never, neither is it now lawfull for him, who is the best Good, to make any thing but what is most beautiful, and perfect.

Plato here sheweth, how God of the first confused matter, and Elements efformed a most Beautiful World; the words he expresses this by is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he beautifi'd, adorn'd the world; whence 'twas called by the Ancients 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Agen he saie•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he shaped, configured, or conformed the Universe, i. e. made it conformable to the Eternal, and most perfect Exemplar of his own Decrees: whence we read 1. Cor. 7.31. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Scene, Figure, or Forme of this World. Farther, Plato saies, that God did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accurately dispose, order, or methodize the Ʋniverse, placing each part in it's proper place, and rank, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, reducing every Creature from that Ataxie, or disorder it lay un∣der in the confused Chaos, unto an admirable order, and goodness, which he elsewhere stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the good order, or right disposition of every thing. Lastly, he saies, that God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 constituted, or gathered into one Systeme each part of the Creation: whence Aristotle (his Scho∣lar following his Master herein) defines the World 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. a Sy∣steme, or ordinate compages of natural bodies, &c. By all these ex∣pressions Plato sets forth to the life the incomparable Structure, and ad∣mirable perfection of the Universe, as it came forth of the hands of God, and that exactly conformable unto, and, as we have reason enough to judge, by traduction from Moses's description thereof, Gen. 1.31. And God saw every thing, that he had made, and behold it was very good: i. e. most perfect. Indeed Plato gives us an excellent comment on these words of Moses, wherein we have Moses his sense fully, and that almost in his own words laid open to us: So in his Timaeus, fol. 37.

Therefore (saies Plato) after the Father of the Universe had animad∣verted,

or considered his work [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the made image of the Eternal Gods (or Trinitie) he rejoyced, and recreated himself therein.

Thus Plato, who does here, as the Learned conclude, speak by tradition from Moses. So Jo. Grammaticus Of Creation, lib. 7. cap. 11, 12.

Rightly therefore does that great Moses concluding the Creation of the world say Gen. 1.31. And God saw every thing, &c. And Plato here agen does imitate him, who speaking of Gods making the Universe, saies, that when the Father beheld this Mobile Animal, the image of the Eternal Gods, which he had begotten, he rejoyced, and was recreated. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and by so much the more, when he considered that it was made exactly conformable to it's Paradeigme, or Eternal exemplar.

Thus Jo. Grammaticus touch∣ing the parallel betwixt Moses, and Plato. Austin de Civit. Dei. lib. 11. cap. 21. enterprets Moses in the same manner, that Plato does.

In that (saies he) 'tis said Gen. 1.31. God saw all things that they were good. We must understand the approbation of his work made accord∣ing to Art, which is the Wisdom of God, &c.

God's seeing all things to be Good implies their Conformitie to that Original Idea, or Eternal Platforme of Divine Wisdome, and Decrees: Whence also Plato stiles the Universe a visible image of the invisible God; namely by reason of it's exact conformitie to it's Original Forme, or Idea in Di∣vine Decrees: So in his Timaeus, fol. 92. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Taking Ani∣mals both Mortal, and Immortal, and commixing them together, this world, thus constituted, becomes a Visible Animal comprehen∣ding things Visible, a Sensible image of the Intelligible God the greatest, and best, and most beautiful, and most perfect, &c.

Plato here calls the Universe a Sensible Image of the Intelligible God, in that it was made exactly conformable to Gods Eternal Exemplar, which in his Timaeus, fol. 69. he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Intel∣ligible Forme, or Exemplar, as elsewhere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Intelligible Ideal World: according to which Exemplar, or Platforme he reacheth this sensible world was made, whence it became a re∣flex image thereof, and so a sensible image of the insensible Deitie: Or else we may refer this Platonick description of the Universe to Moses's

Character of Man, Gen. 1.27. And God created him in his own I∣mage, &c. So Johan: Grammaticus of the Worlds Creation, lib. 6. cap. 21. pag. 249. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

whereas Moses spake properly of Man, that he was made after the Image of God, and according to his likeness: Plato translates this to all things in the World.

Thus Philoponus. And indeed it's evident, that Plato comprehendeth under his notion of the Universe, as well Rationals, as Sensibles; and therefore from Man its more noble part he stiles the whole, the Image of God according to, and in derivation from Moses's description, Gen. 1.27. We may take it either way, and yet no way doubt, but that Plato had this, as the former Notions touching the perfection, goodness, order, beautie, and exact proportion, or conformitie of the Universe, from the Mo∣saick description. This perfection of the Universe Plato makes to be the immediate product, and first issue of its formal constitution; namely, the result of that friendly proportion, sweet harmonie, and beau∣tiful order, which is between all the parts of the Universe, though in themselves never so disagreeing. This is fully expounded by Austin, (who did mostly Platonize) de Civit. lib. 11. c. 18. the

Antitheta, or opposites (saies he) are accounted most decent in the ornaments of Elocution: as therefore those Contraries do give a beautie to Speeches, so the Beautie of the Universe is composed of a certain E∣loquence not of Words, but of Things resulting from the opposition of Contraries.

Thus much for the perfection of the Universe.

* 1.748§. 11. The second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or affection, which Plato gives the Uni∣verse, is Unitie: So in his Timaeus, fol. 33. having discoursed of its perfection, he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To these we may adde that 'tis one. So in his Parmenides, fol. 144. Plato having distinguished 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one, into infinite, and finite: As for finite unitie, he makes it to be a proper affe∣ction of his sensible Idea, whereby he means the Universe. And the reason he gives why the Universe should be one, is this; because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the singulars conteined therein are all determinately re∣duced to their proper Classe. Aristotle also asserted the same.

* 1.7493. Another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or affection, which Plato gives the Universe is Finitenes; so in his Parmenides, fol. 145. having spoken of his sensible Idea, and its Unitie, he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Must not one be universally finite; or must not the parts be comprehended of the whole? Yes certainly. Therefore what is comprehended must be finite: (though infinite in multitude) and because finite, therefore it has extremes: If it be a whole, it must have a beginning, and mid∣dle, and end, &c. Thus also Aristotle, &c.

4. Thence follows another affection of the Universe,* 1.750 which Plato calls Figure. So in his fore-cited Parmenides, fol. 145. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And this one being such, must also partake of Figure. And in his Timaeus, fol. 33. he speaks more par∣ticularly, and fully, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

And he has given to it (i. e. the Universe) a Figure most becoming, and most congenial. For it is meet, that he should shape it into such a Forme, or Figure, as might comprehend all other Fi∣gures. For which c••use the World is made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, round, so that its whole circum••••rence is touched with Rayes equally distant from the Centre: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This being the most perfect, and most like to it self, of all Fi∣gures. Thus Plato, wherein he fully informes us touching the Worlds Rotunditie, and the reasons thereof: namely, because it ought to comprehend all Animals. Now a round Figure is, (saies he) of all 1. most capacious, and perfect, 2. most like to it self, or uniforme: 3. most content with it self, and without need of other. Aristotle also follows him, in asserting the Worlds Rotunditie.

5. Another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or attribute, which Plato gives natural Bodies, is Color,* 1.751 which in his Timaeus, fol. 67. he thus describes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We call Colors a flame, diffusing it self from par∣ticular Bodies, having parts symmetrous to the sense.

By Flame he means Light, which he elsewhere termes a Flame: and so Plato is herein followed by the New Philosophers, who make Colors to be no∣thing but the various mixture of Light, and Darkness. He does far∣ther in his Timaeus, fol. 101. give some distribution of Colors, with their proper effects, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

White Color disgregates the sight, whereas black does congregate it.

To which the Peripateticks assent, &c.

* 1.7526. Plato also makes Time another special propertie, or Affection of the Universe, and all natural Bodies. So in his Parmenides, fol. 151. treat∣ing of the Universe under the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One, he saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

One partakes of Time, and it is younger, and elder than it self; and than other things, and it is, and it was, &c.

His meaning is, that all natural Bodies admit of variations, and differences of time, &c. And in his Timaeus, fol. 13. he describes time to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a moveable Image of Eter∣nitie. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the definition, or boundarie of day, and night. So agen in his Timaeus, fol. 97. he saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

God has framed Time together with the World: for it is an Image of the ingenerable time called Eternitie: for look as this Universe is created according to the exemplar of the Intelligi∣ble Ideal World, so is this Time composed in some sort according to the exemplar of Eternitie.

Thus Plato. Lastly, as to the formal measure, and product of Time, we find a good description thereof in the Platonick Definitions, fol. 411. thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Time is the motion of the Sun, and the measure of motion; which agrees well with Moses's description in Gen. 1.14 for seasons, and for days, and years, &c.

* 1.7537. Hence follows another Affection, which Plato attributes to the Universe, and natural Bodies, namely Mobilitie. So in his Parmenides, fol. 145. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Thus therefore is it not necessarie, that One (i. e. the Universe) be capable both of Motion, and Rest, &c.

Herein also Aristotle follows him, making Motion, and Rest, affections of natural Bodies.

* 1.7548. Hence also follows Generation, which may be ranked amongst the Affections, which Plato gives to natural Bodies, and is thus described, Platon. definit. fol. 411. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Generation is a motion to Essence. Agen 'tis called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a participation of Essence, &c.

* 1.7559. Whence lastly follows Duration, which Plato makes another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or affection of the Universe. So in his Timaeus, fol. 32. having spoken of the Worlds perfection, and unitie, he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It must also continue without old age, and sickness, &c. He persues his Allegorie, wherein he stiles the World a Living Crea∣ture,

which (saies he) must continue in youthful vigor, and healthie. His meaning is, that though Individuals, and Singulars decay daily, yet the Species, and whole of the Ʋniverse is continued durable, and vigorous, by means of successive generations. For they are Individuals on∣ly, not the Species, that dye: thus according to Aristotle's Maxime, the Corruption of one is but the Generation of another. Thus much of the affections of the Ʋniverse.

§. 12. The parts of Physiologie are either General, or Particular:* 1.756 the General part of Physiologie treats of the first Principles, and Affe∣ctions of Nature, which we have dispatched. Physiologie in particu∣lar discourseth of the Severals, or Particulars of the Ʋniverse, which make up the whole of Nature. Now of these in their order, so far as they come under Plato's Philosophizings.* 1.757 And here we may begin with Angelick Beings, who are called the first-born Sons of God, and are indeed the most noble Pieces of the Universe, which Plato makes the first-fruits of Gods Creation. So Lud. Vives, in August. Civit. Dei, lib. 11. c. 9.

The Greek Divines (saies he) will, that Spiritual Be∣ings precede Corporeal, and that the great Parent of the Ʋniverse u∣sed them, i. e. Angels, as Ministers for the procreation of other things: which Opinion Plato follows in his Origine of the Universe.

So Sanchoniathon sets forth the Creation of the Angels under the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Contemplators of the Heavens. Whence also A∣ristotle's conceit of the Heavens being moved by Intelligences, seems to have had its origination. All which Contemplations about Ange∣lick natures, and their production, seem to have been but corrupt De∣rivations from Job 38.7. When the morning Stars sang together, &c. But, because the Discourse of Angels belongs not properly to Physicks, but to Metaphysicks, we shall engage no farther on it at present.* 1.758 To descend therefore to the material, and more natural parts of the Uni∣verse: and first to the Heavens, which Plato in his Timaeus, fol. 36. describes after his Metaphorick mode, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Bodie of the Heavens is visible, but the Soul of these Intelligences partakes of invisible reason, and harmonie.

Thus Plato: whence, I presume, Aristotle derived his Celestial Intelli∣gences, which he presumed to be the first movers of the Celestial Spheres. But as to the Matter, and Nature of the Heavens what Plato's Opinion was, is somewhat difficult to conjecture. Austin af∣firmes

peremptorily, that Plato made the Heavens to be of an igni∣fick, or fierie nature, and that herein he followed Moses, Gen. 1.1. So Aust. de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. c. 11.

Plato in his Timaeus affirmes, (saith he) that God in the first Creation joyned the Earth, and Fire together. It's manifest that he attributes to Fire the place of Hea∣ven. This Opinion therefore has some similitude with what is said Gen. 1.1.

In the beginning God made heaven, and earth. Thus Au∣stin. And Ludo. Vives on these Words addes, that

Plato thought the Heavens to be fierie, (though the Stars to be composed of the four Elements, because they seemed more solid) Not that the Heavens were of the same nature with our Culinarie fire, for he supposeth there are several sorts of Fire.

So Lud. Vives. And indeed that these Ce∣lestial Bodies (at least the more lightsome, and glorious, namely the Sun, &c.) are of an ignite, or fierie nature, seems probable from the very origination of the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heaven, which is apparently derived from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our, or Ur, which signifies both Light, and Fire, as hereafter. I am not ignorant, that some make the Heavens to be of a fluid, waterie (as others of an aerial) nature. So Paulus Fagius on Gen. 1. tells us,

that amongst the Hebrews the Heaven is called from its extension, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Firmament, and from its Waterie matter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Waters there, which he also gathers from Gen. 1.6. a Firmament in the midst of the Waters, &c.

But this be∣ing granted, that the Firmament is of a waterie, or fluid matter see Wendeline, de Coelo; (which is also the Opinion of some New Philoso∣phers) yet it followeth not hence, but that the Sun, and those other more lightsome, and glorious Celestial Bodies; may be composed of a fierie substance; which seemeth to have been the Opinion of the Jews, whence Plato, and other of the Greeks derived the same, and that on these Probabilities.

* 1.7591. That the Sun, and Stars are composed of Fire, appears first from the very Text, Gen. 1.3. Let there be Light: where the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our, whereby the Sun is expressed, Job 31.26. signifies as well Fire, as Light. This we have proved at large out of Richardson, and others, in our former part of Philologie, Book 3. C. 3. §. 9. So Amesius, in his Medulla Theol. lib. 1. cap. 8. Thes. 50. treating of the Creation of this Light, saies that

Light, namely lightsome Fire, was made out of the most subtile part of this Mass taken up, &c,

So Grotius in his Annotations on 2 Pet. 3.7.

The Fire (saies he) was not in that

first humid Mass, but afterward created by God, which Moses calls Light, because Light, and Heat are one, and the same. Out of this Light compacted were the Stars composed, whence they diffuse Fires upon the Earth, whence also Fires are generated under the Earth. From these Celestial, and subterraneous Fires meeting together, shall that great, and last fatal conflagration of the World arise, as the former Deluge from the conjunction of the Celestial Waters with those of the deep. Caecilius in Minutius Foelix affirmes, that these Fires threaten conflagration to the whole World, yea to the Stars themselves.

Thus Grotius, who in what precedes, tells us, that besides the Sibylles, Sophocles, Seneca, and Lucanus; the Astrolo∣gers (particularly Copernicus, Revolut. lib. 3. cap. 16.) have observed the same, and that from the daily appropinquation, or nearer approaches of the Sun towards the Earth. Indeed I find this to have been the firme perswasion of the Pythagoreans, as before in the Pythagorean Philosophie, Ch. 7. §. 10. Heraclitus also received the same by Tradi∣tion from the Pythagoreans, affirming, that the World, as it was made of Fire, so it should again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be burnt by fire. It was the common perswasion of the Platonists, that the more noble parts of the Universe, namely the Sun, and Stars, were Celestial Fires; whence also they asserted the last conflagration of the World by fire, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Plato's own Words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In a short time there shall be a destruction of all things on the Earth by much fire. The Stoicks held the same, calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Grotius in the fore-cited place, on 2 Pet. 3.7. saies,

That these Traditions came originally from the Jews. For there is mention made hereof in the Book called Cedrus Libani, that as God in times past let loose the reins to the Waters, so he shall again to the Fire, &c.

But to returne to our Ar∣gument.

2. That the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 1.3.* 1.760 may be rendred Fire as well as Light, is evident from the use of the word else where. So in Gen. 11.28, 31. we read of Ʋr of the Chaldees, which is of the same origination, and signification: this place being (as 'tis conceived by the Learned) called Ʋr, from their Sacred Fire [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] worshipt here, as a Symbol of the Sun: of which see more of the Chaldee Philosophie, Book 1. Chap. 4. §. 6. Hence also we may adde.

* 1.7613. That the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Fire, owes its origination to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋr; for cast away only π, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or as it was perhaps at first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And indeed, I find Plato making use of the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 promiscuously to express Light as well Fire by; so in his Timaeus he saies, the World was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, visible, or lightsome by fire, or light: and in what follows he expresly saies, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fire has flame, and light, and splendor, which is every way as applicable to the Celestial, as Terrestrial Fires; especially if that be true which some New Philo∣sophers, and those of greatest repute, affirme, that Light is but a flame, &c. yea indeed Plato calls the Sun in express termes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fire (as hereafter.)

4. The Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heaven, seems also to owe its derivation to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Our, whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as before.

5. Whereas 'tis said Psal. 104.2. God covered himself with Light, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 'tis elsewhere expressed by Fire.

6. But to argue not only from Names, but from the thing it self, we find frequent mention in Scripture of Fire coming down from Heaven. So in the burning of Sodom, but more particularly in that saying of the Disciples, Luke 9.54. That we command fire from hea∣ven: which though it implie a Miracle, yet it argues they conceived the heavens to be the proper seat of fire, the like Revel. 20.6. fire out of heaven. It seems to have been a fixed opinion amongst the Jews, that the heavens were the Seat of fire.

7. Yea, Mark 14.54. Fire is expresly termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which pro∣perly signifies Light of the Sun, whereby it seems evident that Mark, with the rest of the Jews (as well as the ancient Grecians) judged Fire, and Light equipollent, or convertible, and therefore promiscuously used those termes.

8. Farther the Scripture, and Hebrews call the Sun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which properly signifies Fire, whence we read, Lev. 26.30. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which properly denotes those Hearths whereon these Idolaters pre∣served their Sacred Fire as a Symbol of the Sun, which they worship∣ped after the Zabian mode: whence the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the La∣tin Caminus, a Chimney, or Hearth: as before, Book 1. cap. 4. §. 8.

9. That Plato held the Sun to be a Celestial Fire is evident from his Definitions (Collected by his Successor) where we find the Sun thus defined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The Sun is an Heavenly Fire.

So also Xenophanes (the Founder of the Eleatick sect) held the Sun to be a collection of little Fires: the like was asserted by Heraclitus, who both had these traditions from the Pythagoreans, as these derived them from the Jews, according to Grotius, &c. Neither are there want∣ing some of great vogue amongst the New Philosophers, who defend this Platonick persuasion; that the Sun is Fire, &c. So Dr. Willis in his Treatise de Febribus saies, Light seems nothing else but a flame kindled into a greater dimension, &c. And Comenius in his Physicks makes the first Light, Gen. 1.3. to be no other than Fire.

10. That the Sun, and the Stars are of a fierie nature was the com∣mon persuasion of the Ancient Philosophers, so Stobaeus Eclog. Phys. lib. 1. cap. 25. gives us a large account, touching the Ignite nature of the Stars. He saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thales supposed the Stars to be Terrene, but Ignite. And he addes the same of Empedocles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Empedocles also held the Stars to be Ignite, &c. Empedocles also affirmed that the Heaven was compacted of Air, and Fire, i. e. Air in regard of the Firmament, and of Fire, as to the Celestial Lights, as Stobaeus Eclog. Phys. p. 52, 53. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The like is said of Anaximander, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Anaximander said, that the Stars were Globes of Air full of Fire, breathing out flames on one side; and that the Sun was seated in the supreme place; The same is said of Parmenides, and Heraclitus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And Posidonius defined a Star 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Bodie Divine, Ethereous, Splendid, and Ignite, &c. But more particularly touching the Ignite Nature of the Sun, Anaxime∣nes affirmed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Sun is Ignite, or Fierie. Anaxagoras, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Sun was an Ignite Iron, or Stone. The same was affirmed by Democritus. Zeno also held, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Sun, and Moon, and each of the Stars were an Intelligent, Wise, and Ignite Fire. The like Chrysippus asserted. Neither was this the persuasion only of the Wiser Philosophers, but also of many of the Ancient Greek Poets; Euripides, in Phaenissis saies,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

And Homer though he saies not positively that the Sun is Fire, yet he makes it to be of like nature, as Stobaus Eclog. Phys. fol. 57.

11. Thus also Shepherd in his parable of the Ten Virgins, chap. 8. §. 2.

It is (saies he) a question whether the beams of the Sun are Fire which some demonstrate thus.

Take a Glasse, and gather together the beams and it burnes: and indeed this argument from the Ignifick vir∣tue of Beams contracted in a Burning-glasse gives us a great probabi∣litie of the Ignite nature of the Sun: at least, it may suffice to bal∣lance all the seeming probabilities of other opinions. Neither may we expect in matters of this nature more than conjectures, and probabi∣lities. But to return to, and conclude this with Plato; he frequently calls Light,* 1.762 Fire. So in his de Repub. 6. speaking of the Natural Cog∣nation which is 'twixt the Eye and Light, he addes, that

when the Eye comes into darkness it looseth, or falls from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it's cognate Fire, Light.

Hence Night is defined in the Platonick definitions thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Night is darkness, con∣trarie to the day: the privation of the Sun.

As also Light is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Light is contrarie to darkness, which answers unto Moses's description, Gen. 1.5. And God called the Light Day, and Darkness Night.

* 1.763§. 13. As for Plato's sentiments touching this Lower World I find little therein but what is common, and therefore not worthie of any particular remark, only he seems somewhat to differ from the com∣monly received opinion about the Nature of the Wind,* 1.764 which in the Platonick Definitions, fol. 411. is thus described, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Wind is a motion of the Air round about the Earth. As for the Air,* 1.765 Serranus (on Plato's Timaeus, fol. 10.) supposeth, that Plato made it the same with Moses's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Firmament, Gen. 1.6. which he expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a word most proper to expresse the Nature of the Air by, which is most liquid, and expansive. Plato's contemplations about the Waters,* 1.766 and Sea, with those miraculous bounds given there∣to by Divine Providence, I no way doubt, had their original from the Sacred Storie▪ This we find well set forth by Paulus Fagius on Gen. 1.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let the Waters be gathered. The Ancients (saies he) have

derived this word from the Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies a Perpendicule, Square, or Rule used by Masons, &c. As if God should have said

Let the Waters be gathered together unto one certain place, as by Measure, and Rule, according to the manner of Architects, who in the building of Houses, to the intent that they may bring the parts to a close, and firme consistence, and uniformitie, measure all by their Perpendicule, or Directorie. Therefore Moses seems not without great Emphasis to make use of this word, thereby to expresse the Infinite power of God, whereby he compels that fluid, and boundlesse Ele∣ment, possessing the whole superficies of the Earth, even as it were by a Measure, or Rule into one place. This the Scripture alludes un∣to Job. 26.10. He hath compassed the Waters with bounds, &c. Psal. 104.5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Thou hast set a bound. Psal. 33.7. He gathereth the Waters as an he••p, &c. so Job 12.15. Behold he withholdeth the Waters, &c. which certainly is matter of infinite admiration, that an Element so ponderous, and boundlesse, should be confined against its proper Nature, within such exact bounds, and measures.

Farther what Plato's apprehensions were about Exhalations, such as received some accidental impression, or Forme, are commonly called Meteors,* 1.767 namely concerning Comets, Thunder, Lightening, Clouds, Rain, Snow, Hail Earthquakes, &c. is uncertain; yet we need no way doubt he might have (if he had not) the best information, he could expect, con∣cerning these Mysteries of Nature, from Job, or Solomon, or such like Jewish Philosophers.

§. 14. Another, and indeed the most Noble,* 1.768 because most experi∣mental, part of Physiologie, or Natural Philosophie regardeth Plants and Animals, wherein Plato seemeth to have had very good skill, which we have reason enough to induce us to believe he received, by traditi∣on from the Jewish Church, especially from Solomon's Writings. For its very evident by Sacred Relation, that Solomon was the prime, and best Philosopher, after Adam's fall, that engaged in those Philosophick contemplations, as before in the Jewish Philosophie, book ••. chap. 1. §. 11. And I think it is also evident that the choicest parts of Democritus's Natural Experiments: of Hippocrates's Medicinal Aphorismes, and Observations; together with Plato's Physiologick Experiments: Aristo∣tle's Historie of Animals, and Theophrastus his Scholar's of Plants, owe their original, and first Idea's to Solomon his Natural Experiments, and Philosophizings on Plants, Animals, and Humane Nature. And because this is the most noble, and useful part of Natural Philosophie, we shall endeavour to produce some of the choicer Experiments, Observations, and Principles laid down by Plato, with others, for the Conservation

of Humane Nature in health, & vigour; which indeed is the main end, and emprovement of Physiologie commonly called Physick, or Medicine: But before we engage herein we shall give some Historical account of Mans Original, & that according to Plato's traditions originally Jewish.

* 1.769§. 15. The Chiefest, though last part of Natural Philosophie re∣spects Man his two constitutive parts, Bodie, and Soul. Plato Philo∣sophizeth on both, and that as well apart, as in Composition, and Conjun∣ction. As for the Original of Man, Plato tells us in positive termes, That he made Man after the Image of God. So in his lib. 7. de Legib. Plato saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Man is a kind of imitation of God, and his master-piece. So in his Timaeus what he mentions in general of the whole Ʋniverse, he, without doubt, more properly understood of Man, namely that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the best, and greatest image of the intelligible God, which description of Man, without all peradventure, was originally tradu∣ced from Gen. 1.26. Let us make man after our Image, &c. v. 27. Yea Plato seems to have had some Scriptural notices of Adam's first Cre∣ation, and Eves formation out of his side; which in his Symposiack Dialogue he expresseth under his Cabalistick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Man woman, which answereth unto Gen. 2.21, 22, 23. Yea farther Plato seems to have had very considerable hints, and traductions touching Adams happie state in Innocencie, which he describes under his Mythologick Cabale of the Golden Age, and Saturne's Reign therein: thus in his

Politicus, fol. 272. where he saies our First Parents lived in the Golden Age partaking of the fruits of the Earth without toyl, or labour, or Apparel, having conference with the beasts, &c.

All which were but Fables, or traditions he had received from the Ancients, whereby he means the Jews, or their neighbours the Phenicians, &c. For so Sanchoniathon expresseth the Creation of mankind to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. saith Bochart according to the Phenician, and Hebrew ex∣pression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Col-ri-jah the breath of Gods mouth, as 'tis ex∣pressely ment••oned Gen. 1.7. breath of life. As Plato had these great traditions or notices touching man's Creation, and happie Estate in ge∣neral, so particularly touching the Soul of man its Divine original, im∣material, infinite capacitie, activitie, immortalitie, and perfection. As to the souls Divine original, &c. he saies in his Phaedrus, fol. 245 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

the Soul is ingenerable, im∣mortal and living, &c.

because it is a self-moving principle. In his

Phaedo, he calls the soul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, immortal. In his lib. 10. de Repub. he saies, the soul is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incomposite, or simple; and in his Epinom▪ he calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incorporeal. As to the souls capacitie, Plato proves in h•••• Phaedo, fol. 79.

That it was infinite, or boundles••, never satisfied with any thing but the first Truth, and chiefest good. The soul, saith he, contends towards that which is ••ure, and alwaies the same, & most akin unto it: so in his Protag. fol 322. he makes the soul to be nearly allyed to God, the like in his Phaedo fol. 80.

Plato saith,

It becomes the body to serve, but the soul to rule, because it is most like unto the Divine, Immortal, Intelligible, most uniform and first Being; he also proves the immortality of the soul, from its 1. incorruptibilitie, 2. sollicitude, 3. innate appetite, 4. uni∣form self motion, 5. connate Idea of God.

Thus Plato in his Phaedo fol. 55.81. speaking of the souls disunion with,* 1.770 and dislodging from the body, saies,

That it returns to that original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 idea to which it is akin,

i. e. to God, as elsewhere. Hence Plato concludes the dignitie and perfection of the soul; so in his Phaedo fol. 55. he gathers up this conclusion,

That the soul is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, akin & homogene∣ous, or alike in nature to God, and that it does in a sober sense par∣ticipate of a self-goodness, and self-beautie with God.

So again fol. 56. he saies, That the soul being allyed to God, becomes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a partner of the Divine Nature, whence it is, in its man∣ner, and according to its capacity, as God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, incomposite, infinite, incorruptible, immortal; and thence de Leg. 5. fol. 726. Plato concludes, that of all possessions next to God, the soul is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 most Divine and peculiar: Plato gives us also a good account of the Faculties of the Rational Soul: 1.* 1.771 he treats accurately of the humane understanding, which he stiles our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Daemon, whereby we are elevated from earth, to an heavenly alliance and conversation. He makes the mind to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a plant of the supream Being, not earthly but heavenly. The proper object of the mind Plato makes to be Truth, which he calls the life, and food of the mind: so de Repub. 6. fol. 490. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by truth the mind truly lives, and is nourished. As for the manner, how truth is conveighed to the understanding, Plato tells us, 'tis by assimilation, i. e. there are certain Ideas, images, or notions imprest upon the understanding, conformable to those natu∣ral Ideas, which exist in the things themselves which we know. He

gives us also a particular account of the several sorts of knowledge. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wisdom is by him defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a knowledge of Beings Eternal, &c. 2. Intelligence is a knowledge of first principles. 3. Science is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a demonstrative knowledge. 4. Opinion is intermedious 'twixt Science, and Ignorance; or a conjectural assent. 5. Imitation is an image-framing Art. 6. Faith is an assent grounded on Authority, &c. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prudence is a power effective of happiness, ••he parts whereof are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 8. Conscience he stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fame. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Art is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 2. Plato also discourseth of the Will which Definit. Platon. fol. 413.* 1.772 is thus defined: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. a rational desire, &c. That these Platonick contemplations about the Soul, its original, immortalitie, &c. were derived originally from the Scriptures, or Jewish Church,* 1.773 seems probable by Plato's own words in his Phaedo fol. 85. where having proved the Souls immortalitie by many de∣monstrative arguments, he concludes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that we might proceed herein by a more firm & Divine word: what this more firm and Divine word should be, if not sacred Divine Scriptures traduced to him, we cannot imagine. Thus Plato received these, and such like divine contemplations, touching the Soul, by some Oriental tradition derived originally from the sacred Fountain, as he himself seems to acknowledge; and I conceive it cannot rationally be denyed; or if it should, 'twill not be difficult to prove the same in its proper place, when we come to treat of Plato's Metaphysicks, whereunto these speculations about the Soul, its original, &c. belong.

* 1.774§. 16. Having given these brief touches of mans original, & main constitutive part, his soul; its nature, &c. we now proceed to the humane bodies, to lay down such physick or medicinal Aphorisms and praescripts, as are given us by Plato and others, for the conservation thereof in an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good temperament, and habitude of health and vigour. That the Ancients reduced Medicine to Physicks or Natural Philosophie, is evident both from name, and thing. Hippocrates the great Master of Medicinal Wisdom, stiles Medicine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the natural Science. And indeed there seems such an essential connexion 'twixt Medicine and Natural Philosophy, as that they cannot without violence offered to both, be disjoyned each from other, which Aristotle and others acknowledge. Whence

it is, that those great Philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, & Theophrastus, with others, mix so many Medicinal Aphorisms with their Natural Philosophizings. Hence also, saies Apuleius in Apol.

Let men cease to wonder, if the Philosophers have in their very Doctrine, dis∣coursed of the causes and remedies of diseases.

To speak a little of Medicine in General; which is usually described a practick Art of conserving, or restoring health; whence it is distributed by some into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, others add to these parts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but I should rather close with that common distribution of Medicine in••o 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 conservative, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 curative. As for Prophylactick, or conservative Medicine, we have many excel∣lent Praescripts and Rules given us by Plato, Hippocrates, and others, for the right management and improvement thereof.* 1.775 Plato informs us, that an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good habitude and Crasis of bodie, is ex∣treamly advantagious for the due motions and exercises, both of body and soul: So in his Timaeus fol. 88. he tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

There is one preservation to both: for neither is the soul moved without the body, nor yet the bodie without the soul.

So again in his Timaeus fol. 103. Plato assures us,

That the beginnings of all evils, are from inordinate Pleasures, Griefs, Desires, and Fears, which are kindled from the ill habitude and temperature of the bodie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. the ill Crases of the bodie produce these, &c. but to descend to particulars.

1. One Rule given us for the conservation of health,* 1.776 is to consi∣der well, and diligently, to avoid the causes of diseases. Plato in his Timaeus, fol. 102. tells us, what are the principal causes of all di∣seases. First, saies he,

The primarie and principal cause of all diseases is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an assymmetrie or disproportion of the first qualities; namely, if they are either redundant, or defective: This others term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

2. Hence follows another cause of diseases, which Plato calls,

The mutations, or alterations of the blood,* 1.777 by reason of some corruption, or preternatural fermentation: for hence, saies he, springs bile, and pituite or flegme, as all other sick humours.

3. The last cause of diseases he here mentions, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Ataxie,* 1.778 or disorder of humours; namely, when choler or bile, flegme or melancholie, admit any extravasasion, or flowing forth from their pro∣per

seats, into any other parts of the body, where fixing their seat, they cause a solution, and dissolution. To these causes of diseases, mentioned by Plato, we may add others, as

4. That of Hippocrates, Aphorism. 51. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all excess is destructive to nature. This regards all excesses in reple∣tions, or evacuations; sleep, or watchings, &c.

5. Sudden mutations are apt to produce diseases. This is im••lyed in that Canon of Hippocrates, Aphoris. 51. Sect. 2. Nature makes no sudden changes, and every sudden change is dangerous.

6. Another cause of diseases, is an ill stomack, or concoction, ac∣cord••ng to that Canon, an errour in the first concoction, is never cured in the rest.

* 1.7797. Whence also follows another pregnant cause of diseases, namely cruditie, according to that great Aphorisme, Cruditie is the Mother of all diseases. For indeed almost all diseases, under which men labour, ordinarily spring from repletion, and indigestion; when more food is taken in than nature requires, or the stomack can digest: Yea, Phy∣sitians say, That a Plethora, or full estate of bodie, even though it be without impurity of blood, is dangerous as to health, because na∣ture, if weak, cannot weild it. But they make cruditie the seminarie of all diseases. For, say they, health consists in two things. 1. In the due proportion of the humours, as well in quantitie as qualitie. 2. In a certain spongious habitude of the whole body free from all obstru∣ctions, that so the spirits and blood, may have a free circulation throughout all parts. Now cruditie obstructs both of these.

8. Hence follows Obstruction, which is reputed another seminal parent, or cause of Diseases; especially if the obstruction be seated in any principal part, as the head, heart, liver, spleen; whence flow Convulsions, Apoplexies, & Epilepsies, if the obstruction be in the head, Jandise, if in the liver, &c.

9. Catarrhes also are judged another fountain of diseases, &c.

10. A dislocation, or solution of parts, tends much to the im∣pairment and affliction of the whole: according to that Physical Canon; all grief ariseth from the solution of the Continuum.

11. Lastly, the weakness of any part tendeth greatly to the decay of the whole: for as Physicians observe the stronger parts thrust their superfluities on the weaker. Thus much for the causes of Diseases.

§. 17.* 1.780 A second great Prophylactick Canon for the conservation of health, is this, To maintain nature in her due functions, exercises, and operations. This is laid down by Plato in his Timaeus fol. 90. where he tells us, that Medicine chiefly consists in this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to render all their due operations. This is more fully exprest by Hippocrates 6. Epid. Comm. 5. Tit. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natures are the Physicians of diseases: whence Physitians are stued the Ministers of Nature, id est, to assist her in the exerting her proper offices, and exercises; which are these.

1. One great and proper exercise of Nature, is a natural excre∣tion of humours, which is usually accomplished by perfective fermen∣tation, or ebullition of the blood, whereby the excrementitious parts are severed, and the whole masse of blood purified: besides natural fl••xes of the haemorrhoides, and haemorrhages, &c.

2. Another great office, or exercise of Nature is Perspiration,* 1.781 (insensible, or sensible) which requires a spongious habitude of body, free from all obstructions. And indeed no one can duly apprehend the sovereign influence natural perspiration has, for the conservation of health, as also for the expelling all noxious humours and malignant vapours. That which assists nature herein, is the keeping the bodie under exercises, & motion in the open air, whereby the pores are kept open, &c.

3. Another office of Nature, is to keep the spirits,* 1.782 both natural, vital, and animal, in their due vigour, activity, and exercises. For it's well known, that the spirits are the great fabricators, and opificers of whatever is transacted in the bodie. Now the spirits are fed, and conserved by a regular commixture of radical moisture, and congenial heat: for bodies frigid, have but a jejune and slender spirit; whereas things moderately hot, are spirituous. Also things grateful to the spirits, do most foment and emprove them.

4. Another exercise of Nature, consists in the due evacuation of excrements, which requires that the body be soluble, and laxe, not costive; for costiveness of bodie breeds many diseases, &c.

5. Another office of Nature, is to keep the bodie, and all parts thereof permeable, which is necessarie, in order to a due circulation of the blood.* 1.783

6. Another office of Nature, is to keep the Lungs in their due crasis and exercise; whence that Canon, to live well, is to breath well.

§. 18. A third Canon for the conservation of health regards the Non-naturalls, as they call them, namely Aliment, Air, Exercise, &c.

* 1.7841. As for Aliment or food, Plato (as Pythagoras before him) layes much stresse on a good regiment, or government in diet. Plato seems to make the whole of Medicine to consist in allowing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 proper or due food. For the ordering whereof he tels us: 1. that by how much the more simple diet is by so much the better: so in his de Repub. 3. fol. 404. he saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 diet must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 simple, not of differing sorts. So agen he saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

simple diet, & Exercise are of great moment, as to the conser∣vation of health.

2. In the ordering of diet there must be due regard had both to the quantitie and qualitie thereof, for saies Plato, many diseases, which are instigated, and provoked by Medicaments, are cured by or∣derly diet.

* 1.7853. In all alimentation, and nutrition there is required a due attracti∣on, concoction, and Extrusion. For all aliment moving from the center to the circumference, requires a regular course in all these regards, Especially as to the first, viz. concoction; for as Sir Francis Bacon ob∣serves,

the head (which is the source of animal spirits) is un∣der the tuition of the stomack having a great Sympathie there with, and all crudities have their rise usually from too much re∣pletion.

Secondly, as for Air, and Exercise they greatly conduce to the conservation of health.

§. 19. 2 Plato also discourseth well of Therapeutick Physick in these particulars.* 1.786 1 He makes a Physician to be but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Minister of Nature to assist her in her proper offices, and operations. 2 Hence also he asserts that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Medicine by how much the more simple, and Connatural it tis, by so much the better and more commodious: For those are the best Medicaments, which work with, not against Nature; we are religiously to observe the footsteps of Nature. And therefore mild Catharticks, which relieve, are more eligible than violent. 3. Hence addes Plato (Timaeus 89.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The best purga∣tion is by Gymnastick exercise.

4. Hence also in the same Timaeus fol. 89. Plato addes

that Purgation by pharmaceutick, or purgative medicaments is only then Expedient, when necessarie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diseases are not to be irritated by Pharmaceutick medicaments, unless they are very dangerous; for all constitution of diseases is somewhat like to nature.

So Hippocra∣tes Sect. 2. Aphorism. 50. diseases contracted by long custome are oft better kept, than cured. 5. Whence also follows another excellent prescript of Plato wherein he Praefers a good diet, and exact regiment of the diseased, before all Cathartick or purgative medicaments. So in his Timaeus fol. 89.

If any (saies Plato) shall contend to hasten the cure of diseases before they have had their fatal course, there usu∣ally follows of small, great, and of few, many diseases: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Wherefore all such diseases must be gently corrected by diet, neither must an infest ill be instigated or Exasperated by purging medicaments. Thus Plato. Hence that of Seneca.

In disea∣ses nothing more dangerous, and pernicious then an unseasonable Medicine.

6. But Plato's great and main Canon, which takes in the summe both of his Prophylactick, and Therapeutick medicine is laid down in his Timaeus fol. 90. thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

all medicine for every disease is one, to ren∣der to every one his proper diet, and motions.

Hippocrates in his Aphorismes expresseth this medicinal canon thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, healthfull exercise, moderation of diet, activity of la∣bours. This great Physick Canon of Plato and Hippocrates is compre∣hensive of all other medicinal Rules: but particularly of these. 1. That the best purgation is by exercitation, or natural motion. 2. That simple medicaments (which we call kitchin Physick) are best. 3. That strong, and violent catharticks or purging medicaments are seldome or never to be used, but in cases of absolute necessitie. 4. That diseases acquired by repletion or fulnesse are to be cured by evacuation. Hippocrates. Sect. 2. Aphor. 22. i. e. by fasting, perspiration, Sweating, &c. All this is comprized in the advice of Sir Theodore Myron a great French Physician on his death-bed to a Noble friend who de∣manded his advice for the preservation of health, to whom he reply∣ed

Be moderate in your diet, use much Exercise, and but little Physick.

§. 20.* 1.787 Lastly because the cure of the patient depends much on the qualitie of the Physician, we shall give a brief character of an able, faithful physician, and that according to Plato's mind, with others.

1. Plato requires in a Physician great skill both speculative, and Experimental: and the reason hereof, he gives us in his Gorgias fol. 464.

Some (saies he) seem to have an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 good habitude of bodie, who indeed have not. Which infirmitie none 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but a skillful experienced Physician can discerne.

He also Supposeth a great measure of skill as requisite to sever noxious hu∣mours from what are good: so in his lib. 8. de repub. fol, 567. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Physicians purging out what is worst leave what is best behind.

2. Besides habitual Skill Plato requires an actual application of the same to particular cases with an universal circumspection, and inspe∣ction into all accidents though never so inconsiderable: so in his de Legib. lib. 10. fol. 902.

what (saies he) when a Physician is both able and willing to cure the whole bodie; if he only considers greater matters, but neglects smaller, will there be an happie suc∣cesse of that cure?

No, &c. This rule of Plato regards not only skill but also faithfulness, and diligence, which implies. 1. That Phy∣sicians use not unknown remedies, when known and approved are a•• hand; which is too common amongst many, thereby to make new ex∣periments, or for some other ill end. 2. That Physicians may not cure one disease by causing a greater, which is too frequent. 3. That Phy∣sicians are to endeavour the removal of the cause, and not only the curing of a symptom of the disease: not to imitate him who in an hectick bodie endeavoured to cure the itch. 4. A faithfull Phy∣sician will endeavour to cure a disease, not to deferre it only: as many.

3. Another quality eminently requisite in a good Physician is meekness, tenderness, and condescension to the patients condition. So Seneca speaking of a good Physician saies,

that he will not re∣fuse the most servile offices, nor yet be moved at the impatience of his patient for his good,

i. e. he will not make his own humour or will, but his patients good the measure of his practice.

4. Lastly; every man of judgment, and experience might be his own best Physician would he heed it; for there are but 3 things made essentially requisite to a good Physician, that is, 1. Judgement 2. Institu∣tion. 3▪ Experience, &c.

CHAP. X. A brief Abstract of Plato's Moral, and Metaphysical Philosophie.

I. Plato's Moral Philosophie: I. Ethicks; where 1. of the chiefest Good; 2. of Virtue; 3. of Sin; 4. of the Affections, and their Mo∣deration; particularly the Affection of Love; the Virtue of Justice. II. Plato's Oeconomicks; where touching Imitation, Education. III. Plato's Politicks; where 1. of right Constitution, and Admini∣stration; 2. Laws, the Rule of such Administration; 3. Magistrates, the Instruments of Administration according to Laws. II. Plato's Metaphysicks; 1. of God, and his Essence; 2. his Attributes; 1. Ʋnitie; 2. Simplicitie; 3. Immutabilitie; 4. Eternitie; 5. Omnipresence; 6. Justice; 7. Veracitie; 8. Puritie; 9. Bountie; 10. Omniscience; 11. Incomprehensibilitie; 12. the Divine Will the Cause of all things. 2. the Humane Soul, its Original, Immaterialitie, Capacitie, Im∣mortalitie, &c.

§. 1. HAving dispatcht Plato's Rational, and Natural Philosophie;* 1.788 we should now proceed to that which is Moral, and Super∣natural; wherein indeed his excellence seems to consist. But upon Reflection, considering that this undertakement would swell this di∣scourse before us, beyond the bounds of an Historie, and especially make this third Book big, and bulkie, much beyond the proportion of the rest: I have waved it at present, though not without some thoughts of reassuming the same, in an intended Systeme of sound Philosophie. Only for the present take this abstract Idea of Plato's Moral, and Supernatural Philosophie. As for his Moral Philosophie, it may, according to the different 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or regard it has to its object, be distributed into (1) Ethick, which respects personal Gubernation and Morals. (2) Oeconomick, which regards the Regiment of Fami∣lies. (3) Politick, which comprehends the Government of Cities and Nations.

* 1.789As for Plato's Ethicks, we find in him excellent Contemplations and Discourses (1) of the chiefest Good, which he stiles (1) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, altogether true. (Rep. 9.) i. e. most real▪ substanti••l, and so••••. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, most proper, Rep. 9. (3) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-sufficient (4) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••••mply good. (5) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the cause of all good (6) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most necessary good. (7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supream idea of all good. (8) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Infinite. (9) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eternal, and mo•• living. (10) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, uniform. (11) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pure, immixed, without sorrow. (12) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, opp••r••unc. (13) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Divine, and god-like good. All which contemplation of the chiefest Good, are applicable to none but God: neither may we presume, that Plato could receive them any way, save only by some scriptural Tradition of God.

* 1.790§. 2. Plato Philosophizeth very morally of Virtue, its Divine In∣fusion, Nature, and Excellencie. (1) Touching the Divine Infusion of Virtue, Plato Meno 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fol. 99. proves at large that Virtue came not by Institution, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by a Divine Infusion; which he proves from this, that God oft useth the most unkilful instruments in the production of Virtue. (2) As for the Nature of Virtue, Plato stiles it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Harmony of the s••ul; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Musick of the soul: And again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the symmetrie, and good order of the soul, whereby every facultie keeps its due place and motion: whence (3) follows the Excellence of Virtue; which Plato placeth in this; that it gives Health, Amplitude, Libertie, Nobilitie, Firmitude, and perfection unto the humane So••l.

* 1.791§. 3. Plato Philosophizeth very notably of Sin, both ingenite, and acquisite. He makes sin to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an excess, or transgression of the Law: also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an acting against right reason: whence he makes it to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as Epinom. fol 978.) an irrational, confused, irregular motion, &c. And particularly, of irregular inordinate pleasures, he proves, Repub. 9. That they are the greatest Tyrants; for the more in∣dulgent the mind is to them, the more tyrannick, and insolent they are.

* 1.792§. 4. Plato discourseth even to admiration, of that Temperance, and moderation, which ought to be in the Affections, and sensitive appetite. He makes Temperance to consist chiefly in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a certain Symphonie, and Harmonie of the Affections, as Rep. 4. whence he makes the temperate man to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, stronger than

himself: whereas the intemperate man is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, weaker and worse than himself, i. e. than his sensitive, animal part.

§. 5. Plato Philosophizeth very Divinely of Love,* 1.793 its soveraign Throne in, and Influence on the Soul, together with its proper Acts. This he discourseth of at large in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is wholly sper•• in the Explication of this soveraign Affection. And more particularly, Plato hath admirable discourses of Amitie, or Friendship as in his Lysis; where he professedly sets himself to Philosophize on this Theme, which the Title of this Dialogism stiled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of friendship, plain∣ly enough imports.

§. 6. Lastly, Plato discourseth most accurately of Justice,* 1.794 in its Ʋniversal Idea and Notion; especially in his Repub. 4. where he explicates its nature, and influence in all affairs. So again in his de Leg. 12. We find many other great Ethick contemplation••, and cha∣racters, as in other his Dialogues.

§. 7. As for Plato's Oeconomicks,* 1.795 he philosophizeth incomparably of Imitation; which he makes to be the most efficacious principle of paternal Government. So in his de Leg. 5. as else where, he demon∣strates, that the best institution of youth is by example, & conversa∣tion. He treats also of Education more largely in his Repub. 4.7. De Leg. 1, 5, 7.

§. 8. But that which renders Plato most famous as to Morals,* 1.796 is his Politick discourses, which may be reduced to these three Heads, 1. Such as relate to the constitution, and due Administration of a Re∣publick. 2. Such as treat of Laws both humane and Divine. 3. Such as give us the Character of a good Magistrate, to administer accor∣ding to such Laws. Of each of these he philosophizeth at large in his Books de Republica, and de Legibus, &c.

§. 9. Touching Plato's Metaphysicks, or Supernatural Philosophie,* 1.797 we are not without great notices thereof, 1 He seems to have had great notions, or rather Traditions (originally Judaick) of Gods Essence,* 1.798 as described, Exod. 3.14. whom, in imitation of Moses, he stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 2. His Attributes, and 1. his Ʋnitie; that there is one, and but one true God: he demonstrates at large against the Atheists, and Polytheists of his Age, in his de Repub. 10. fol. 886. and that (1) From the nature of Visibles, and the most har∣monious varietie of Times. (2) From Ʋniversal Consent. (3) From Motion, and the first Motor, (4) From the Soul of the Ʋniverse, or

the providence of God Inspiring, and animating all things, fol. 895. 1. From that great innate Idea of God in the soul, 899, &c. 2. Plato discourseth very Divinely of the simplicitie of God,* 1.799 whom he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without mixture, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to remain simple in his own form. 3. He av••wedly owns Gods Immu∣tabilitie.* 1.800 So in his Parmenides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the one first Be∣ing is immobile, and the same. Again he saies, that God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 4. Plato also demonstrates the Eternitie of God.* 1.801 So Timaeo fol. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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,* 1.802 from his Sim∣plicitie, and immensitie: for that which has no bounds, cannot be confined. 6. Plato vindicates the Justice of God.* 1.803 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;* 1.804 he saith, God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Truth it self, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Truth. 8. He greatly defends the puritie of God,* 1.805 Rep. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. God can do no Evil, neither is he the Author of Evil. 9.* 1.806 He makes mention of the Benignitie of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not God good? &c. 10. He mentions also the Omniscience of God, and demonstrates the same at large, Parmen. fol. 134. &c. where he treats at large of Divine Ideas; as also in his Timaeus. 11. He dis∣courseth also of God's incomprehensibilitie, Parmen. 134. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 12. He makes God's will to be the Original, Ʋniversal, Soveraign, and first cause of all things, as also of their futurition, Repub. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 13. Farther Plato treats largely, and ac∣curately 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,* 1.807 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 Testi∣monies 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 Phy∣sicks: 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 ge∣neral idea of Aristotle's Philosophie, and particularly; 1. Of Ari∣stotle'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 com∣bination with voluntarie intrinsick necessitie, &c. 4. Of Moral Good or Virtue, its genus, habit; its form, mediocritie; its rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Law of Nature; its definition, &c. Of Sin, its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anomie, &c. 3. His Physicks. 4. His Metaphysicks.

* 1.808§. 1. NExt to the Platonick, we shall mention the Peripatetick, or Aristotelick Philosophie, which received no small ad∣vantage, and improvement, from the Jewish Church, and Scripture; as we may both from Autoritative, and Rational Ar∣guments justly conclude. As for Autorities, we have first that of Arist••bulus, a sectator of Aristotle's Philosophie, mentioned by Clemens Alexandr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 5. who brings in Aristobulus affirming, that Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

depended much upon Moses's Law, and the other Prophets.

So again, Clemens Alexandrinus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. and Eusebius Praep. Evang. lib 9. Make mention of one Cle∣archus Solens••s,* 1.809 a Disciple of Aristotle's, who testifieth, that he saw a certain Jew, with whom Aristotle had conversation. Eusebius's words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &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 him∣self to him a certain studious Inquisitive Jew, who conversing fami∣liarly with Aristotle, and his Disciples, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which according to Clearchus's relation, are Aristotle's words) he commu∣nicated more than he received. Then Eusebius addes: Honored Clemens makes mention also hereof in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ 1. concerning which, he thus speaks: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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;* 1.810 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 contempla∣tion, as cap. 11.12.19. But more particularly cap. 20. he demon∣strates, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

It was thus provided by the Divinitie itsel••, or God, that there should be a Nature both of Male and Female for communion. Whence Eugubinus collects, That as Moses saith, He created them male and female: so thou hearest Aristotle in this place (which is a wonder) saying, That the 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 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 com∣ment 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: al••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 trans∣formed into another man. MSS: in the Library at Oxford. But al∣beit there is no ground, why we should believe these Figments; yet hence it is sufficiently evident, that there prevailed an opinion even amongst the Hebrews themsel••es, of a singular communion, and commerce 'twixt them and the ancient Greek Philosophers, as to the Traduction, and Reception of Sciences, whereunto the Christian Fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus, Justin, Theodoret, Am∣brose, and others, are Consonous. Thus Selden; who fol. 23. addes more of like import.

* 1.811§. 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 satis∣fied, 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 Wis∣dom, without acquainting himself with their Principles and Doctrine, especially they being those, from whom his Master Plato received his choicest contemplations.* 1.812 2. But on supposition, that Aristotle was not in Judea with Alexander, yet 'tis credibly said, that Alexander furnished him with all the choicest Books (yea, whole Libraries) that he could meet with in his Eastern Expedition: amongst which, we may rationally conjecture the Jewish Records, and Books were not omitted: especially if that be true, which Josephus mentions of Alexander's coming to Jerusalem, and vouchsafing particular honours and favours to the Jewish Nation,* 1.813 &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 par∣ticulars, both in his Physicks, Metaphysicks, Ethicks, and Politicks, wherein Aristotle follows Plato in many of his choicer Notions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though he cloaths them in his own Method. Now that Plato received his Philosophie, both matter and form, for the chief∣est 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,* 1.814 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 no∣tions 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,* 1.815 of which we have before treated in Plato's Physicks. Again Aristotle in his Physicks lib. 1. cap. 1▪ 2.3.6.7. as lib. 8. cap. 6.7.10. is very copious in his Philoso••hizings on the first Mover; proving, that he is immoveable, one eternal indivi∣sible Being, void of all quantity, &c. wherein he exactly follows Plato, and the Scripture Revelation of God, as Joh. Grammaticus in Ari∣stot. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the soul was spiritual,* 1.816 &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.* 1.817 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from without.

So Aristot. de Anima, having proved that it is imp••ssible that the sensitive Soul should come from without, because it is conteined in the seed: he concludes of the mind. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It remains that the mind alone be infused from without, and that it alone be Divine, whose operation communicates not with corpore∣ous action. Whence the same Aristotle calls the mind 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, most ••kin to God. Yea, de Anima, lib. 1▪ text. 4. He makes the soul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be impatible, and im••••ixt, i. e. simple and incor∣ruptible. So text 7. he saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.* 1.818 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. ens quatenus ens; which is the proper

notion whereby Plato (as Pythagoras before him) expressed God,* 1.819 traduced originally from Exod. 3.14. as we have fully proved afore in Pythagoras's Metaphysicks, chap. 8. §. 4. The simple af∣fections of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ens, Being, Aristotle makes to be Ʋnity, Verity, and Bonity,* 1.820 which are the Affections, which Plato attributes unto God, and that in imitation of Jewish and sacred Tradition as be∣fore. B. 2. C. 8. §. 4.5. Farther, that Aristotle had much know∣ledge of God, his spiritual Nature, and Providence, and that from his Master Plato's Philosophizings,* 1.821 we are informed by Diogen••s Laertius in his Life; where he tells us, that Aristotle con∣formable to Plato, defined God thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God is a spirit. He also tells us,* 1.822 that Aristotle held Gods Providence to reach 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, even to Celestials, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that he was immoveable, b••t ordered earthly affairs, according to that sympathie, or congr••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 immorta∣litie,* 1.823 &c.

This some gather also from that passage, which is said to drop from him whilst he lay a dying, viz. O Being of Be∣ings have mercy on me.* 1.824 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 pro∣duction 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 Ma∣ster Plato, and Pythagoras; because they were matters of pure belief,

above the reach of his natural Reason. Plato, as Pythagoras, conver∣sing 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 ca∣pacities: But Aristotle giving himself up wholly to the govern∣ment of his Reason, he confined himself to such Tradit••ons, as would suit therewith, rejecting all other, which his corrupt Reason could not comprehend, or reduce to demonstration. And he himself seems to give this as a reason, why he discoursed no more of things future, and Divine; because (saith he, Eth. lib. 1. cap. 10.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what is future, is to us uncertain. He so much idolized his own Reason (which was indeed very Masculine and Nervous) as that he slighted all Traditions, which carried not with them evidence, and Notices of their Truth. (This made him either wholly to reject, or else miserably to adulterate the more sublime, and Divine of Plato's Traditions). But 3.* 1.825 As to Aristotle's Ethicks, there seems to be more evident Characters of their Tra∣duction from the sacred Jewish fountain originally, if not imme∣diately, 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,* 1.826 great part of them seem to have much cognat••on with the Jewish In∣stitutes, 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 In••ti∣tutes. For Oxylus, King of the El••ans, forbids his Subjects to Mor∣gage their Fields for mony And the Locrenses were forbid to sell the possessions of their Ancestors, &c.

And in our former di∣scourse of Philologi••, touching the Original of Pagan Laws, we have proved their Traduction from the Institutes of Moses, &c.

§. 4.* 1.827 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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This Nicomachus was Physician to King Amyntas, who was Father to Philip, and Grandfather to Alexander the Great. Aristotle in me∣mory 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 Ari∣stotle 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 Ethick••, is the affirmation of Suidas. Aristotle in the sevent••enth year of his age went to Plato, whom he heard twenty years. After Plato's death, which was in the first year of 108 Olympiad (Speusippus his Nephew succeeding in the Academy) Aristotle went to Hermias the Eunuch, King of Artana of Mysia, with whom he lived three years. After the death of Hermias, upon the request of Philip, Aristotle came to Macedon, where having lived eight years with Alexander, he returned to Athens; And the Academic being praepossessed by Xenocrates, Aristotle made choice of the Lycëum (a place in the Suburbs of Athens,* 1.828 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

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.

* 1.829§. 5. As for Aristotle's Character, we find him greatly applaud∣ed by the Ancients for his Ʋniversal skill in Sciences. Plato himself (who is sometimes invective against Aristotle) stiles him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the

Intellect of his Schole; as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Philosopher of Truth. Laertius lib. 5. saies, That he was a person of great Study, and incre∣dible Invention. It is said also,

That he was the first that colle∣cted the dispersed members of Philosophie into one bodie, and Systeme: he prescribed in his Logick a certain form of Argu∣mentation: he perfected Ethicks begun by Socrates: of Physicks he discoursed so accurately, as that he left all, even Plato him∣self 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 Ari∣stotle? whom I doubt, whether I should account more famous for his knowledge of things, or for his copiousness of writing, or for his s••avitie of speech, or for his Acumen of Invention, or for his variety of Works.

Plinie stiles him the Co••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 Ʋniversal 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 w••re certain honorarie pieces of brass mony, stampt on the one side with Aristotle's Image, and on the other, with this Inscrip∣tion, 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 treat∣ing Democritus, Parmemdes, yea, and his own Master Plato, who felt the strokes of his censorious Rod, whence Laertius brings in Plato, complaining against Aristotle, that he was like a young Colt, that kicked against its Dam, &c. Indeed we have a just, and exact Character of Aristotle, in Cas•• speculo Moral. Quaest. lib. 1. cap. 6.

I conceive (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 Phi∣losophizing, I call him a Prince, because he discourseth so of the secrets of Nature, as none more acutely, he demonstrates so, as none more accurately; he defends so, as none more stoutly. Wherefore, as in ref••ting others, he is scarcely to be saluted: so in his demonstrating of things, I would have him to be embraced with both arms. If he refels (if I mistake not) he doth either change the word, or invert the sense, or feign a new one: and as Hercules with the Pygmeys, so Aristotle with a shadow, contends de lana caprina.

* 1.830§. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Divine, Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Daemon, or Intelligent. Aristotle, I had almost said, excels Plato in the Science of Rhetorick,* 1.831 albeit Plato,* 1.832 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 in∣spired not with the ingenie of a man, but with a certain Del∣phick Oracle. Aristotle used an elegant Oration, but acc••rate, nervous, strict, and next to an obscure mode of speech as Horn. Hi••t. Phil. lib 7. cap. 14

If we compare Aristotle and Plato in point of Logick,* 1.833 and method of Philosophizing, it is evident that Plato's Logick, or me••hod of Rat••••cination, was more plain and fami∣liar, mixed with many elegant illustrations and examples

whereas Aristotle's method was more artificial, and accurate, con∣sisting 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 Peri∣patetick 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 Fa∣bles, the same things Aristotle first delivered unto mankind, un∣der the form of a dext'rous Method well regulated, and whose parts are full, and complete.

But if we compare them in re∣gard of Metaphysicks, and divine contemplations, its evident, yea,* 1.834 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 Pytha∣gorean 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 Ʋniverse, the spiritual nature, and perfection of God, the Immortality of the Soul &c. But Aristotle, as Simplicius ob∣serves of him, confining himself to the sphere of his own Rea∣son, 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,* 1.835 as before.

§. 7. Aristotle's Philosophizings were (as 'tis presumed) by him∣self distributed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acroaticks, or Acroama∣ticks, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exotericks▪ his Acroatick Doctrines he taught in the morning wa••king in the Lycëum, whereunto he admitted none but the choicer wits, or genuine Disciples whence 'twas termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Exotericks he taught in the evening, whence it was cal∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: these were more common. His Acroaticks con∣tain his more subtile Philosophie namely his Physicks, and Logick Dis∣ceptations: his Exotericks comprehend his more vulgar Philosophi∣zings, and other Discourses; as his Politicks, Ethicks, Rhetorick, and such like. Thus Gellius, lib. 20. cap. 4.

Aristotle' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were those his Comments, which conduced to Rhetorick medita∣tations, the Facultie of wrangling, and the knowledge of Politicks.

His 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were those, in which more remote, and subtile Phi∣losophie, was agitated, and which appertained to Physick Contem∣plations, and Dialectick Disceptations.

His Acroamaticks he read in the morning to h••s more ripe and choice Wits, but Exotericks pro∣miscuously without choice: whence the former were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the latter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ according to Horn. Hi••t. Philos. lib 7. cap. 9. Lucian in his Dialogue inscribed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, divides Aristotle's Writings into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exotericks, & Eso∣tericks; whereof the latter are the same with his Acroaticks, which Am∣m••nius (in Aristotelis Categ.) saies, were so called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because he therein discoursed with his genuine and pro∣per Disciples. These Acroaticks, he farther acquaints us, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, delivered in his own person, namely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

In which he teacheth in his own proper person, his own Phaenomena, the which he endeavours to prove by the most exquisite arguments, beyond vulgar Capacities.

Plutarch in the life of Alexander tells us, that

the Peripateticks called these more Mystick, and weightie Doctrines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acroa∣matick, and Epoptick: namely in allusion, unto the Eleusinian Sa∣creds; wherein those who were initiated were for the first four years called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 My••ticks: who stood on the threshold before the Sacrarie,* 1.836 but in the fifth year they had the privilege of being ad∣mitted into the inner Sacracy, there to contemplate the hidden Sacreds, whence they were stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contemplators. So in like manner the Secrets of Philosophie which Aristotle delivered to his genuine Disciples were termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epopticks.

As for Aristotle's Exotericks, we have them thus explicated by Clemens Alexandr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

His Dialogicks are such, as he writes not in his own person, but, as Plato, induceth other persons speaking; which are also called Exo∣tericks because they were written for the benefit of the vulgar sort. See Vossius de Philos. Sect. cap. 17. §. 9.

* 1.837§. 8. By what has been mention'd of Aristotle's Dialogicks as also by Laertius's Catalogue of his Works, we may judge how many of his books have perished. For amongst all Aristotle's Works we fi••d none written in a Dialogick Style, though it be generally confest,

he writ many Dialogues: so Cicero to Lentulus saies, that

he had polished his 3 books of an Orator in a Dialogick Strain, after the Aristotelick mode. Such also were Aristotle's Sophista, & Menexe∣nus, which treated of Morals, and are mentioned by Laertius; like∣wise his Nerithus, and Gryllus which treated of the Oratorian Art: also his Eudemus or Dialogue of the Soul. All Which Dialogick Discourses, referred by Cicero, and others to Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exotericks are not now to be found.

Yet we may not conclude with Caelio Eurio the Second, that there remain extant only three genuine pieces of Aristotle, viz his Historie of Animals, his book of the World, and his Rhetorick to Alexander: For there are many other pieces of Aristotle, which carry with them evident notices of his spirit; as his book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, also his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both the one and the other; his books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and those of the Soul, &c. Yet 'tis very pro∣bable, that the book of the Ʋniverse, reckoned amongst Aristotle's Works, was not his, because it has too orthodox sentiments of God, his Providence, and Gubernation, which Aristotle seems not to approve of. Also that other piece of Rhetorick to Alexander, men∣tioned by Caelio Curio, is supposed not to be Aristotle's but Anaxa∣mines Lampsacenus's who also was master to Alexander the Great, as Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. cap. 17. §. 13.

§. 9.* 1.838 Aristotle dying left his Librarie of books to Theophrastus his successor: Theophrastus leaves them to Neleus who was also Disciple of Aristotle, as Laertius tells us. Neleus sells them to Ptolomaeus Phila∣delphus, who transferred them into his Alexandrine Librarie, as Athenaeus lib. 1. Thus Is. Casaubon. in Athen. lib. 1. cap. 2.

Aristo∣tle's Librarie was first possessed by Theophrastus: whence it by Testament descended to Neleus. The story is known out of Strabo, Plutarch, Diogenes. You may learn out of Strabo, how true it is, that Ptolomie bought the books of this Philosopher from Neleus, or his posteritie, &c.

Thus Casaubon. we have the words of Strabo lib. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Aristotle was the first, that we know of, who colle∣cted books, and taught the Kings of Egypt to erect a Librarie.

That Aristotle was a great affector of books, appears by an observation of Gellius lib. 3. cap. 17. who tells us,* 1.839 that Aristotle paid 3 Attick ta∣lents for some few books of Speusippus the Philosopher, &c. What is said of Ptolemie's buying Aristotele's books of Neleus some understand of

his Library onely: For those books, which Aristotle writ himself, 'tis reported, that Neleus retained them for himself, and trans∣mitted them to his posteritie, who being not learned kept them under keys, without use. Hence Strabo calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, books lockt up. Yea, 'tis said, that they, fearing least the Kings of Pergamus (who erected a great Librarie, which was afterwards by Cleopatra's means transferred to Alexandria) should take them away, hid them long under ground, which brought no small damage to these Books; for hereby they grew mouldy, worm-eaten, moth eaten, &c. After this Apellico Teius buyes them, who being as Atheneas characterizeth him * 1.840 more bookish then lear∣ned, causeth these worm-eaten books of Aristotle to be transcribed and made publick, but without judgement, or fidelity. After his death Sylla (about 200. years after Aristotle's death) possessing Athens, takes these Books, and sends them to Rome (as Plutarch in Sylla) where Tyrannio Grammaticus, a great Student in Aristotle, obtained from the Keeper of the Librarie, the use of them. And the Bookselle••s got these books transcribed, but by unmeet Li∣brarians, and such as would not so much as compare their Tran∣scripts with the Original Exemplar. Whence Aristotle's Books re∣ceived farther detriment.* 1.841 This Tyrannio delivered over these Books to And••onicus Rhod••us, who was the first that took care for the more exact transcribing of Aristotle's Books into many Exem∣plars▪ in order to the publication of them. Thence men began to dispute more about Acroaticks, whereas in the foregoing time, even from the decease of Theophrastus (by reason of the scarcitie of Aristotle's choicest pieces) they were wont to dispute onely about Exotericks probably, &c. As Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. cap. 17. §. 11. Though indeed to speak the truth, Aristotle came not to be in so general repute till Alexander Aphrod seus began to enterpret him;* 1.842 as hereafter.

§. 10. Aristotle's Successor was Theophrastus Eresius, who was first called Tyrtamus, but afterward, by reason of his (as they phrased it) Divine Eloquence, was by his Master Aristotle named Theophra∣stus. Thus Strabo lib. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Theophrastus was first called Tyr∣tamus;

for Aristotle first called him Theophrastus, both to avoid the asperity of his former name, as also to signifie the excel∣lence of his eloquence: for Aristotle made all his disciples elo∣quent, but Theophrastus most eloquent.

See the same in Diogenes Laertius, Hesychius Illustris, and Suidas. Theophrastus being a person greatly esteemed for his Learning, and Eloquence, had a huge confluence of Disciples, at least Auditors, to the number of 2000, as Laertius, and Hesychius. He does in some things differ from his Master Aristotle: as in Meteors, touching the efficient cause of the Rains; also concerning the cause of the Oblique Winds, the matter of hot and dry Exhalations, the original of the saltness of the Sea, &c. Theophrastus seems to write of some things more exactly than Aristotle; as of other things, which are not mentioned by Aristotle. He has excellent Physick discourses of Plants, of the Winds, of Fire, besides many choice Moral characters. The greatnesse of his worth, is sufficiently discovered in Aristotle's choice of him for his ••uccessor. For Gellius lib. 13. cap. 5. tells us,

That Aristotle about the time of his departure, being demanded whom he would have for his Successor, whether Theophrastus Lesbius, or E••demus Rhodius? commanded them to bring him two sorts of Wi••e, the Rhodi••••, and Lesbian; and having tasted of both, he replye•• the Rhodian wine was very good, but the Lesbian was sweeter: by which lepid, and pleasant answer, he discovered his pre•••••• on of Lesbius Theophrastus, before Eudemus Rhodius.

The Auditors of Theophrastus were Strato Lampsacenus, and Demetrius Phalereus. Strato was succeeded by Lycon Troadensis, Lycon by Aristo Ceius, Aristo by Critolaus Phasilites, Critolaus by Diodorus, and he by Neleus.

§. 11. Amongst the Commentators on Aristotle,* 1.843 Alexander Aphro∣diseus has the precellence given him by the Learned, and that both for his Antiquity, th••re being none of Aristotle's Enterpre∣ters more ancient (save Herminus, whose Commentaries are all, except a few fragments, lost) as also for his intimate acquain∣tance with Aristotle's mind, and firm adherence thereto. For as for the other Commentators, they either take part with Plato, wherein he differs from Aristotle, as Simplicius; or else they en∣deavour to reconcile Aristotle with Plato, as Ammonito, &c. where∣as Alexander Aphrosideus follows Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and defends h••m

stoutly against the Stoicks, and other Sects. Whence it was, that Plotinus was wont for the understanding of Aristotle, to consult Alexander, as Porphyrie in his Life: and the Greeks call him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the great Enterpreter. Cyril also against Julian, stiles him the Lover of Aristotle, and the most diligent, and most acute of all the Philosophers. Whence also the Arabian Commenta∣tors, Averroes, Avicenna, &c. make most use of him in their Illu∣strations, and Commentaries on Aristotle: Yea, to give him his just praise, Aristotle came not upon the Stage to be Master of the Scholes, till this Alexander, by his learned Commentaries, advanced him into the Chair, as it is well observed by Lud. Vives in August. Civit. lib. 8. cap. 10.

From the times of Plato and Aristotle, even to Alexander Aprodiseus, who lived under the Emperors, Severus, and his Son (about 210 years after Christ) Aristotle was named, rather than read, or understood by the Learned. This Alexander was the first that attempted to enucleate, and enterpret Ari∣stotle, who greatly promoted others in their Studies of, and Inquisitions into Aristotle. Yet all this while Plato continued more frequent in the hands, and more understood by the minds of men.

But here we must know, that many of those Commen∣taries, that pass under Alexander's name, are spurious. His genuine Comments are on Aristotle's Meteors, &c.

* 1.844§. 12. There were also amongst the Greeks others, who Com∣mented on Aristotle: as (not to mention Porphyrie his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on Aristotle, because he was a Platonist) 1. Themistius Sirnamed by reason of his Eloquence,* 1.845 Euphrades: who lived in the times of Constance, Jovinian, Valens, and Valentinian the Emperors, to whom he dedicated several Orations yet extant (Augustin calls him his Master) 2. Olympiodorus the Alexandrian Philosopher,* 1.846 who flourished about the year 480, and was, according to Suidas, Praeceptor to Proclus Lycius,* 1.847 and Auditor to Syrianus, &c. 3. Proclus Lycius Sir∣named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who succeeded in the Platonick Schole, and was (as Porphyrie before him) a bitter Writer against the Christians. 4. Johannes Grammaticus Sirnamed Philoponus,* 1.848 who answered Pro∣clus, and was a great propugnator of the Christian Religion, as well as an excellent Commentator on Aristotle. 5. Ammonius▪* 1.849 who was a Disciple of Proclus Lycius, and a clear Commentator on Aristotle, though he does oft Platonize. 6. Simplicius,* 1.850 who flourished under

Justinian the Emperour, and was very invective against Johannes Grammaticus, yet an excellent Interpreter of Aristotle, albeit he doth Platonize. We find a good, though concise character of these Commentators on Aristotle in Pici Mirandulani Apologia 90. Phi∣losophie

among the Grecians remains very beautiful and chast; She is in Simplicius very rich, and copious; in Themistius elegant, and compendious; in Alexander, constant and learned; in Theo∣phrastus greatly elaborate; in Ammonius clear, and gratious.

§. 13. After the Grecians followed the Arabian Commentators on Aristotle;* 1.851 amongst whom the principal place is given to Aven-rois, or Averroes,* 1.852 who flourished in Spa••n, an. 650. and had un∣doubtedly proved a better Commentator on Aristotle, had he been better acquainted with the Greek Tongue. He was also a Famous Physician, as well as Philosopher, but no friend to the Chri∣stians; yet have the Scholemen made his Comments on Aristotle,* 1.853 the foundation of all their Schole-Divinity. Hornius Histor. Phi∣losoph. lib. 5. cap. 10. gives us this account of these Arabian Com∣mentators on Aristotle.

We will begin with Avicenna, who attain∣ed unto so much by his labour, that he alone may carry the bell among Aristotle's Commentators: neither does any seem to reach the mind of the Philosopher, as Avicenna, whom his dili∣gent translator Andr. Alpagus calls Ebeusina. He was so addicted to Aristotle, that many relate he got all his Metaphysicks by heart. He had for his Contemporarie Averroes the Arabian, who lived at Corduba in Spain, and had great contests with Avicenna, and albeit both professed themselves Sectators of Aristotle, yet they thought nothing true, which each other affirmed. Averroes writ of many parts of Aristotle, and that with so great an acu∣men, that he hath obtained the repute of the most learned In∣terpreter, and the title of Commentator, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From whom the latter Scholemen have borrowed many things.

That the Scholemen extracted the most of their Philosophick notions and di∣stinctions (which they make the foundation of their Scholastick Theologie) not immediately out of Aristotle, but out of the Arabi∣ans, Averroes, Avicenna, &c. his Commentators, is evident to any that acquaints himself with the original of Schole Divinity, which began in the Parisian Scholes about the twelfth and thirteen Cen∣turies, by Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, &c. amongst

whom Averroes was greatly in repute.* 1.854 Verulam in his Novum Orga∣num speaks truely; that these Schole-men, besides their reduction of Theo∣logie into an order, and forme of Art, have over & above caused Aristotle's Eristick, and spinous Philosophie to have been, more than it ought, in∣corporated into the bodie of Religion. And in all Aristotle's name is pretended, albeit they rather follow his corrupt Interpreters and Commen∣tators. For the Arabians, from whom the Schole-men drew all their sub∣tilties 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 particu∣larly 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•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.855 Thus Ammonius which we may English thus.

This Aristotle was in his Morals exact even to an hyberbole; In Philosophie he exceed∣ed humane Measures, leaving no part thereof untouched, but ad∣ding much thereto from his own sagacitie, he reformed the whole of Philosophie, for he added unto Logick by differencing, or separa∣ting 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.* 1.856 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 Philoso∣phie he demands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what is the su∣pream end of Aristotle's Philosophie. To which he replies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what are the means that conduce us to this end? to which he answers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We say the means conducing to this end is the doctrine or knowledge of things existing in time and mutation: for by these things, together with the Mathematicks, we lead our selves into the knowledge of the first cause of all things.

§ 16.* 1.857 Thence Ammonius passeth on to discourse of Aristotle's mode of Philosophizing. pag. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &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, Sym∣bolick mode of Philosophizing, which his Predecessors Thales, Pher••∣cydes, Pythagoras, and Plato had introduced; confining himself to a more succinct, and accurate method.

Whence also he rejects all those more obscure Jewish Traditions, which Pythagoras, and Plato so much delighted themselves in, with resolution to admit nothing but what he could make stoop to evident reason, or clear Testi∣mony.

So in his Ethicks lib. 2. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we ought in matters doubtfull to use clear testimonies: where∣by he cuts off all those obscure, and broken Traditions, which his predecessors admired, and together with their traditions their Sym∣bolick mode of Philosophizing also.

* 1.858§. 17. The same Ammonius gives us (pag. 12.) a good character of such, as are genuine Auditors, and Expositors of Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The genuine Auditors of Aristotle ought by how much the more obscure the things spoken are, by so much the more earnestly to contend, and search into the depth thereof. An Auditor ought to be just; of a good natural capa∣citie for ratiocination; virtuous in his Discourses; Exact in his morals;* 1.859 and in all things very well adorned. Thus Ammonius, who proceeds to give his character of a good Expositor of Aristotle: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He, that will expound the things spoken by Aristotle, must not through too favo∣rable inclination, undertake to commend things ill spoken, and re∣ceive 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 ex∣pound their proper sentiment: afterward he must bring his own judgement concerning the same.

* 1.860§. 18. But to come to the Distribution of Aristotle's Philosophie; which Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag. 11. gives us thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Philosophie is divided into two parts, Theoretick, and Practick. As for Theoretick, that is such, wherein he inquires concerni••g Truth, and Falsehood: Practicks are such, wherein he considers concerning Good, and Evil. And because there is a great dispute amongst men touching Good, and Evil, as also touching Truth, and falsehood; it seemed good to him (viz. Aristotle) to give us a Diacritick or Discretive Instrument to measure these things by, which is Demon∣stration. Now Demonstration is nothing else but a demonstrative Syl∣logisme. For as the Carpenter useth his Rule as an Instrument, where∣by 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 Ʋniversal Instrument of both, which is Logical Demonstration, he thence pro∣ceeds to distribute these Generals into their Severals thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

They di∣stribute Theoreticks into Physiologicks, Mathematicks, and Theolo∣gicks. As for his Theologicks, they are such, as he writ after his Phy∣sick 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 na∣ture being in some regard separate from matter, and in some regard inseparate. As for Practicks, they are distributed into Ethicks, Oeco∣nomicks, and Politicks.

Thus of the Parts of Philosophie.

§. 19. Having gone through the general Distribution of Aristotle's Philosophie, it may not be amisse to touch a little on the Severals, and such observables therein, as may deserve a more particular remark. We shall begin with Aristotle's Logick,* 1.861 which he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Discretive or differencing Organ to all the parts of Philoso∣phie; so Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag. 8.

The Stoicks, saies he, make Logick a part of Philosophie, whereas all those of the Peripate make it an Organ, &c.

Aristotle in stiling his Logick an Organ, means no∣thing else, but that it is a method, or a key to all Sciences: so Am∣monius

in Arist. Categ. pag. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Dialectick as Aristotle defines it, is a Syllogistick way of Procedure about what∣ever Problem proposed, from probable Topicks. What Ammonius here appropriates to Dialectick, which the Peripateticks make but a Part of Logick, is equally applicable to the whole thereof.

But we have a more full, though concise, account of Aristotle's Logick given us by Ammonius in Arist. Categor. pag. 15.16.17. Which, because the Book is very rarely to be found, and the Author scarcely known to young Students, we may not deem it lost labour to give them his own words, which are as follow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

As the carpenter useth his Rule, and the Mason his Squares to distinguish what is right, and what is not: so the Philosopher useth Demonstration for distinguishing of Truth, and Falsehood, Good, and Evil. Now Demonstration is a Scientifick Syllogisme. But it is impossible to treat hereof, unlesse we first declare what a Syllogisme is; neither can we understand, what a Syllogisme is, unlesse we learne, what a proposition is: For Propositions are certain words; and of these words a Syllogisme is but a collection. So that it is im∣possible to know, what a Syllogisme is, without understanding propo∣sitions: for of these it is composed. So neither is the Proposition to be understood without understanding the names, and words of which every discourse consists. Neither are the Names, and words without simple voices: for each of these is a Significative voice.

It is therefore necessary in the first place to treat of simple voices; of which Aristotle discourseth in the Categories. Thence of names and words, and propositions, as in Aristotle's book of Interpreta∣tion. After this of Syllogism simply considered, as in his first Analy∣ticks: then of Demonstration, as in his latter Analyticks. Now the order of this Disposition is manifest from the scope: for things simple ought to precede things compound: and the Doctrine of the Categories is of all most simple, because as 'tis said, it treats of simple voices, signifying simple things, by means of simple notions intervening.

Thus Ammonius of Aristotle's Logick.

§. 20. We may reduce the whole to this Scheme.* 1.862 Logick may be considered, eith••r in regard of its object, or formal parts. As for the object of Logick, 'tis either material, or formal: The ma∣terial object of Logick, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every Intelligible, which is either simple, or complexe. The simple object of Logick, are all those No∣tions, both first, and second, treated of by Aristotle in his Praedica∣ments, and by Porphyrie in his Praedicabiles. The Complexe object of Logick is composed either of simple notions, and terms, as a Pro∣position, or of Propositions as a Syllogisme. As for the formal object of Logick, or the mode under which it considers all Intelligibles, it is as they are means to direct the understanding in the disquisition of Truth, whence result the formal parts of Logick,* 1.863 which may be reduced to these four general Organs. 1. Definition, which takes away the obscuritie of our simple apprehension, by directing the un∣derstanding to penetrate into the essences and natures of things. 2. Division, which removes that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or confusion, which our compound understanding labours under, by reducing all things to their proper Genus, species, and formal differences, &c. 3. Syllogisme, which clears the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or discurs••ve Intellect from those errours, and hesitations, which remain thereon. 4. Method, which directs and facilitates the understanding in all the foregoing parts; and therefore 'tis made by some of the Ancients to comprehend all Logick, &c. So Aristotle: 'tis not our work to discourse accurate∣lie on these parts of Logick. It may suffice to give some glances, and that not from Aristotle's Organ (where he discourseth profes∣sedly of these Logick Instruments) but from other of his Works, especially his Rhetorick, wherein we find some oblique reflecti∣ons hereon. And to begin first with Definition; Aristotle Rhetor.

lib. 2. cap. 13. (pag. 218.) tells us in general; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what is not defined, is fallacious, and in his Ethicks, lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

They must take care, that they define accu∣rately, for this has a great influence on what follows.

2. The like Ammonius (in Arist. Categor. pag. 13.) teacheth us, as to Divisi∣on. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

He that will exactly understand the nature of the whole, must exactly examine it's parts by division, &c.

As for Syllogisme, Aphrod••seus tells us, that Aristotle was the first, that reduced Syllogismes to mode, and figure, &c. But that which we shall chiefly fix our eye upon, is Aristotle's method; whereof we have some general account in his Rhetor. lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 217. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

A discourse has two parts; first it is necessarie to de∣clare the matter, of which we discourse; and then we must de∣monstrate the same.

Thus Explication, and Demon••tration seem to take in the whole of method, according to Aristotle. 2. As for the kinds of method, we have an account thereof given by Aristotle in his Ethicks lib. 1. cap. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Discourses begun from Principles, differ from such as tend to Principles.

By discourses begun from Principles, he denotes Syn∣thetick method, which begins with Principles: by discourses tending to principles he intends Analytick method, which proceeds from the end to Principles. This he seems to explain more fully in his Ethic. lib 3. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

What is last in the Analysis, is first in the Genesis;

i. e. the Principle, which is first in the Synthetick method, is last in the Analytick. Thus for the kinds of method. 3. As for the Principles of a discourse, Ari∣stotle tells us, Eth. lib. 1. cap. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: We must begin with Principles most known, which are two-fold, either in regard of us, or simply. By things more known, in regard of us, he means such as we know by the effect, more obscurely: by things more known simply, he understands such as are known from their causes, which give a more distinct knowledge. 4. As to our methodical procedure in the handling of any Theme Aristotle (in his Eth. lib. 1.) gives us this good Canon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We ought in the first place to give an Hypothesis, or obscure adumbration of

the thing, and then a more lively delineation.

His meaning is, that when we treat of a point of great moment, we may not presently fall upon the thing it self, but by little and little pre∣pare the minds of the Auditors, thereby to render them more capable to attend unto, and receive the head of the matter. Hence in points of great moment, he allows of a Proeme, so Arist. Rhetor. lib. 3. cap. 14. pag. 220. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The most necessarie and proper work of a Proeme is this, to discover the end of a discouse: wherefore, if the matter be evident, or small, there is no need of a Proeme.

5. But one of the best rules, that I have observed in Aristotle, in order to a Me∣thodical procedure in the handling of any point, is that in Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.864

We must remember that in all things we may not seek after the same exactness; but in every thing we must content our selves with such a method, as the subject matter will bear. Neither may we in like manner search after the cause in all things, but in some things it may suffice, that we well demon∣strate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the thing is so; as in first principles; for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is first, and a Principle, and of Principles, some are discovered by Induction, some by sense, some by some other usage and way, &c.

This golden Rule strikes at the bold assumings of those, who expect the like certaintie, and fulness of demonstration in all subjects, though never so sublime. It gives also a sharpe rebuke to Scholemen, who generally bring all matters to their forme; whereas Aristotle here (as nature) teacheth us to suit our forme, or method to our matter. 6. But then Aristotle proceeds to another Canon, Eth. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And we must take diligent care▪ that we define ex∣actly: For accurate definitions give an huge advantage to what follows. This beginning therefore being well laid, it seems more than half of the whole work, and there is by it a great discovery made of the things we inquire into.

21. If any expect a more full Scheme of Aristotle's Logick, the best, at least most useful, I meet with, is that of Ramus, who, albeit he does in many things oppose Aristotle, yet he seems to have done it not without grounds, but with designe to render Aristotle's Logick more useful. This will appear by the following Scheme of Ramus's Logick.

As Grammar (saith Ramus) has two parts,* 1.865 Etymologie, which treats of single words, and Syntaxis, which is of words conjoyned: so Logick consists of two parts, Inven∣tion, and Judgment. 1. Invention is a part of Logick which in∣structs us in the mode of finding out Arguments. An Argument is that, which is affected, or assumed to argue somewhat by, which is Artificial, or Inartificial. An Artificial Argument is that, which argues from it self; which is either first, or secondarie; an Inar∣tificial argument is that,* 1.866 which argueth from Autoritie. 2. Judg∣ment is the second part of Logick, which consists in the right disposement of Arguments, in order to a right judgment of things: for every thing is judged by a certain Rule of d••sposition, whence judgment, and disposition passe for the same. And as Invention treats of single Arguments, so Judgment of conjoynd. Now judgment is either Axiomatick,* 1.867 or Dianoetick. 1. Axiomatick Judgment is the disposition of an Argument with an Argument, whereby we judge, that something is, or is not; which by the Latins is called an Enuntiate, Pronuntiate, Effate. 2 Hence fol∣loweth Dianoetick judgment.* 1.868 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 discourse consists in the dedu∣cing one Ax••ome from another, which is either Syllogisme, or Method. Syllogisme is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a discourse, wherein the Question is so disposed with the Argument, as that the Ante••edent being rightly placed, the conclusion necessarily follows. For when the Axiome is dubious, the Question is put, and to confirm the same, we make use of an Argument, which is collated with the Question. The Antecedent of a Syllogisme has two parts; a Pro∣position, and Assumption. The Proposition is the first part of the Antecedent, wherein (at least) the consequent of the Question is disposed with the Argument. The Assumption is the second part of the Antecedent,* 1.869 which is assumed out of the proposition. The consequent of a Syllogisme, is that part which comprehends the Question▪ and concludes the same; whence 'tis called the Conclusion. If any part of the Syllogisme be wanting, 'tis called

an Enthymeme. A Syllogisme is either simple, or Compound, &c.* 1.870 Method is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Discourse composed of various homogeneous Axiomes proposed according to the evidence of their Nature whence the convenience of all amongst themselves is judged,* 1.871 and comprehended in memorie. And look, as in an Axiome Truth and Falsehood is regarded, and in a Syllogisme the Consequence and incon∣sequence: so in Method it is considered, that what is more clear does precede, and what is more obscure follows; so that Order, and Confusion is wholly the object of this judgement: as Aristotle. By how much the more general any Rule is, by so much the more it ought to precede. The most general Rule must be first,* 1.872 because it is first in regard of Light, and knowledge. Whence the most ge∣neral Definition must be first, and then the Distribution must fol∣low; which if it be various; the partition into Integral parts must precede, and then the Division into the species must follow. The Perfect Definition consists of Essential causes, namely of the Genus, and Form.

Thus Ramus of Logick.

§. 22. Having finisht Aristotle's Logick,* 1.873 we now Proceed to his Ethicks; the first part of Practick Philosophie; wherein making use of an Analytick Method he begins with mans chief end, or happinesse:* 1.874 so Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Every soul desires some chief good, or last end, &c.

Aristotle makes two chief parts of Human hap∣pinesse, Objective, and Formal.* 1.875 He begins with man's Objective happinesse, and proves first, that there is one chiefest Good, and then gives some Characters of this chiefest Good, which may be all redu∣ced to these several particulars. 1 Aristotle makes the chiefest good to be that, which is most Ancient, or the first principal of all things.* 1.876 So in his Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 7. treating of the degrees of goodnesse he saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That which is the principle of all things is better than that, which is not the principle.

2.* 1.877 He placeth the chiefest Good in the last End of all things. Thus Arist. Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And the End is alwaies better than that, which is not the End: for this is alwaies for another's sake, whereas that is for its own sake. So agen he tels u•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That which is nearest the end is best.

3. Hence it follows, that the Chiefest Good is that,* 1.878 which is desired for it self. So Aristotle in his Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 7. defines the chiefest good, thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The chiefest good is that which is desired for it self, and for whose sake we desire all other things.

Then he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what is most desireable for it self, is be••t. This he stile•• in what followes the Last End. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

the End is that, for whose sake we desire other things.

4. Hence it follows, that the chiefest good is simply,* 1.879 absolutely, and necessarily good. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arist. lib. 5. cap. 2. Thence Aristotle in his Eth. lib. 1. cap. 7. saies, that tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 simply, and of it self desirable. 5. Whence he makes the Chiefest Good to be the measure, and Standard of all good.* 1.880 Thus Arist. Ethic. lib 1. cap. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Of other Goods some exist necessarily, but others are only naturally subservient to Happinesse.

This necessarily fol∣lows upon the former. For what is the Last End, and desireable for it self, must necessarily be the measure of all other goods, which are desirable only Servato ordine sinis. 6. Whence he makes the Chiefe••t Good, to be our most proper and connatural Good.* 1.881 So Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the chiefest good is proper. And in his Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 7. Aristotle making a comparison 'twixt lesser and greater goods, saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which is con∣natural, and proper is more Eligible, then that, which is adventitious. 7. The chiefest Good must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 communicative,* 1.882 and diffusive to all. Thence Aristotle addes Rhetor. lib. 1 cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Those things are best, which are most usefull in our greatest need; as in old age, and Sicknesse. Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is the chiefest good which all desire. The Chiefest good though it be proper to every one, yet is common, and diffusive to all: communitie with proprietie is peculiar to the chiefest Good, that is best which all need, and all may have Ʋniversal diffusiveness with Proprietie speaks the object Ʋniversally good, as God is. 8. That is the best Good, which is most Rare,* 1.883 and Choice: So Ari∣stot. Rhet. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which is more rare is better than that, which is more common, for its possession is better because of the difficulty in attaining it. 9. The chiefest Good, albeit it be rare, yet it must be possible:* 1.884 So Arist. Rhetor. lib. 1, cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that, which is possible, is better than that, which is impossible. 10. In Degrees of Goodnesse that is best, which is the most Real,* 1.885 Substantial Good. So Arist. Rhetor.

lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Those things, which are re∣ally good, are better than things which are so in opinion only. Again he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 11.* 1.886 That is the choicest good, which is most immobile, stable, and durable. So Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the chiefest good is immo∣bile. Again in his Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Things, that are more durable, are better than things lesse durable; and things more firm, than things lesse firm, &c. In the series of good things, that is best, which is most Influential, and Effective of Good.* 1.887 So Arist. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that, which effects the greatest good, is best; and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 13. Aristotle saies that is our chiefest good, which admits of no excesse in the enjoyment thereof.* 1.888 So Rhet. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ that, which admits of no excesse, must needs be our chiefest good. Then he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which may have somewhat more than it ought, that is evil. His meaning is, we can never exceed in the enjoyment of the chiefest good, though we may in others. 14. Aristotle's main Character of the chiefest Good, is, that it be perfect, and self-sufficient.* 1.889 So Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which is best, is perfect, and simply desirable; that is perfect, which is desirable for it self. So again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that, which is perfect, seems self-sufficient. Farther he saies, this chief∣est good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i•• in nothing defective, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for whatsoever is added, is but superfluous. Again he saies, this only enjoyed, makes the man happy. So in his Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is best, which least needs one or other things; for this is most self-sufficient. So Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; we call that self-sufficient which alone renders the life eligible, and defective in nothing. This Plato calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sufficient Good, (which he makes God to be) calling his chiefest good 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a good connatural, uniform, infinite, eternal, ever-being, and everliving, opportune, pure, immixed, and without sorrow. Yea, he saies, this his chiefest Good, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very Divine, and God∣head

Good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supream beautiae, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the only shining beautie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very-self-good, &c.

* 1.890§. 23. As for Ari••totle's notions of formal happinesse, he tells us first, that it is the gift of God. So Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.891 If the Gods vouchsafe any other gift to men, it is c••ns••••taneous to reason, that happiness should be a gift of God, and espe∣cially because it is the highest of humane perfections: And he gives a far∣ther reason hereof in what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To ascribe the greatest, and most beautiful gift to fortune, is no way rational. Having given this general account of the original of humane happinesse we now proceed to Aristotle's specifick Idea of mans Formal happinesse, which is thus defined by him,* 1.892 Ethic. l. 1. c. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beatitude is the operation of the rational Soul, according to the best virtue in a perfect life. In which definition there are four considerables. 1. The formal nature of humane happiness, which consists in Operation. 2. The proper subject of this operation, which is the rational Soul. 3. The qualification of this subject, which is perfect Virtue. 4. The state wherein this happinesse is to be en∣joyed,* 1.893 that is a perfect life. 1. The formal reason of man's formal happinesse, is by Aristotle placed in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 energie, or operation. This Aristotle proveth at large in his following Chapter, Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The goods of the Soul w•• stile the highest, and most sovereigne, which are the Souls operations, and energies. This he explains more fully in what followeth in the same Chapter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To live well, and to act well, makes an happie man: for a good life is commonly stiled Eupraxie, or good action. Thence he proceeds to demonstrate that Beatitude, consists not in an habit, but action▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

There is a vast difference 'twixt having that which is best in

possession, or use, in habit, or operation; for a good, so long as it exists in habit only, is never perfected, as it appears in him that sleepeth, but 'tis the exercise, that perfects, &c.

Then he addes, Eth. lib. 1. cap. 10. That these Actions proceeding from Virtue, are proper to happinesse, as hereafter. This is well expli∣cated by Stobaeus de virtute Serm. 1. fol. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Beatitude consists not in the possession of Virtue, but in the exercise thereof; for he that has sight does not alwayes see. So the Scholes tell us, that every Forme is per∣fected by its Act; and every Facultie and Habit is ordained to its Act, as to its perfection. So Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All things are perfected by operation: the more active things are the more perfect. Whence again Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 8. tells us, that virtuous actions are of themselves sweet, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 self-sufficient; as in its place. 2. As for the proper subject of this operation,* 1.894 Aristotle tells us, 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the rational soul. Thence in his Eth. l. 1. c. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: It seems we may not stile an Oxe, or Horse, or any other Animal happy; the reason is, because they are meerly passive, not active in their reducti∣on to their la••t end. The two main acts of the soul, which formalize humane happiness, are Vision, and Fruition. The Scholes place formal happinesse chiefly in the Vision of the mind &c. 3. The qualification of the Soul, and its operation, in order to humane happinesse,* 1.895 is expressed under that notion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the best Virtue. This is excellently explicated by Aristotle, Eth. l. 1. c. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Operati∣ons according to Virtue, are proper to beatitude; but the contrarie (Vitious) actions to the contrarie, (Miserie) and then he addes the Reason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The reason he gives,* 1.896 is because these Virtuous actions are more stable, and sweet so that a good man is truly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, immoveable, &c. This is farther evident by what follows. 4. As for the state of humane happiness, it is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in

a perfect life. This connotes perfection both extensive, intensive, and protensive. 1. formal happinesse in a perfect state denotes perfection extensive, i. e. of parts,* 1.897 or kinds; a perfect exemption from all evil, with a perfect enjoyment of all good. Thence Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Neither can a child be happie, because he cannot by reason of his age practise such things. This is more fully explicated in definit. Platon. fol. 412. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beatitude is a good composed of all goods. Again 'tis defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a facultie self-sufficient to live well. 2. This perfect life denotes a perfection Intensive, or of degrees,* 1.898 i. e. every part of this happie life, is in its highest degree of perfection, without the least mixture of any degree of miserie. So Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Beatitude is of things precious, and perfect: for we all undertake every thing in order hereto; and that, which is the principle, and cause of all good, we account precious and Divine. Thence in the Platonick Definit. fol. 412. Beatitude is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a perfection according to virtue, a self-sufficient provision of life, &c. 3. This perfect life imports also a perfection protensive, or of duration.* 1.899 So Arist. Eth, lib. 1. cap. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. An happie man is not variable, or easily changeable. For he can∣not easily be removed from his Beatitude. So again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. A blessed man is not so for a short time only, but for a long and perfect time. Farther he saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. a blessed man can never become miserable. Thus much for Aristotle's definition of humane happinesse, which he himself, Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 7. thus explains: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Humane happiness is the operation of the Soul, according to the best, and most perfect virtue: also in a perfect life; for one swallow makes not a summer. These his contemplations about humane happinesse, agree to no state of life, but that of the glorified Saints, which yet Aristotle seems to have had no belief of, at least he seems 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to haesitate touching this future state of the Soul, as 'tis evident from what he laies down, Eth. lib. 1. cap. 10. where teaching that men should endeavour to live thus happily here, and die, according to reason; he gives this as a reason 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because what is future is to us very obscure, but Beatitude is alwaies the end, and alwaies perfect. Aristotle dreamed of enjoying this happinesse here, but Plato seems to refer it to the souls future state.

§. 24. Having done with Aristotle's first Ethick-head,* 1.900 touching humane happiness, we now proceed to his Philosophizings about the internal principles of humane Acts, which may be reduced to these four particulars: 1. Ʋniversal prudence, or practick knowledge in general.* 1.901 2. Volition. 3. Consultation. 4. Election: Of each of which in the••r order, and place. The first great principle of hu∣mane Acts laid down by Aristotle, is universal prudence, or practick knowledge in general. So Arist. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is very pro∣fitable for such, as would mannage their affections, and actions, according to reason, to know what belongs to these things: and Aristotle farther informes us, that this knowledge of things practick, must be not only speculative, and apprehensive, but also practick, and causa∣tive, whence saith he, Eth. lib. 2. cap. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Many there are, who do not these things, yet flying to their reason, they would needs seem to philosophize, and so to ap∣prove themselves virtuous. These act just like some sick peo∣ple, who diligently hearken to their Physicians, but follow nothing of what they prescribe. As therefore those, who thus use the Physitians, never cure their bodies: so these who thus Philosophize, never cure their Souls.

Hence that of Ammonius (in Arist. Categ. pag. 15.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the end of contemplation, is the beginning of practice; and Plutarch. lib. 1. de Placit. Philos. tells us, that a blessed man ought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

To have not only a Theoretick knowledge of beings, but also a Practick of what is needful.

For speculative reason is only apprehensive of things, but practick is causative; according to that Philosophick distinction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Practick Philosophie is effective of Virtue, but Theoretick of Truth only. This practick knowledge is so termed, not because it immediately acts, but be∣cause

it is directive to action. Aristotle makes this practick dictate of the understanding to be a kind of practick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 discourse, which he supposeth to precede either actually, or virtually every Act of the w••ll: as for example, he that will be happie must act virtu∣ously: I would be happie, ergo. Therefore saies Aristotle Incon∣tinent persons have knowledge only in the habit, not actually discursive: for albeit they assent to the major, which is universal; yet there is some defect in their assent to the minor, & thence they assent not practically to the conclusion, &c. This practick discourse, or knowledge, which necessarily precedes the wills motion, is in the general stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prudence, which in the Platonick Defi∣nitions, is thus defined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Prudence is a Science effective of Beatitude. So Plato Meno. fol. 88. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Prudence conducting effects the duties of the soul, but folly the ills.

We have a good account of this Moral Prudence, and its influence given by Alexand. Aphrodi∣seus (the chiefest of Ari••totle's Commentators) as Stobaeus de Virtut. Ser. 1. fol. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Seeing moral vir∣tue is effective of such things, as are determined by prudence, and right reason, it's necessar••e, that he who has prudence, has also moral Virtue: for it is the office of Prudence to enquire by what means it is possible to at∣tain a right Intention, which to determine, is the office of moral Virtue: for it is the virtue of the elective facultie. And this is the difference 'twixt moral prudence, and craft. Prudence searcheth out, what things are most conducing to a right Intention, whereas craft relates to any, though false, &c. Aphrodiseus gives us here (besides other chara∣cters) a full Idea of the proper office of moral Prudence, which is to direct the Intent••on of the Will as to its end, which follows.

* 1.902§. 25. The next principle of humane action is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ʋolition, or Will, strictly so termed, which properly refers to the end, and so 'tis differenced from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Election, which respects the means. So Arist. Eth. lib 3. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Ʋolition rather respects the end, whereas Election respects the means conducing to the end. So Plato in Gorg. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

that is willed for the sake of which men act; whereby he intends the end. We have a more large explication of the difference 'twixt Ʋolition, and Election, given by Joh. Grammaticus in Arist. de Anima Proaem. fol. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Gno••tick, or knowing faculties of Rationals being distribu∣ted, the practick are Ʋolition, and Election. And Ʋolition is only of what is good (i. e. the end) but Election inclines both waies (i. e. to good, or ev••l as means) Again, Ʋolition belongs to the Rational Soul as such; whereas Election has some commixture with the irrational.* 1.903 By all which it's evident, that Ʋolition is an Act of the Will, whereby it is ex∣tended, or carried forth to its object, beloved for it self, without respect to a farther end: so that the end, which is amiable for, and of it self, is the alone proper object of Ʋolition. Yea, Aristotle makes this extension of the Will towards its last end to be con∣natural, or as he termes it, Physical; whereas its extension towards the means by Election, is with indifference. So Arist. Eth. lib. 3. c. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where Lambinus on this notion [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] thus Comments.

We must know that in practicks, the end has the place of the principle; because on it depends the necessarie formation of all such things, as belong to the action.

Therefore as in Mathematicks there are certain indemonstrable principles laid as the basis of all Demonstration: so in practicks, the end is fixed as a principle supposed not to be deliberated about; for a principle as well in practicks, as speculatives, admits not of Demonstration, but of supposition only. So again, Arist. Eth▪ lib. 3. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The desire of the end is not elective, but natural, &c i. e. the Appetite of every thing does naturally tend to some end connatural thereto, which is the measure of all things conducing thereto So Arist. Eth lib. 3 cap. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Every thing is measured by its end. But Aristotle Eth. lib. 1. cap. 2. speaks more fully thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The end is of things practick, which we will for it self, but other things for it. Neither

do we choose all things for some other (without some term) for so there would be an infinite progresse. It is manifest therefore, that this end is the Good, yea the best Good. Wherefore the knowledge hereof has great in∣fluence on the life: and as Archers, who have the mark in their eye; we do hereby obtain, what is most needful. So again, Aristotle Eth. lib. 3. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a virtuous man is naturally carried towards his end, but towards other things volun∣tarily, or indifferently: then he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as every man is, such is his end. Whence that Maxime in the Scholes, as the forme is in Naturals, such is the end in Morals, By all which 'tis apparent, what the proper object of this Volition is, namely the end, to which it naturally extends it self, as the measure of all its acts, and lower ends. Hence also 2. we gather, that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or volition of the will, is not distinct from that Act of the Will, which the Scholes call Intention. For they make Intention to be an efficacious willing of the end, together with the means conducing thereto: which is formally, or at least virtually deno∣ted in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Volition, according to that common rule in Logick. He, that effectually wills the end, wills also the means. 'Tis true, there is an imperfect velleitie, or faint Volition, which respects the end, without means; but a compleat Ʋolition comprehends both. I know the Scholes make Ʋolition, and Intention, different Acts; and the former to relate to the end simply considered, but the latter to the end in connexion with the means. But I find no ground for this distinction in Aristotle, or Nature. 3. Hence also we may farther collect, that the end is first in Intention, though last in Execution; and therefore ought to be greatly heeded, and made the measure, or square of all. So Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

He that is ignorant of his mark, or end, is like a blind man, that shoots at randome; and he does in vain consider all things tending to his end. But the conside∣ration of an useful end gives much diligence, and alacritie▪ For every one, that will undertake any designe ought first to learn its usefulnesse, &c.

* 1.904§. 26. We now proceed to the third principle of humane acts,

called by Aristotle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consultation, which respects the means, and so is distinguished from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prudence, or the practick Judge∣ment in general, which respects both end, and means; and primarilie the end, and the means only in the second place. This Consulta∣tion is stiled sometimes by Aristotle, but often by Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Counsel, which Plato in Cratyl•• deduceth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a ca••ting, so Lambinus in Arist. Eth. l. 3. c. 5 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Metaphor taken from Archers, who are said to cast, or shoot their Arrow towards the scope, they aim at. This Consultation is stiled in the Platon. ••••finit. fol. 413. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good advice, which is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a connate virtue of reasoning. Again 'tis termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Consulta∣tion, which is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an exhortation to another, before he acts, how he ought to act. But there is no definition, that suits better with the nature of Consultati∣on, than that Definit. Platon. fol. 414. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Consultation is a consideration of things future, so far as expedient, i. e. for our end. For a wise man first proposeth, and wills his end, and then makes use of Consultation, as an instrument to find out means expedient for this end. We are to take diligent heed, that things passe not suddenly from Imagination into Resolution, Affec∣tion, and Action, without asking advice of the judgement, and serious consultation. A wise man, when he hath made a judge∣ment about his end, weigheth exactly all,* 1.905 that followeth from such a Judgment, as also all the Antecedents, that lead to the obtaining of it. What men unadvisedly undertake, they advisedly recal. Con∣sultation ought to be the door to all great resolutions, and undertak∣ings. This Consultation is thus defined by Arist. Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is a virtue of the discursive facultie, whereby men are ena∣bled to consult of good, and evil, in reference to happinesse. But the pro∣per Seat of this discourse about Consultation, is Aristotle's Ethic. lib. 3. cap. 5. where he discourseth at large of the Object, Acts,* 1.906 and Effects of Consultation. As to its Object, he laies down these Rules to judge it by. 1. Consultat••••n is not of things speculative, but of practick. So Art. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Consultation is not about the first Elements of Sciences, &c. The same he addes Art. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Especially 'tis not about Arts, or Sciences.

Yea, he saies expresly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Consultation is about practicks. 2. Consultation is not of things impossible, but of things in our power. So Art. 48. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if the thing be possible, men undertake it; and more expresly Art. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we consult of Practicks in our power. This he ex∣plains more fully in his Rhetorick, pag. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We consult about things, which appear to hap∣pen either way, not of impossibilitie, &c. ••. Consultation is not about the end, but the means, so Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We consult not of ends, but of things condu∣cing to their ends: for Physicians consult not whether they shall cure, but taking their end for granted, they consult how, and by what means to cure. So Art. 57. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Consultation is about things to be done by us: Now our actions have respect to some end, wherefore the end comes not under consultation, but the means. 4. Consultation is not about an infinite, but finite number of means. So Art. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. No man consults of things infinite, be∣cause unmeasurable. 5. Consultation is of things permanent, not of things in continual motion, so Art. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We consult not of things in perpetual motion. The reason is, because such fluid things cannot be brought under any regular order, or subserviencie to our end, &c. 6. Consultation is of things contingent, not of necessaries. So Art. 29. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Consultation is of things doubtful, contin∣gent, and indefinite: For such the means usually are; whereas the end is definite, necessarie, and more evident, &c. 7. Yet Consultation is not of things fortuitous, or casual, but of things in our power, which come under the conduct of humane Prudence. So Art. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We consult not about the things of fortune, as touching the invention of a treasure, &c. 9. Amongst the means, the main work of Consultation is to find out such as are most conducible to the end. So Art. 39. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If the means be many, the best are to be chosen out. This supposeth an universal comprehension of, and inspection into all the means; according to that of Stobaeus,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consider the whole: for qui ad pauea respicit facilè pronun∣ciat, he that considers, but a few things rashly determines. 9. Consultation supposeth a methodical procedure from one to ano∣ther 'till we come to the first cause: So Art. 40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The first cause is first in intention, but last in execution. 10 If the things we consult about, be arduous, and difficult, Aristo∣tle requires consultation with others: So Art. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In great matters we must take unto us Counsellers, distrusting our selves as not sufficient to penetrate, or d••ve into the things. Thus much for the object. 2. As for the subject of Consultation Aristotle (Eth. lib. 3. cap. 5. Art. 2.* 1.907) tells us, that none are fit to consult, but he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who has his wits about him; whence he excludes fools, and mad men from this work. And upon the same account in his Rhetor. lib. 2. cap. 14. he excludes young men from any competent abilitie for consulta∣tion, because first they have great passions. 2. and are very uncon∣stant. 3. and have strong wills. 4. also too credulous, and not cau∣telous, for want of experience of evills. But (addes he) old men, having virtues contrarie to those vices of young men, viz. suspension of judgement, caution, experience, and command of passions, &c. are most fit for consultation. 3. As to the Act of Consultation,* 1.908 Ari∣stotle (Eth. lib. 3. cap. 5. Art. 42.) thus differenceth it from disqui∣sition: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Every Disquisition is not Consultation, as it appears by the Mathematick Disquisitions; but every Consultation is a Disquisition: wh••re he makes Disquisition more generick, and Consultation to be a practick Disquisition, or Inquisition into means conducing to our end.

4. The main effect of Consultation, is Election, as it follows.

§. 27. Consultation being finisht▪ Election, which is the proper effect thereof, begins. So Arist. Eth lib 3. cap. 5. Art. 68.* 1.909 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The thing consulted a•• out, and elected, is the same: for that which is prejudged by consultation, is elected. For every one ceaseth to enquire, how he shall act when reduced to his first principle, &c.

As for the difference 'twixt Election, and

Volition, we have it in Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ &c.

The thing willed is the end, but things consulted about, and elected, are the means referring to the end, &c. So Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 4. Art. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Volition is of the end, but Election of the means referring to the end.

By which we see, that the proper object of Election is the means,* 1.910 not the end. 2. Aristotle tells us, that Election is not of Impossibles, but of things in our power. So Eth. lib 3. cap. 4. Art. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Election is not of things impossible: whereby he distinguisheth it from imperfect Volition, or Velleitie, which may be of things impossible.

So again Art. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It seems most likely, that Election is of things in our power.

3.* 1.911 As for the subject, or seat of Election, it belongs to the rational Appetite: thence saies Aristotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 4. Art. 9. Election is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of irrational appetites; whence 'tis differenced from Concupiscence, which belongs to the Irrational appetite. So Art. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concupiscence is contrarie to Election, because 'tis common to Irrationals, as well as to Rationals, where∣as Election is proper to Rationals. So that the proper seat of Election is the Will; whence Aristotle makes it inclusive of Volun∣tarie▪ though it be not sully extensive thereto: Ethic. lib. 3. cap. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Election seems to be Voluntarie, though with some difference

4. Hence follows the Act of Election,* 1.912 which according to Aristotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 5. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

a consulted, or judicious appetition.

Thence Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 4. Art. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Election is not a meer opinion, or imagination; and more fully Art. 53. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Election proceeds from reason, and discourse.

Neither is it sufficient, that this act of Election be rational, but it must also be determined, and fixed;* 1.913 whereby the object of Election seems somewhat differenced from that of Consul∣tation, which leaves the determination of the object to Election: So Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 5. Art. 63. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The thing consulted, and elected, is the same, but the thing elected is more determinate, or fixed: for what is judged by consulta∣tion

is elected, and so fixed. Lambinus here on this notion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, comments thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to determine, and define: when we consult, we have as yet nothing certain, or determined: but the end of Consultation, is a definite, certain Election. As therefore in Theoreticks, Aphorismes are said to be certain determinate conclusions, or sentences, whose truth is both by reason, and long experience evident (as Hippocrates's Aphorismes) so in Practicks▪ Aphorismes may be stiled Counsels drawn forth after long consultat••on.

Thus Lambinus, who yet hath not fully hit the mind of Aristotle, who by Aphorisme understands the object, or means determined by Election. Whence Aristotle tells us, that 'tis not a meer fluid volition, or Ʋel••••itie, th••t will make a vit••ous man virtuous, but there must be a dete••mined Will, or Election of all means, &c. Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 5. Art. 43. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

If an unrighteous person have some imperfect velleitie of righteousn••sse, he does not presently cease to be wicked, and become righteous: as a sick man is not presently healed, so soon as he is wills it, &c.

5. Hence we may collect w••th Aristotle,* 1.914 that it is very difficult to make a right Election. So Arist. Eth. lib. 2. cap▪ 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It is very difficult to judge, what is to be chosen before another thing, and what is to be preferred be∣fore another: and yet 'tis more difficult to cleave to what we know is best.

6.* 1.915 Albeit it be very difficult to make a right Election, yet when 'tis made, it has a Sovereigne influence on Virtue: So Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It follows, that we passe on to Election, which seems to be most proper to Virtue, and that whereby moral actions are mostly measured, &c.

7. Hence we come to the definition of Election,* 1.916 which is thus laid down by Ari••totle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 5. Art. 68. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Election is a consulted, or judicious ap∣petition or things in our power.

And he ••dde•• this as the reason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

for from consul∣ting, judging, we choose according to that Consultation made.

This Election is term••d by the Platonick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heresie, which Platon. Definit. fol. 413. is defined thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Election is a right Probation.* 1.917 Under Election is comprised Consent, (albeit the Scholes distinguish them) whence follows Ʋse, and Fruition. Consent, and use of the means, are called by the Platonicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, alacritie, which Platon definit. fol. 413. is defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

A discoverie of a practick Election, &c.

2 Cor. 8.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

* 1.918§. 28. Having go••e through the principles of human Acts, we now proceed to their main essential Attribute, or adjunct, which is Voluntarinesse, or Libertie; we make Voluntarinesse, and Libertie the same; because we find no rational ground either in Aristotle, or Nature, to distinguish them; for every human Act that is volun∣tarie, is also free; and every Act that is free, is likewise Voluntarie. Farther, they both partake of one, and the same Essential Idea, or Definition. Thence Aristotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 1. Art. ••0. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.919

Those things are said to be Voluntarie, whose principle is in him, that does them, who has a (radical) power of acting, or not acting.

This de∣finition of voluntarie is the same, which the Scholes give to Libertie. But we have a more adequate, and proper definition of Voluntarie, given by Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Voluntarie seems to be that, which has its principle in him that acteth it, who also understandeth the particulars of what he acts.

This definition of Voluntarie seemeth to connote nothing but a rational spontaneitie, which is the same with humane Libertie. Hence Ari••totle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 1. makes Involuntarie Acts the same with forced, or not free: Art. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Involuntarie acts seem to be such, as are done by force▪ or ignorance. A forc't act is that whose principle is Extrinsick, it being such, whereto he that suffers, or acts, confers nothing.

Here Aristotle makes Involun∣tarie the same with forced, or not free; and forced or not free, that which has not its principle in its s••lf: whence it necessarily fol∣lows, 1. That Voluntarinesse is the same with Libertie. 2. That Voluntarinesse, and Libertie exclude not all kind of necessitie, but only such as is coactive. 3. That Voluntarinesse, and Libertie, include no more in their essent al Idea, but a rational spontaneitie. This is farther evident by Plato's Ideas of Voluntarines, and Li∣bertie.

Platon. defin. fol. 415. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Voluntarie is that which moves it self according to judgment, &c.

which is the same with the following definition of what is free, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

That is free, which acts from it self.

This rational Spont••neitie, or Libertie, is stiled by Plato sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Soul-duction; sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-service, as also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-action. Thus also Libertie is defined by the Stoicks, Laert. in Zeno 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Libertie is a power of self-action.

Whence the Greek Fathers, Basil, &c. call free-will 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-power, and the Scripture useth a word of the like import, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-Election, 2 Cor. 8.27. This self-moving power, which is alone essential to Voluntarinesse, or Libertie, is expressed by Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 8. under this notion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That is in our power which we use, so or so, for which we are said to be voluntarie, or free.

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he makes only Essential to Libertie, and Voluntarinesse, is excellent∣ly well expressed by Epictetus, and Simplicius, on him: Epict. Ench. cap. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The things in our power are the conception, impetus, appeti∣tion, and extension (of the Soul) and in one word, all our acts.

Simplicius here speaks forth Aristotle's mind, as well as Epictetus's fully thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

He saies those things are in our power, of which we are Ma∣sters, and of which we have power. Such are the internal moti∣ons of the Soul, proceeding from our own judgment, and Election.

So again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

When the Soul acts according to its own nature, then it is moved freely, and voluntarily, internally from it self; and from this (spontaneitie) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what is free, may be well defined.

Thus Simplicious, who makes here all the natural acts of the Soul to be free. 2. This freedom to consist in a rational spontaneitie, or voluntarie motion of the soul. Hence he proves at large in what follows (p 23.24. Edit. Salmas.) that all Necessitie is not contrarie to Libertie,* 1.920 but only that, which is Extrinsick, Coactive and Compulsive, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

There∣fore we are to say, that there is a twofold necessitie, one contrarie to Libertie, another consistent therewith. Wherefore external necessitie destroyes Libertie (for no one externally compelled, is said to do, or not to do any thing freely) but all internal necessitie, ne∣cessitating to act according to their own nature, this does the more preserve Libertie. For a self-moved, according to the nature of a self-moved, is necessarily moved by it self: neither is it for this (said to be) moved by another; for the necessitie is not external, but complicated with the nature of the self-moved, yea preser∣vative thereof, and conducing to its proper operations.

Thus Simplicius, who gives us here an excellent description of humane Libertie, and its Combination with internal voluntarie necessitie, which, if well understood, and embraced, would put an end to all those Scholastick clamours of the Pelagians and Jesuites, against God's necessitating, determining, efficacious concurse, which puts only an internal voluntarie, not external coactive necessitie on the will; and therefore is no way destructive to its Libertie. But then Simpli∣cius proceeds to demonstrate, that a Libertie of Contrarietie (as the Scholes term it) or an Indifferencie to this, or that, is not essential to humane Libertie.* 1.921 Take his own words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Neither must we needs say, that in all things free-will▪ & Libertie supposeth a power of acting contraries: for Souls, which all∣wa••es adhere to good, and choose good, have both Free-will, and Election (for Election is not forced) of that good, without Ind••ffe∣rencie to the contrarie, &c.

By which he fully proves, that actual Ind••fferencie is not Essential to Libertie. Thence he proceeds to prove, that Libertie is essential to the will,* 1.922 and an unseparable ad∣junct of every vital humane Act. So pag. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Wherefore they, that destroy Libertie destroy the na∣tural extension and constitution of the Soul, &c.

So that no∣thing destroys Libertie, but what destroys the natural inclination,

or Voluntarinesse of an human act. This is farther evident by the following definition he gives of a free act. Simp. in Epict. cap. 2. pag. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That is free, which has the self-power, and dominion of its own exercise.

This he farther explains in the same page thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It is manifest, that the things in our power are our proper acts: and things not in our power, but in the power of others, are other mens acts.

Whence it apparently follows; 1. That every human act of the Soul is in the Soul's own power, and so free, albeit it be necessarily predetermin'd, and act••ated by God's Efficacious concurse. 2. That this Libertie of human acts implies nothing more as essential thereto, but a Rational sponta∣neitie, or voluntarie self-motion We have insisted the more largely on these notions of Simplicius about human Libertie and its identitie with Voluntarinesse; because he seems, of all Aristotle's commen∣tators the best to understand his mind. Farther that Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which is in our power, whereby he expresseth Libertie, imports no more than voluntarinesse, or Rational spontaneitie, is evident from that excellent determination of Greg. Ariminensis in Sent. lib. 1. Dist. 17. Q. 1.

That an action be in the power of an Agent, it is not necessarie, that every principle be the forme of the Agent: for then no act of the will, whether good, or evil, would be in its power; because God is the productive princi∣ple of every act. Therefore I say, that there is nothing more required to bespeak an action to be in the power of the Agent,* 1.923 than that the action flow from his own will. So also Austin: That is in our power which willing, we do.

The contemperation, and consistence of God's Efficacious necessitating concurse with hu∣man Libertie is excellently set forth by Plutarch, in the life of Coriolanus fol. 193. thus.

But in wondrous,* 1.924 and extraordinarie things, which are done by secret inspirations, and motions. Homer. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Doth not make God to take away human Election, and Libertie, but to move it, and then he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In which God makes not the action involuntarie, but openeth the way to the will, and addes thereto courage, and successe. For (addes he) ei∣ther

we must say, that the Gods meddle not with the causes, and beginnings of our actions, or else, that they have no other way to help, and further men by.

Thus Plutarch. And whereas 'tis object••d that thus to ascribe unto God a predetermining, particular immediate Influence upon,* 1.925 and Concurse with the will, to every ••ct thereof, is to make him the Author of Sin, &c. Plato Repub. 10. gives us a good solution to this objection, in saying. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••ll blamable Ca••salitie belongs to the particular Agen••, which ch••••seth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God is a blamelesse cause. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In all Evils, God workes what is righteous, and good only. This is more fully explicated by Simplicius in Epict. En∣chir. cap. 1.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. God is no way the cause of sin: for he being in himself good, Acts the Soul in sinning only according to its own nature (i. e. voluntarilie) out of the riches of his goodnesse: but he do••s not concurre to its sin otherwise, than as the Soul it self wills it. His meaning is, that God concurreth to sin, only as the Ʋniversal cause of Goodnesse; so that God's Concurse thereto does not at all hinder, but that the Soul voluntarilie chooseth it. Neither is the qualitie of the effect to be ascribed to the Ʋniversal cause, but to the particular, which is the alone Moral, and therefore cul∣pable cause of Sin: whereas God's Ʋniversal causalitie thereto is only Physical, or natural, and therefore not morally Evil. That the Souls Voluntarie agencie is sufficient to render its act Morally good, or Evil (albeit we allow God a predetermining Influence, and Concurse thereto) is evident from that of Aristotle Ethic. lib. 3. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in things volun∣tario praises, and dispraises have place, i. e. in virtues, and vices: so agen Eth. lib. 3. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Virtue is voluntarie, and sin nothing lesse is likewise voluntarie. Where∣by 'tis evident, that Aristotle requires nothing more on the part of the Soul to render its acts Morally good, or Evill, but that they be voluntarie.

§. 29. Having dispatcht Aristotle's contemplations about the Wil's Voluntarinesse, and Libertie, which is the Essential adjunct of every humane act;* 1.926 we now proceed to his speculations about the Moralitie of humane Acts, or their mora clonstitution as good, or Evill.

This moralitie of human acts in general according to Aristotle, has for its foundation, or basis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a voluntarie free agent (as be∣fore) but the chief measures thereof are, 1. the End: so Aristotle Ethic. lib. 3. cap. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

every thing is defined or measured by its end,

i. e. the End has the same place in morals as the forme in Naturals, or as the first principles in speculatives. 2. Not only the End, but also the Law of Nature, (which Aristotle stiles Right reason) has an essential influence on the moralitie of human Acts: according to which they are denominated morally good, or Evill: for by conformitie thereto they become morally good, and by difformitie morally Evill: so Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 8. stiles a Virtuous act, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That which moves ac∣cording to the disposition, or order of Right reason, &c.

We shall begin with Aristotle's notions about things, and Acts morally good, which he stiles Virtues,* 1.927 whereof we have this general account in his Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Virtue is, as it seems, a power conquisitive, and preservative of goods: also a power well-productive of many, and great matters, yea of all things, about all.

But this definition of virtue being too ge∣neral, & that which agrees as well to Natural, as moral Virtues, we proceed to that, which is more special. The great seat of Aristo∣••e discourse about moral virtue is his Ethicks lib. 2. cap. 3.4.5.6. cap. 3. he gives us this general Idea of Ethick or moral virtue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It is supposed therefore, that virtue is such, as be∣ing conversant about pleasures, and griefs, is productive of that which is best.

But sin is the contrarie. Aristotle Eth. l••b. 2. cap. 4. b••gins to discourse more distinctly of moral virtue, and its Genus, whether it be a Power, Affection, or Habit of the Soul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Seing there are in the Soul these three; Affections, Powers, Habits; which of these must virtue be? so Plutar de Virtut Mor. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There are these three in the Soul, a Facultie, an Affection, and an Habit: A Facultie is the Principle, and matter of an Affe∣ction; an Affection is the motion of a Facultie; an Habit is the

strength, and conformitie of a facultie gained by custome. Arist· demonstrates.

1. That Virtue cannot be an Affection, or Passion;* 1.928 because Affections are good or bad only from good or bad Habits 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Our passions are well, or ill disposed from those Habits, which possesse them: therefore our Passions are in themselves capable neither of virtues, nor of vices: whence it follows, that virtues, and vices, are habits.

2. He de∣monstrates that Virtues are not Passions; because they are Elections, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Virtues are certain Ele∣ctions; or at least not without Election.

3. He demonstrates the same from the different motions of Passion, and Virtue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

To these we may adde, that we are not said to be moved, but to be disposed according to Virtues, or vices: but we are said to be moved according to passions.

Lambinus on this text of Arist. Eth. lib. 2 cap. 4. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Comments thus.

Every thing so far as it is moved, so far it is said (pati) to suffer. Thence amongst the Greeks our Affections are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Passions; and so are opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to practice. For the very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Affection, which is moved, is moved by External objects: and the Passive power, as it is moveable, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But in the Action of Virtue▪ albeit External objects concurr, yet a good man is not absolutely moved by them, as in the Affections, but ac∣cording to the dictate of right reason. Therefore in the Affections the principle moving is External▪ and the principle moved internal viz 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But in Virtues the object is External, which of it self has no efficacie, but as it is admitted by right reason. The principle moved is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the passive power: but the prin∣ple Acting, and moving, is some good habit or Virtue. And for this cause we are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to be moved (for we consider not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the passive power in virtues, but by Accident) but we are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be disposed by Virtues, i. e. we are in some sort so framed,* 1.929 that we may with facilitie act Virtuously.

2. Hence Aristotle proceeds to prove, that Virtue is not a power 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

For the same reasons also virtues may not be said to be powers:

for we are not said to be good, or Evill simplie because we have a power of suffering: neither are we praised, or dispraised. Again we are said to have a power by nature, but we cannot be said to be good, or Evil by nature: Lambinus on this saies, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 powers are here called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 affective or passive qua∣l••ties, i. e. qualities, wherein there is a certain affective efficacie.

3. Aristotle having proved, that virtue is neither a passion, nor a pow∣er, he there proceeds to prove, that 'tis an Habit.* 1.930 Thus Ethic. lib. 2. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We are to say therefore, that all virtue does perfect, and well habituate the subject, whereof it is a virtue; as also render its work good: as the Virtue of the eys renders the eye good, as likewise its work.

Hence he concludes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

If so; then humane virtue must be an habit by which a man is made good, and by which also he makes his work good.

What an habit is,* 1.931 and what is its difference from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Disposition, we may learn more fully out of Aristotle's Commentators, Ammonius, and others. Ammonius in his Comment on Aristotle's Categories makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an habit to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

more lasting, and more permanent than a disposition or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a disposition becomming by length of time, connatural, or implanted.

Galen makes an habit to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a lasting, and hard∣ly d••ssoluble disposition. So Philo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Qu••nt••lian termes an habit a firme facilitie, i. e. an habit is deeply radicated in its subject, whereby 'tis enabled to act with more facilitie. Aristotle Eth. lib 4. cap. 4. saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

An habit is defined by its act, and object. Agen Eth lib. 5. cap. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Oft times a contrarie habit is known by its contrarie, oft times also habits are known by their Subjects

From which Aristotelick notions about habits we learn. 1. That an habit in Morals has much the same place, and influence as a forme in Naturals. For by how much the more noble▪ and perfect the habit is, by so much the more noble, and perfect will the subject, and facultie, which it in∣forms, be. 2. That every habit (as a natural forme) is ordained for, and perfected by its proper Act. 3. That the Nature of an

habit is very congruous to, or agreeable with the nature of its object; whence that determination in the Scholes: That Habits are known by their subjects, the mode of their in-being, their objects, and their Acts.

* 1.932§. 30. Aristotle having discoursed of the generick nature of Virtue, and proved▪ that it is not a passion, or power, but an habit; he thence proceeds to discourse of its Formal nature, or reason, which he places in mediocritie; so Arist. Eth. l. 2. c. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Vir∣tue is imployed about the affections, and actions, wherein the excesse is sinfull, and the defect also blameable: but the mean is praised, and held Right.

Therefore Virtue is a Mediocritie aiming at the mean, or middle. This Mediocritie of Virtue Aristo∣tle (Eth. lib. 2. cap. 5.) applies to, and makes the measure of not only the matter of our actions, but also every circumstance. His words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This mediocritie of Virtue directs when we ought, and in what, & with whom, & for whose sake, and how we must act, &c. Whence he conlcudes, that sin being multiforme, and various is very easilie committed; but Virtue by reason of its mediocritie being uniforme is very di••ficult, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

One may erre many waies (for sin has a kind of infinitie, whereas good is bounded) but what is right is Simple, or uniforme. Wherefore 'tis easie to erre, but difficult to hit the right, for 'tis easie to erre from the mark, but difficult to hit it.

The like Aristot. Mag. Moral. lib. 1. cap. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Virtue is uniforme, but Vice is multiforme. That this uniformitie, or mediocritie is Essential to Virtue, and that which gives its for∣mal constitution, Aristotle Eth. l••b. 2. cap. 6. demonstrates by com∣paring it with A••t. For (saith he) if excesse, and defect do cor∣rupt, but Mediocritie conserve the perfection of Arts, must not moral Virtue which is more excellent than any Art 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 collime,* 1.933 or aim at the Mean, as at its mark? But for the more full Explication of this mediocritie, we are told, that Virtue may be considered either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in regard of its Essence; and so 'tis

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Mean 'twixt defect, and excesse, which are the extreams: or else Virtue may be considered in regard of its perfection 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as 'tis good, and best, and so it is an extream, which admits of no Excesse: for Virtue can never be too good, or perfect, as Ari••t. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 6. where we have also the matter, which this medi∣ocritie refers unto, namely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Affections, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, our actions; in all which there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Excesse, defect, and equalitie. Now the mediocritie of Virtue consists in the latter viz. in observing that equalitie, or proportion, which is due to all our affections, and actions, to render them morally good. Whence this Equalitie, uniformitie, or mediocritie due to our acti∣ons, and affections, is stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a symmetrie; as Eth. lib. 2. cap. 3. we find all this excellently explicated to us by Stob••eus Serm. 1. of Virtue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Virtue is an habit, that keeps a decorum; a decorum is that, which be∣comes us, and 'tis both an extream, and a medium, or mean: an ex∣tream, as it admits neither of ablation, nor addition, but a medium or middle as 'tis betwixt excesse, and defect.

Whence he con∣cludes against the Stoicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.934

We may not therefore cut off the affections of the Soul, but harmonize them accord∣ing to the decorum, and measure of reason.

Hence, else where he saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Mean is be••. This symmetrie, or medi∣ocritie of Virtue is stiled by Pythagoras, Harmonie. So Laertius tels us, that Pythagoras held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Virtue to be Harmonie; yea that all things consisted of harmonie. So Polus the Pythagorean in his definition of Justice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Justice is the Harmonie, and peace of the whole Soul with unifor∣mitie; as Stob. Serm. 9. which is thus explicated by Plato, Protag. 3. fol. 326. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the whole life of man should be composed of Ʋniformitie, and good harmon••e. Whence ••e cals Virtue the Musick of the Soul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ and Temperance he stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the harmonie of the affections; and Justice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a consent of Virtues: and he gives this general Idea of Vice, and Virtue Phaedo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vice is a dishar∣monie, but Virtue an harmonie. This harmonie, or mediocritie of

Virtue he makes to be also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good order, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Sym∣metrie: yea he makes the Virtue, not only of the Soul, but also of the bodie and of every thing else to consist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in or∣der, and rectitude; whence he supposeth Eutax••e, symmetrie, and har∣mon••e to be the forme of the Ʋniverse; Socrates also expressed this mediocritie of Virtue by harmonie as Stobaeus Ser. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The life being like a musical In∣strument harmonized, by intension and remission becomes sweet.

So agen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The harmonized life is most pleasant. These seve∣ral Ideas of Virtue are all comprehended under, and expressed by Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mediocritie, which implies the Eutaxie, Symme∣trie, Ʋniform••tie, and harmon••e of Virtuous affections, and acts: or if we would have all these notions of Virtue resolved into one, we may take that of Plato calling it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rectitude. For indeed the harmon••e or mediocritie of Virtue is nothing else, but a recti∣tude of principles, and acts. This seems fully expressed by Aristotle Eth. lib. 4. cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉· all rectitude is from Virtue, and all Virtue implies a Rectitude as 'twill appear by and by.

* 1.935§. 31. As Aristotle placeth the forme, and essence of Virtue in the mediocritie, or Rectitude of principles, and Acts; so the formal measure or Rule, by which this mediocritie, and Rectitude must be regulated, he makes to be Right Reason, or the Law of Nature. For every Act is denominated good, from its conformitie to the Law of nature both in matter, End, measures, and all circum••tances. So Arist. Eth. lib. 3. cap. 8. speaking of Virtue and its mediocritie saies; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so as right reason dictates, or regulates. So agen Eth. lib. 4. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Virtue is not only consentaneous to right reason, but also an habit measured by, and conjoyned with Right rea∣son. So Stobaeus Serm. 1. de Virtut. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Virtue is a Syntaxe, or regular disposition according to right Reason.

So agen Arist. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whereby it's evident, Aristotle makes Right Reason the measure of Virtue, and its mediocritie: So Amyraldus in his The∣ses Salmuriens••s expounds Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.936 Right Reason (saies he) is the only (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Criterion of Virtue's mediocritie. So Par∣ker Thes. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Right Reason (as it is the same with the Law of Nature) gives the forme to a moral act. But now all the difficultie

is to state what Aristotle meant by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Right Reason. For the clearing whereof, we are to know, that Aristotle took up this notion from his Master Plato, who by Right Reason understood the Law of Nature, as we have proved in Plato's Philosophie, Chap. 7. §. 6. Whence this Right Reason is by him stiled the Royal Law. So Plato Minos fol. 317. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Right Reason is the Royal Law, i. e. The Law of Nature, which received a new edition by Moses, called the Moral Law, (i. e. as 'tis the measure of moral good, and Evill) whereof Plato received many notices, and traditions: as else where. This Right Reason is stiled by the Stoicks the com∣mon Law. So Diog. Laert. in Zeno saith, that the Stoicks held no∣thing should be done, but what was agreeable to the Common Law, which is Right Reason: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Common Law, which is Right Reason, yea Aristotle himself seems to Enter∣pret his Right Reason so, as that it can be understood of nothing more properly, than of the Law of Nature Common to all men: So Arist. Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c.

There is a twofold Law, one private, another common. The Common Law is that, which is according to Nature, for it is that, whereby all men learn by Nature, what is just, and what is unjust, without any particular consociation, or covenant amongst themselves.

Thus Aristotle: wherein he distinguisheth the private Laws of particular Nations, or Societies from the Common Law of Nature, which he makes the measure of Moral good, and Evil. This Common Law of Nature Aristotle makes the Source of all private Laws; and that which gives check unto them when in Excesse, or defect: so Arist. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all private Laws need to be corrected by the Ʋni∣versal Law. Whence this Law of Nature is made the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Law of Equitie, which is to give check to all private constitutions. And that Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Right Reason is the same with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Common Law of Nature, 'tis evident by the definition he gives of Justice, or Righteousnesse. Arist. Rbet. lib. 1. cap. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Justice or Righteousnesse is a Virtue, by which every one has what is his own, and as the Law dictates to them, who are subject to it.

Whereby he makes the Law the measure of what is Righteous. So in his Eth. lib. 5. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a just man is he, that lives by Law, and Equitie, i. e. ac∣cording to that Law of Equitie, or Nature, which is common to all. Whence Aristotle Rhet. lib. 3. cap. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Law is the standard, or measure in all Judicial proceedings, i. e. all moral good, and Evil is measured by some Law of Nature Com∣mon to all, as civil good▪ and Evil by civil private Laws. Thence Aristotle Ethic. lib. 5. cap. 2. saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is just therefore, which is according to Law, and Equitie. What Aristotle attributes to Justice is by a paritie of reason applicable to all moral good, or virtue. By all which it's evident, that Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Right Reason (which he makes the measure of moral good and Evil) is the same with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Common Law of Na∣ture, which gives the forme, and measure to Common Justice, and all other moral Virtues. Whence that of Plato Repub. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is greatly distant from Right reason, which is distant from Law, and order. Hence again Plato, Gorg. 504. tells us.

That as health, beautie and other Virtues of the bodie proceed from the regular order or exact temperament thereof; so the health, beautie, and other virtues of the Soul from its regularitie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence the Soul's actions are regular, and beautifull.

Such is Righteousnesse, Temperance, &c. So that we may conclude that 'tis not any subjective Right Reason, or Light of Nature, which is the measure of moral good, and Evil; but an objective Right reason, or the Common Law of Nature, which is the same with God's Law called Moral, because it gives Forme and measure to all moral good. So that Aristotle's Right reason, which he makes the measure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the rectitude, and mediocritie of Virtue, must be re∣solved into God's moral Law (which is but a new promulgation of the Law of Nature) as the alone adequate Rule, and measure of all moral good and Evill. Thence the perfection, or defect of all good∣nesse, or Virtue must be measured by its accesse, and conformitie to, or recesse and difformitie from this first moral Rule, or Law: for moral goodnesse being nothing else, but a relation or con∣formitie to the Rule of moralitie, it necessarily follows, that every moral being is so far morally good, or Evil, as it conformes to, or difformes from this moral Rule, or Law. And albeit the least de∣clen••ion, or aberration from this moral Law will denominate an

humane act morally Evill; yet there is required a perfect concur∣rence of all causes, or an entire conformitie to this Rule, to bespeak an act morally good: according to that approved maxime in the Scholes (founded on the light of nature,* 1.937 and general consent) Good requires all its causes, but Evil springs from every defect. Hence also it follows, that this moral Law must necessarily be most per∣fect: For otherwise it cannot be the first measure or Rule of moral goodnesse, according to that of Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

A defective measure is not a measure: for what is imperfect cannot measure any thing.

This perfection of the natural, or moral Law consisteth in two things. 1. In the perfection of its End. Plat. Legib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. All Laws must tend to the best End. 2. In its amplitude or Ex∣tention to all objects: a••l Lawgiver, saies Plato, must regard all virtue as Psal. 119.96.

§. 32. Having gone thorough all the causes of moral virtue;* 1.938 which are first its subject 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a voluntarie Agent, and Act. 2 its Genus, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an habit. 8. Its Forme, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 medio∣critie, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rectitude. 4 the Rule, and measure of this Forme, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Right Reason, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Com∣mon Law of Nature; it is easie hence to forme a Definition of moral Virtue, which Aristotle has done to our hands. Arist. Eth. l. 2. c. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Virtue is an Elective habit consisting in medio∣critie of things relating to us, defined by reason, and so as a wise man defines.

In which definition are these observables, 1. The Genus whis is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an habit not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a power, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a passion. 2. The specifick difference, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elective; where∣by moral habits, or Virtues are distinguished from Intellectual Arts, and Sciences, which are also habits. 3. Here is the subject matter, or object of moral virtue expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what relates to us, or is in our power, which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what is voluntarie. 4. Here is the Forme of Virtue, which consists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in mediocritie or re••••itude▪ 5. Here is the formal measure of this mediocritie, ex∣pressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••ight ••eason; (as before) We find the same repeated more particularlie though not so exactly, by Aristotle Eth. lib. 3. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

We have said of Virtues, that they are mediocrities; and that they are habits, and that they are of themselves desireable; and that they are of things in our power and voluntarie; and so as right reason prescribes

Wherein we have all the several ingredients of Virtue enumerated. We find a definition of Virtue much the same for substance gi∣ven by Plato Meno. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Virtue is an habit of the Soul, by the concurrence of the natural power, working that which is best, according to reason, and tending to the best End.* 1.939

From these Essential Ideas of Virtue we may draw these conclusions. 1. That true Virtue requires not only a good work, or matter, but the best End, which must informe this matter, as the Soul the bodie. 2. Hence also it follows, that all Virtues have one and the same uniforme,* 1.940 harmonious, simple Idea; in that they pro∣ceed all from the same divine habits, or principles, and tend to the same divine End. Thus Aristotle Eth. lib. 2. cap. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Good men act simplie and uniformelie, but wicked men variously. Whence he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For sin is infinite, but good is definite, and uniforme. So Plato Protag. fol 379. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Virtue is one, but its parts are Righteousnesse, temperance, and holinesse.

So Plato Rep. 4. fol. 445. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to me the face of Virtue seems to be one; whence virtue is stiled by him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Concent, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 symmetrie, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 harmonie. Whence also the Stoicks held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

all virtues are equal, or alike.

* 1.941§. 33. Having given a full Idea of Virtue, and that according to Aristotle's mind, we need not spend time in extracting his Idea of Vice or sin: for he himself acquaints us Ethic. lib. 5. cap. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a contrarie habit is known by its contrarie. As in Logick the affirmative being well stated, the negative is easilie discovered; so in Morals, virtue being well explicated, the Idea or face of vice is soon unmask'd. Thus as virtue requires an inte∣gritie of causes, and full concurrence of all circumstances: so Aristotle tels us, that vice proceeds from any defect of either moral cause, or circumstance, as Ethic. lib. 3. cap. 10. Art. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Vices arise either

when men do what they ought not, or as they ought not, or when they ought not, or the like, i. e. when there is any de∣fect in matter, or forme and manner, or time, or such like.

Agen, Aristot. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 5. tels us, as good is bounded by mediocritie, and Right Reason, and therefore uniforme; so Evil, is boundlesse and infinite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sin is various; for Evil is infinite. Agen, wh••••eas he defines Virtue a mediocritie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to Right Reason; he tels us Eth. lib. 1. cap. 13. that Vice is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, somewhat besides, or beyond Reason. So Stobaeus Ser. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sin is a transgression be∣sides right reason. Farther, Aristotle in his Eth. lib. 5. tels us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Just is lawfull, and equal, but unjust, illegal, and unequal;

according to the Scriptural definition of sin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sin is an Illegalitie, or a transgres∣sion of the Law. This Aristotle Eth. lib. 5. cap. 2. cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a trans∣gression of the Law. So Art. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an unjust man therefore seems to be a transgressor of the Law. The like Art. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what is unjust is a transgressing of the Law, and unequal. Yea Ari••••otle concludes Art. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This Transgre••••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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Unrighteousnesse is that, whereby we invade other mens rights, against Law.

So Arist. Rhet. lib. 1. cap. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to act unjustly is Voluntarilie to hurt again•••• law And in his Eth. lib. 2. cap. 1. he saies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Will of every Lawgiver is such as that they, who act not according to it, sin.

Thus also sin is stiled by his master Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ataxie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 asymmetrie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pleonexie, or Exor∣bitancie, opposite to the Eutaxie, symmetrie, and mediocritie of Virtue. So Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vice is an Exorbitancie, or intemperate Ex∣cesse: a metaphor taken from the su••••rabundance of any humour in the bodie called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thence defin. Plat. fol. 416. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sin is a practice against right reason. So Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 injustice is an habit, overlooking or neglecting Laws. Whence sin also is held by Plato 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But thus much for Aristotle's Ethicks in general.

* 1.942§. 34. We now proceed to Aristotle's Physicks, wherein he as∣serts, and demonstrates 1. God's universal Concurse the first mover in all motions;* 1.943 so Johan. Grammat. in Arist. de Anima proaem fol. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Aristotle in his Physicks about the End, disputing of Motion, & in quiring into its cause, elevated himself to the first cause, and pri∣ple of motion. And he said, that the first mover ought to be im∣mobile: 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 incorpo∣reous, eternal, and omnipotent saies, that on such a principle de∣pends 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 men∣tioned by Ammon••us in Arist. Categ. as before §. 14. see Simplicius in his comment. on Arist. Phys. lib. 8.* 1.944 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. Ari∣stotle, saith he, delivered a Canon proving the Soul to be immortal. The Canon is this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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 sepa∣rate 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the Soul is incorporeous.

§. 35. As for Aristotle's Metaphysicks,* 1.945 Ammonius stiles them his Theologicks. So Ammon in Arist. Categ. pag. 11.

Aristotle's Theolo∣logicks 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 in∣deed 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 Ʋnitie, Veritie, Bo∣nitie, &c.

also the Angels (which Aristotle cals Intelligen••es) and of the Soul in its separate state, concerning which Aristotle sometimes seems 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to hesitate; saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 'tis well observed by Stobaeus, Serm. 3.* 1.946 of Wisdome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

'Twas Aristotle's custome to call the same Science, both Wisdome and the first Philosophie, and Metaphysicks, and Theologie. Then (Aristotle addes) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.947 &c. First we conceive a wise man knows all things so far as 'tis possible yet so, as that he has not a particular (but only universal) knowledge of them. (2.) Thence we count him a wise man who is able to understand things difficult; not only such as are 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.* 1.948 (6.) And for the most part things most Uni∣versal are most difficult to be known by men; for such things are most remote from sense. (7.) Those also are the most accu∣rate of Sciences,* 1.949 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 Ʋniversal, 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,* 1.950 or Subordinate, &c, Whence also Aristotle addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

As we say a man is free, who is su••juris, for himself, and not for another: so this Sapience is the most free, and noble of all Scien∣ces; for it alone is for it self, and not for any other Science, whence also it appeares to be divine, and the most excellent of all Sciences.* 1.951

These Characters, which Aristotle gives to his di∣vine Sapience, or Metaphysicks, are applicable to no Science but the Contemplation of God, and things Divine. For God alone is the First, and most excellent being, the first principle, and cause of all things: and therefore the knowledge of him is the only true Sapience, desireable for it self, and most principal, divine, and excellent. This farther appears by the object of Metaphysicks; Now though Aristotle makes the Adequate Object of Metaphysicks to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ens, Being in its most Ʋinversal latitude; yet the Principal Object he makes to be the Prime Being and Universal cause of all other Beings, God himself, as did Plato his Master before him, cal∣ling God sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 very being, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 truely Be∣ing, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first Being, and most frequently 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Be••ng, clothed with Ʋnit••e, veritie, Goodnesse, &c. whence per∣haps Aristotle also made Ʋnitie, Veritie, and Goodnesse Affections of his Ens, in Genere.

CHAP. II. Of the Cynicks, their Sect, and Philosophie.

I. Antisthenes the father of the Cynicks, and his Schole the Cynosar∣ges. II. Whence they were called Cynicks? viz. from their severitie against vice, &c. III. The Professors of Cynicisme, Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates, Demetrius, &c. IIII. The Genius of the Cynicks, and their affinitie which the Stoicks. V. Their principles. 1. To Live according to Virtue. 2. That External goods, as Riches, Pleasures, Honors, are not desireable, because a wise man enjoys all good in God. 3. They disliked flatterie, and bore reproaches with pa∣tience. 4. They affected impudence. 5. They were great reprovers of Vice, especially of pride, yet guilty of the highest pride. 6. They rejected all conjectural Science, and Philosophie, Except moral. 7. They were Religious, but not so superstitious as others. 8. Their Justice, and Fidelitie. 9. Their prizing Libertie. The Cynick Philosophie origi∣nally from the Jews.

§. 1. HAving discoursed at large of the Platonick,* 1.952 and Aristo∣telick Philosophie, we now proceed to the Cynick, which had its foundation also from Socrates's Schole by Antisthenes the Disciple of Socrates, who being greatly pleased with those Dis∣courses of his Master, which treated of Tolerance, and Labour, in∣stituted this Sect; This Antisthenes the Head of the Cynicks (being by Countrie an Athenian, but by his Mothers side, a Phrygian) after the death of his Master Socrates made choice of the Cynosarges, a Schole at Athens, just without the Gates; as the fittest place to Philosophize in; so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Temple of the White, or swift Dog. The origination of this name is well given us by Hesychius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

The Cynosarges is a sacred place so called for this cause. They say when Diomus sacrificed to Her∣cules, there came a Dog, and Snatching away a legge of the Sacrifice, ran away therewith; others following him; and the place was so called from the whitenesse, or Velocitie of

the Dog.

Suidas has much the same in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

* 1.953§. 2. From this Schole the Cynosarges some conceive Antisthe∣nes, and his followers were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cynicks, and Antisthenes himself termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Sincere Dog. So Hesych us Illustris. Others, ill wishers to the Cynicks, will have them to be so called from their Doggish impudence. Empiricus (in Pyrrh. l. 1. c. 14.) suppo∣seth them to be called Cynicks from their defending good men, but barking at the wicked. This is the most probable conjecture. So Ammonius in Categor. pag 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Cynicks are so called for their Libertie in re∣proving Vice, and encourageing Virtue: For they say a dogge has somewhat of a Philosophick sagacitie, or discretion disco∣vered in his barking at strangers, and shaking his tail in a tawn∣ing manner on Domesticks. So these Cynicks smile on, and sa∣lute Virtues, and those, who live according to Virtue; but they avoid, and barke at passions, and those who live according to passion, albeit they be Kings.

Thus Ammonius: The like Dioge∣nes Laertius; who makes them to be so called, because they were sharpe reprovers of Vice, not regarding the taunts, and abuses put upon them; as hereafter.

* 1.954§. 3. Theopompus commends Antisthenes above all the Disciples of Socrates, as one endowed with a great acumen of judgement, and sweetnesse of discourse; by means whereof he could lead any man to what he would. See his Character at large in Diogenes La∣ertius,* 1.955 and Hesychius Illustris. Next unto Antisthenes, Diogenes Sino∣pensis, his Auditor, is of most repute amongst the Cynicks; who was indeed a person of prodigious Wit, as will appear by his follow∣ing sayings, and greatly admired by Alexander the Great, as also by Basil in his book Of reading Gentile books. Diogenes the Cynick had for his Disciples Monimus Syracusanus, Onesicritus, and Crates the Theban.* 1.956 This Crates had for his Auditors, his wife Hipparchia, her brother Metrocles, Menippus the Phenician, and Zeno the father of the Stoicks, whence sprang a great fraternitie and communion 'twixt the Cynicks, and Stoicks (as else where) The••e followed also De∣metrius Cynicus,* 1.957 who flourished in the time of Domitian the Emperor,

at Corinth; and drew into one Systeme all the Philosophie of the Cy∣nicks. Philostratus of the life of Apollonius, lib. 4. cap. 8. saies of him; that for Learning's sake he followed Apollonius, as Antisthenes Socrates, &c. Seneca gives this Demetrius a very large Character: So lib. 7. de Benef. cap. 1. Demetrius, saies he, was very great, if com∣pared with the greatest. Agen cap. 8. he was a man of exact Wisdome. Also Epist. 62. He was the best of men: I admire him, why should I not admire him? I have seen nothing wanting in him. Tacitus likewise Annal. 16. cap. 34. gives an honorable mention of him.

§. 4. As for the Genius of the Cynick Sect,* 1.958 it is greatly extolled by Arrianus in Epictet. lib. 3. Dissert. cap. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; where he sets forth the Cynick Philosophie as masculine, and generous. And in∣deed there was a very great Cognation betwixt the Cynicks, and Stoicks. So Laertius lib. 6. having mentioned the agreement 'twixt the Cynicks, and Stoicks as to their sentiments of the chiefest Good, he addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

There is a certain communion betwixt these two Sects, whence they (the Stoicks) said Cynicisme is a short way to Virtue.

Laertius here points at Zeno, who honored the Cynick sect with this Elogie: And indeed no wonder, seeing he him∣self, who was the head of the Stoicks, sucked in a main part of his Philosophie from Crates the Cynick. Yet the Stoicks differed from the Cynicks not only in external habit, but also in Modestie; which was the main motive, that enduced Zeno to quit the Cynick Sect: for being commanded by Crates to do some unbecoming acts, his modestie made him refuse, and quit Crates's Schole; as hereafter. The Affinitie betwixt the Cynicks, and Stoicks will farther appear by their Principles, and Practices.

§. 5. The first main principle of the Cynicks was,* 1.959 that our Chief End is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to live according to Virtue; which was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or first principle of the Stoicks also. And indeed th••re were scarce any of the Wiser Philosophers, but embraced this Principle; for they were all convinced of a vanitie, and vexation, that attended sensible enjoyments; as also of a more than ordi∣narie beautie and sweetnesse, which was appendent unto Virtue; only herein they greatly abused this common principle; in that they made Virtue desireable for it self, and so their God.* 1.960

§. 6.2. Hence also the Cynicks affected a mean obscure, yea in∣indeed

sordid kind of life.

Wherefore (saies Laertius in Antisthe∣nes) they lived meanly, contemning Riches, Glorie, Nobilitie: Their Food was herbs, and cold Water, their houses obvious, and tubs,* 1.961 &c.

All which Cyn••ck Mortification was sounded on that Principle of Diogenes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Its proper to the Gods to want nothing, and to those, who are like to the Gods, to make use of but few things.

Whence also they asserted, that a Wise man enjoys all th••ngs in God: so Diogenes the Cynick (as Laertius tels us) affirmed, that

Wise men enjoyed all things; because all things belonged to the Gods; and the Gods were friends to wise men: now among friends all things are common. Hence likewise they held, that Riches, Honors, Pleasures, and whatever the world admired should be contemned. Wherefore Crates Thebanus, a noble man of great wealth, sold his patrimonie, and betook himself to Cy∣nick Philosophie upon the persuasion of Diogenes; and notwith∣standing the importunitie of his friends to the contrarie, he abode fixed in that opinion of the Cynicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That Philosophers have need of nothing. Hence also they delighted much in frugalitie, according to that of Greg. Nazianzen. Orat. 23. touching Hero Alexandrinus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

In the Cynick Sect he accused their impietie, but praised their frugalitie.

Lastly; upon the same account they disliked all publick Games, shews, or pass-times. So Diogenes the Cynick said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Olympick games were but great miracles of fools.

* 1.962§. 7.3. Hence also the Cynicks abhored flatterie, and bore reproaches with much patience, and constancie. Thence Antisthenes being commended, said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what ill have I done? meaning it was an ill thing to be commended. Again being much applauded by a wicked man, he said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I am in an Agonie, least I have done ill;

And Diogenes being asked, what beast bit most perniciously? replyed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Of wild beasts the Sycophant, and of tame beasts the flatterer bites worst.

He had also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a flattering oration is but an honey snare. As for bearing of reproach∣es, the Cynicks were very eminent, as Diogenes Laertius acquaints us. Orates was wont industriously to rail at whores, thereby to exer∣cise

himself for to bear railing: and when others Scoffed at the deformitie of his face, holding up his hands he was wont to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Be confident, Crates, for thine eyes, and the rest of thy bodie, for thou shalt see Scof∣fers punished, though now they blesse themselves.

Diogenes the Cynick being told, that many mocked him, he replyed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I mock not aga••n.

§. 8.4. Hence the Cynicks affected a kind of impudence,* 1.963 and immodestie even in things dishonest. So it's said of Crates, that he lay with his wife, and had to do with her in open place. So Diogenes the Cynick did many things very unbeseeming, which rendred him among many very ridiculous, but Diogenes Laertius gives this favorable interpretation of this his seeming excesse: Laert. lib. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Diogenes said, that he imi∣tated the Masters of the chorus, who admitted some excesse in their tone, that so others might be reduced to a Concent.

So that, according to Laertius, these extravagant excesses, and exor∣bitant impudencies of the Cynicks were assumed only to shame others out of Vices; but this their designe being not under∣stood by the vulgar, hence their Sect became contemptible, and exploded. Thence Cicero de Officiis 1^o. saies, that,

The Nation of the Cynicks is wholly to be expelled, for it is an enemie to Modestie, without which nothing can be right, nothing honest.

Whence Sidomus tels us, that in his age there scarce remained any of the Cynick Sect.

§. 9.5.* 1.964 The Cynicks were severe censors and reprovers of Vice; whence some will have them called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as before. And Diogenes the Cynick being sensible of this imputation, that he was esteemed of a currish biting disposition, said wittily 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I bite only Evil men. And as they were great reprovers of vice in gene∣ral; so in a more special manner of Pride. Thus Antisthenes see∣ing a Vessel wherein Plato had vomited▪ said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I see his choler here, but I cannot see his pride:* 1.965 meaning Plato had not vomited that up as yet. And Diogenes the Cynick coming into Plato's Schole, he goes and treads upon his bed, or Philosoph••zing seat, with this expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I tread here on Plato's vain studie, or proud Philosophie; to which Plato

replies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

O Diogenes, how much of pride dost thou manifest, whilest thou seemest not to be proud?

And indeed Plato spake truth: for Diogenes, and the rest of the Cyn••cks under their external, and seeming self-denial concealed much of real pride, and self-advancement. For the highest self-advancement is that, which ariseth from a pre∣tended self-abasement. Thus the Cynicks in words cry down pride, though in deeds they cry it up. So Demetrius the Cyn••ck said; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The height of Pride should be taken away, but the sense of it left.

* 1.966§. 10.6. The Cynicks rejected all conjectural Sciences; as Astro∣logie, and Divination by dreams, &c. Whence Diogenes the Cynick blamed the Mathematicians, who looked into the Moon, and stars, but overlookt the things under their feet: He said farther to one discoursing about Meteors 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; when camest thou out of hea∣ven?* 1.967 Also to some affrighted at their dreams, he said

Those things you do waking, you consider not, but those things you imagine in your dreams you curiously inquire into.

Yea they rejected all Learning and Philosophie, except moral; holding that our End is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to live according to Virtue. Hence they requir∣ed in their Disciples pure, and Chast minds. So Anti••henes to a youth abused unto Sodomie, but willing to be instructed by him, and demanding what was needful for him in order thereto, re∣plyed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a new book, a new pen, and a new table: meaning a new mind is necessarie for a Disciple: as Diogen. Laert. in Antisthenes.

* 1.968§. 11.7. The Cynicks were very religious towards the Gods, yet not so superstitious, as the Pythagoreans and othe•• Sects. Thence Diogenes the Cynick supping in the Temple, the Offalls, that were left, he took away, saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nothing

that is sordid, must enter into the Temple.

Yet were they not superstitiously conceited about ceremonies of Religion: where∣fore Ant••sthenes, after he had initiated himself at the Orphean Ora∣cle, to studie those my••teries, a Prie••t telling him, that those, who were initiated in those Rites should partake of many things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after death; he replyed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; why then dost thou not dye? intimating that those ceremonies, and outward formalities were not a good foundation to rely upon.

§. 12.8. The Cynicks were great admirers of Justice, Faithful∣nesse,* 1.969 &c. So Diogenes was honored by Xeniades his Master, who had found him very faithful, with this Character 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. a good Daemon has entred mine house. And the same Diogenes being upbraided by one for stamping money falsely, re∣plyed,

Time was, when I was, as thou now art; but such as I now am, thou wilt never be.

Meaning that he was now quite another man. Whence also he said touching living well 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

why livest thou, if thou hast no care to live well?

§. 13.9. The Cynicks were great Esteemers of Libertie,* 1.970 as all the Philosophers generally were; whence that saying touching Diogenes the Cynick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

He preferred nothing more than Libertie.

§. 14.10. The Cynicks held also with the Stoicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that Virtue was teachable;* 1.971 wherein they differed from Socrates. More concerning the Cynicks, their Dogmes, and Institutions. See Diogen. Laert••us in Anti••henes; Augu••t. Civit. Dei. lib. 14. cap. 20. and lib. 19. cap. 1. with Lud. Vives thereon.

§. 15. That the Cynicks traduced the main of their Dogmes,* 1.972 and Institutes originally from the Jewish Church may appear. 1. From what has been demonstrated touching Socrates, and his Philoso∣phie being derived from the Jewish Church. 2. From the original of some of the Cynicks, who were of Phenician extract; as Menippus the Phenician, &c. 3. From the Cognation 'twixt the Cynicks, and Stoicks, who received their Philosophie originally from the Jews, as it will appear in the following Chapter. §. 8.

* 1.973CHAP. III. Of the Stoick Sect, and Philosophie, its original, &c.

§. I. Of Zeno his Original, and Praeceptors. II. Zeno's Schole the Stoa; his institution of the Stoick Sect, his Charactor. III. Cleanthes his Character. IIII. Chrysippus his repute amongst the Stoicks. V. Dio∣genes Babylonius, Antipater, Possidonius. VI. Roman Stoicks, Cato, Varro, Antoninus, Tullie, Seneca. VII. Christian Sto∣icks. VIII Stoick Philosophie was but a corrupt derivation from the Jewish Theologie. IX. Of Stoicisme in general, and its combination with Socratick, and Cynick Philosophie, with its difference from the Peripatetick, and New Academick. X. Particular Dogmes of Stoi∣cisme. 1. of the Stoick Comprehension. 2. The Stoick Metaphysicks; of God, his Names, Nature, and Attributes, of God's works of creation, and Providence, of fate, and God's providence over Mankind. 3. Of the Stoick Physicks, the Soul; the Stoick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 4. the Stoick Ethicks. 1. Appetition, and self-preservation, with tolerance, and ab∣stinence. 2. That passions are irrational 3. that the wise are only free. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 6. Virtue desirable for it self. §. 15. The corrup∣tions of Stoicisme, and its opposition to Christianitie.

* 1.974§. 1. NExt to the Cynicks follow the Stoicks, who received their original from them, by Zeno the founder of their Sect, who was sometimes Scholar to Crates. This Zeno was borne at Cittium, a Greek Sea-town in the Isle of Cyprus. So Strabo lib. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Cittium has a port, which may be shut; hence sprang Zeno the prince of the Stoick Sect.

This Cittium was planted, and enha∣bited by a Colonie of the Phenicians, whence Zeno was by some stil∣ed the Phenician; Thence Crates cals him the little Phenician; as Suidas in Zeno: Zeno being according to Laertius about 17. years of age (or as Persaeus 22.) took a voyage to Athens, whither he was inclined, as well by his particular propension to Philosophie, as by his businesse, which was to sell some purple, which he had

brought out of Phenicia, as some will have it. Though Laertius seems to make the only ground of his voyage into Greece to be for traffick; but being robbed by Pirats, or shipwrackt, he thence took occasion of going to Athens; where consulting the oracle, how he might live best? answer was made, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

If he should joyn himself to the dead, &c.

which understand∣ing of studie, he betook himself with great diligence to read the books of the Ancients, and so came into familiaritie with Crates the Cynick, but being, as Laertius tels us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, too modest for the Cynick Impudence, leaving Cra∣tes, he applied himself to Stilpo the Megarick Philosopher; From him he betook himself unto Zenocrates: He heard also Polemo the Academick as Cicero lib. 1. Quaest. Acad.

§. 2. Zeno having been long an hearer of others;* 1.975 endeavoured to correct what was amisse in them, and at length thought good to institute a new Sect: for which purpose he made choice of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the painted Porch, so named from the Pictures of Po∣lygnatus, otherwise called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where in the time of the 30 Tyrants near 1400. Citizens were put to death. So Laertius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.976

Here Zeno walked, and Philosophized, whither resorted many Disciples, who (as Laertius addes) were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from this Stoa called Stoicks.

Zeno was indeed a person of great Intellectuals, and naturals; as it appears by the opposition made against him by Carneades, who was fain in his engagements against Zeno to purge his head with white Hellebore. And as his worth was great, so his reputation amongst the Athenians was not little: For by the Philoso∣phie, which he taught, and by the practice of his Life conforma∣ble to that Doctrine, Zeno gained so high an estimation amongst the Athenians, that they deposited the keys of their Citie in his hands, with their Liberties. His name was also much honored by his own Country-men, as well at Cyprus, as at Sidon. See Stanley of Stoick. Philosophie; and Diogenes Laertius of Zeno, who farther addes, that Zeno being sensible, what gain he had by Philosophie, was wont to say touching his losses at Sea, which were the oc∣casion thereo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I made a prosperous voi∣age, when I suffered shipwrack, &c.

* 1.977§. 3. Zeno of Cittium was succeeded by Cleanthes Assius his Audi∣tor, who by reason of his unwearied labour and indefatigable studie was termed another Hercules; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because he imploy∣ed himself in drawing water by night that so he might by day imploy himself in his studies. Thence that of Arrianus in Epictetum, lib. 3. cap. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;

Where is Cleanthes, who together followed his studies, and drew water? Tullie gives him an high Character, calling him the father of the Stoicks, as lib. 3. de Natura Deorum.

And Simplicius commentar. in Euchirid. Epicteti tells us,

that he was so far honored by the Roman Senat, that they appointed his Statue to be erected at Assum, a Citie of Eolis, where he was born. And certainly the Fragments of his Workes, which yet remain, argue him to have been a per∣son of great worth as to Philosophie.

We find 37. Heroick ver∣ses with an Hemistich of his in Stobaeus's Physick Eclogues: also 5. Jambicks turned into Latin in Senecae Epist. 107. likewise 4. Heroicks in Clemens Alexandr. lib. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. besides Proses in Sextus; and Jam∣bicks in Plutarch,* 1.978 and Galen, with others.

§. 4. Cleanthes's Auditor, and successor was Chrysippus, who was borne at Sole, a Town of Cilicia (whence came the name Solaecisme) and of great repute amongst the Stoicks, according to that old saying of Laertius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

unlesse there had been a Chrysippus, the Stoa had not subsisted. So Tul∣lie lib. 1. de Finibus: Nothing▪ saies he▪ belonging to the Stoick Philosophie was pretermitted by Chrysippus.

He writ an excellent Discourse of Providence, out of which Aulus Gellius (lib. 6. cap. 2.) has collected some heads, of which yet Laertius, who has writ his life, makes no mention.

§. 5. Chrysippus was heard, and succeded by Diogenes Babylonius: Diogenes by Antipater: and Antipater by Possidonius. We find all these mentioned together by Galen, or who ever else were the author 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, initio, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

This man was heard by Zeno of Cit∣tium, who invented the Philosophie of the Stoicks, whose mode of Philosophizing was followed by Cleanthes; of whom Chrysippus was an auditor, who followed the same Institution: of this

man Diogenes Babylonius was Auditor, as also Master of Antipater; of whom Possidonius was Auditor.

Diogenes Babylonius was he, who in the Second Punick War (P. Scipio and M. Marcellus being Con∣suls) was together with Carneades the Academick,* 1.979 and Critolaus the Peripatetick sent by the Athenians to Rome on Publick Embas∣sage, as Cicero lib. 4. Tuscul. Diogenes, Laertius (in Diogenes the Cy∣nick) tels us, that he was borne at Seleucia, and called Babybonian from the vicinitie of Place. The Disciple of this Diogenes Baby∣lonius was Antipater Sidonius, whom Cicero de Officiis lib. 3. cals the most acute person. Seneca Epist. 92. reckons him amongst the famous Heroes of the Stoick Sect. He was of Sidon, and thence termed Sido∣nius. The Disciples of Antipater, were Panaetius, as also Possidonius.* 1.980 This Possidonius was Originally of Syria, though he chose ra∣ther to passe for a Rhodian, as Strabo, and Athenaeus. Strabo lib. 16. saies he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the most learned of his Age. Also lib. 14. that he had the Administration of the Rhodian Republick.

§. 6. Besides these there are several others amongst the Ro∣mans, who may justly be reputed of the Stoick Sect,* 1.981 as Tubero, Cato, Varro; and after them Thraseus Paetus, Helvidius Priscus, Rubellius,* 1.982 Plautus, with M. Antoninus the Emperor, in whose time no Sect flourished so much as the Stoick, according to Sextus Empiricus: Tullie seems mostly in love with this Sect; as in Tuscul. 4. where he seems to make them almost the only laudable Sect. How far Seneca was enclined to this Sect is evident enough by his Epistles: Epistol. 83. he cals it the the most valiant and holie Sect; and de Const. Sap. cap. 1. he saies

There was so much difference 'twixt the Stoicks, and other Professors of Wisdom, as there was 'twixt men, and women.

Seneca received the Principles of Stoick Philo∣sophie from Sotion, whom he acknowledgeth to be his Praeceptors So Epist. 49. and 58.

§. 7. Yea not onely amongst the Gentiles, but even amongst Christians many were much drencht in Stoick Philosophie.* 1.983 So Pantae∣nus Bishop of Alexandria, who as Jerom acquaints us, i•• was sent to

the Indian Brachmans, to preach Christ among them, that so, if it might please God, this Christian Philosopher might convert those Pagan Philosophers.

Disciple to this Pantaenus was Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, who oft discovers his affection to the Stoick Philosophie. That which made this Sect so pleasing to many Chri∣stians,

as well as Pagans, was the gravitie of their conversation, their contempt of terrene good, their moderation in the use of crea∣ture-comforts, and patience in the want of them: Hence Jerom on Esa. 10. saies,

the Stoicks do in many things agree with our Dogmes.

§. 8. And indeed no wonder, if the Stoicks agreed very far with the Chri••tian Religion as to morals;* 1.984 seeing the choicest of their notions were but corrupt derivations and traductions from the Sacred fountain of Israel: which will be evident from these particulars. 1. The Stoicks Morals were but rivulets streaming from the Socratick Philosophie, which, as we have before demon∣strated, had its original from Jewish Morals delivered by Solomon and others. 2. Zeno the Founder of the Stoick Sect was (as we have before shewen §. 1.) Native of Cittium, a Phenician Town in Cyprus, and so of Phenician extract. Now (as we have else where demonstrated at large) the Phenicians had familiar conversation with the Jews, & great notices of their Doctrines, especially such as were moral. That Zeno traduced the choicest parts of his Philosophie from the Phenicians, and Jews is well observed by Hornius Hist. Philos. lib. 3. cap. 16.

It is easie for any to understand whence Zeno attained to so great Sapience. For seeing he had his original from Cittium, which received Phenician Colonies, we need no way doubt, but that he drew from their Monuments, and Myste∣ries, those his contemplations, which do so much accord with Divine Veritie; Especially such things, as de delivered touch∣ing Providence. Cyprus is near Palestine and Aegypt, yea enhabited by Colonies from both; &c.

3. Yea in Cyprus, where Zeno suck∣ed in his first breath, and institution, there were many Jews, as Grotius on Math. 22.23.

In Cyprus (saies he) whence Zeno was, there were ever many Jews.

4. Antipater a great Master of the Stoick Philosophie was also of Sidon, a Phenician town bordering on Judea; and thence had great advantage for the acquainting himself with the Jewish Institutes, and Morals, as. §. 5. 5. Last∣ly many of the Stoick Dogmes are apparently of Jewish origination; as the Stoick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Spermatick word, whereby the Ʋniverse was framed; which is evidently a derivation from Gen. 1.1. Also the Stoick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or final conflagration, and purification of all things by fire is evidently no other, than some broken tradition of

Enoch's, or some Jewish prophecie of the last conflagration; as else where we may prove. The truth of this position will far∣ther appear from the following Dogmes of Stoicisme.

§. 9.* 1.985 First that Stoi••isme was but a branch of the Socratick Phi∣losophie is sufficiently apparent both from their agreeme••t in mat∣ter, and also from the assistance Zeno had from Socrates's Disci∣ples. The Stoicks also held a very good correspondence and ac∣cord with those of the old Academie.* 1.986 But their chiefest commu∣nion was with the ••ynicks. For Zeno their founder was first insti∣tuted in Cynicisme under Crates, whence there sprang a great fraternitie 'twixt the Cynicks and Stoicks, as in the former Chapter. §. 4. The Stoicks stood at a great di••tance from, and Contest with the Peripateticks about the agreement of Natural, and Moral good. The Stoicks held that things hone••t were disjoyned from things Commodious toto genere, in their whole Nature:* 1.987 The Peripateticks h••ld their difference to be only gradual. Some thought this Contro∣versie 'twixt the Stoicks, and Pe••ipateticks to be only verbal: So Antiochu••, Varro's Praeceptor, who composed a book of the Concord 'twixt the Stoicks, and Peripateticks. But Cicero, lib. 1. de Nat. Deo∣rum, contradicts him thus.

I wonder that Antiochus a person so greatly acute saw not, that there was an huge distance 'twixt the Stoicks, who disjoyned things hone•• from things commodious, not only in name, but toto genere; and the Peripateticks, who com∣pounded thi••gs hone••t w••th things commodious so as they should differ amongst themselves in magnitude, and degrees only, not in kind. For this is not a small dissension of words only, but a very great difference of things.

Yet in some things the Stoicks and Peripateti••ks agreed; as that they both made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, right reason, the measure of good, and ••vil•• they both made Virtue desirable for it self, &c. The Stoicks also differed much from those of the New Academie, who stiffely asserted an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or incompreh••nsion. For Zeno had sharp, and perpetual conflicts with Arcesilas,* 1.988 who instituted the Second Acad••mi••, and the Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whence also Ca••n••ad••s, who was the In••itutor of the third, or New Acad••mie, writ sharpely aga••nst Zeno the Stoick his b••oks, as Aul. Gellius lib. 17. cap. 15.* 1.989

§. 10. As for the particular Dogmes of Stoicisme, the Stoicks held 1. That there are certain, common principles, or Ideas in men,

which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Comprehensions, in opposition to the Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, incomprehension, introduced by Arcesilas. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was first used in this sense by Leno; and that in a sense Meta∣phorical, and borrowed from things apprehended by the hand, which allusion he expressed by action: for shewing his hand with the fingers stretched forth, this he made the image of fancie: then bending them a little, this he made a symbol of assent: then com∣pressing them, and closing his fist, this he made to be comprehension; which according to the Stoicks is a firme, and certain knowledge. For, say they, whatsoever is understood, is comprehended by the mind one of these two waies: either 1. by evident incursion which Laertius stiles a knowledge by sense, or 2. by transition from Ev••dence, termed by Laertius collection by Demonstration, of which they make 3. kinds. 1. Assimilation: So a person is comprehended by his picture. 2. Composttion as of a Goat and an Hart is made Hirco-cer∣vus. 3. Analogie, which is either by Augmentation, or Diminution. Thus of Stoick comprehension.

* 1.990§. 11. 2. As to Metaphysicks; the Stoicks held, as Laertius tels us, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That God was but one called by several names viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the mind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fate, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jupiter, &c. 2. They define God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

That God is a Living, Immortal, Rational, Perfect Being, or intellectual in happinesse, void of all Evil, providential over the world, not of human forme, maker, and, as it were, parent of the Universe. According to Plutarch. Philos••ph. Placit. 1.6. The Stoicks define God, A spirit full of in∣telligence, of a fierie nature, having no proper forme, but trans∣forming himself into whatsoever he pleaseth. So Laertius ac∣quaints us, that they held God to be the first, most pure being, whose essence was comprehensive of, and diffused through all beings. 3. The Stoicks asserted likewise, that God was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ingenerable, and incorruptible. We understand by God, saith Antipater, a living Nature, or substance, happie, incorruptible, doing good to mankind, &c.

* 1.991§. 12. Touching God••s Works of Creation, and Providence, La∣ertius informes us, that the Stoicks held

God to be the first Cause of all things, and as the faetus is conteined in the Seed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So also God was the Spermatick Word

of the Ʋniverse, according to Joh. 1.12. They affirme also (addes Laertius) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the Universe was framed according to infinite Wisdome, prevision, or Providence: according to Gen. 1.31.

God saw. Touching God's Providence over the World,* 1.992 the Stoicks assert (as Plutarch. Placit. Philos.)

That God is an operative artificial fire, Methodically ordering, and effecting the generation of things, comprehending in him∣self all that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prolifick Virtue, whereby every thing is produced according to fate.

This seems the same with the Platonick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ʋniversal spirit traduced from Gen. 1.2. which is farther evident from their notions of Fate, which Zeno makes not to differ much from Nature, and Providence. Chrysippus defines Fate,* 1.993

a spiritual power governing the world orderly, or an eternal indeclinable series of things commixing, and impli∣cating it self by eternal orders of consequence, of which it is composed, and connected: or the reason of the world, or the law of all things in the world governed by Providence. Panaetius the Stoick expressely asserts Fate to be God.

Though many of the Fathers, as Ju••tin Martyr. Apol. 1. Ireneus, Epiphanius with others dispute vehemently against this Stoick Fate, &c. The Stoicks held also, that the Gods had a more particular providence over mankind,* 1.994 which is manifested by this, that all things in the world were made for the use of Man. Hence also they held with Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and the rest, certain Daemons, which had inspection over, and compassion for men: So Laertius in Zeno 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That these Daemons were but Satanick Apes of the Jewish Messias, we have else where demonstrated.

§. 13. Touching Natural Philosophie, the Stoicks held. 1. The Soul to be a spirit connatural, and immortal: So Laertius in Zeno,* 1.995 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. They asserted also the final conflagration of the World by fire, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and traduced originally from the Jews, though immediately from the Phenicians, as Grotius affirmes. This (saies he) Zens received from the Phenicians, &c.

§. 14.* 1.996 But the Stoicks chief excellence consistes in Moral Phi∣losophie; the first part whereof they place in Appetition, and their

first appetition (according to Laertius) is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to preserve self,

for, say they, it is not lawfull for any to be so proper to any, as to himself, and because nothing conduceth so much to self-preservation, as tolerance, and abstinence: thence some com∣prehend the whole of their Morals in these two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bear, and abstain.* 1.997

2. The Stoicks held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Passions were ir∣rational: whence they defined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Passion is the irrational, and preternatural motion of the Soul: again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

an inordinate impulse: and thence they concluded all wise men were austere, not indulging themselves, or others, in pleasures, grief, or other passions.

They held also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Will was contrarie to concupiscence. Whence they assert also, that there were 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or good affections in wise men: namely Will, Joy, and Caution: but 4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or pertur∣bations in fools, Cupiditie, Gladnesse, Fear, and Sorrow: as Lud: Vives in Aug. Civ. lib. 14. cap. 8.

§. 14.3. The Stoicks held also (as Diogen. Laert.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

that the wise man was only free, but wicked men slaves.

This Libertie they defined thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Libertie is a power of self-motion. 4. They affirmed likewise, that there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a right reason not only Objective, but also Subjective, and innate in human nature, which be∣ing improved might bring men to a state of happiness. So Laer∣tius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 5. Hence also they held, that there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a good nature, or seeds of Virtue in nature, and Free-will to good. Whence likewise, contrarie to Socrates, they asserted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Virtue was teachable. So Zeno, in an Epi∣stle to Antigonus, saith,

that a generous nature with indifferent exercise, &

the assistance of a Praeceptor might easily attain to per∣ect Virtue. 6. Some of them held, that Virtue might be lost; others that it could not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by reason of those firme princi∣ples. Cleanthes said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That a righteous man was such by Nature, not by institution.

7. They held also, that Virtue was desirable for it self, and that our Objective happinesse lay in Virtue, &c. 8. They thence affirmed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

That friendship was to be found only amongst virtuous persons, by reason of their like∣nesse. 9. They held likewise, that holie persons only could

Worship God aright, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that devout, and just persons only were skilful in such Rites, as belonged to the Gods.

10. Lastly they affirmed that a virtu∣ous man affects not monastick life, but active. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

a Virtuous person is communicative by nature, and active.

See these Dogmes of Stoicisme more largely in Laertius on Zeno, where he gives us a brief account of the whole bodie of Stoick Philosophie. The same, as to morals, is laid down more fully by Epictetus in his Enchiridion, as also by Simplicius in his annota∣tions thereon, & yet more amply by Arrianus, who collected Epi∣ctetus his Stoick Discourses delivered at home, or abroad, & digested them into a systeme. But none has given us a more perfect Idea of Stoick Philosophie, than amongst the ancients Lucius Seneca, and A∣mongst the moderne Lipsius in his Manuduct. to Stoick Philosophie.

§. 15. Albeit the Stoicks, as to Morals,* 1.998 came the nearest of any to Christians, yet were they of all Sects of Philosophers the great∣est Enemies to the Christian Religion: and indeed no wonder; seeing their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or whole designe was to attain unto Happinesse by their Virtuous Works, and so to make that of their own Carnal Wisdome, and Free-will to all good, which we do of Christ. Hence they asserted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a right reason, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Free-will to all good, with seeds of Virtue in human nature. Whence Austin affirmes, that the Stoicks as well, as the Epicureans, come under that condemnation of the Apostle Rom. 8.5.* 1.999 &c. They that are after the flesh, &c. For indeed to make our own Wis∣dome, and Free-will, our God, as the Stoicks did, is the most cursed piece of our Carnal-mindednesse, and Idolatrie. Now that the Sto∣icks made their own Wisdome, and Virtues their God, is very evi∣dent from that of Grotius in Act. 17.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] who there

saies, that the Stoicks were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vessels filled with vain presumption, and most averse from the Christian Re∣ligion; they denyed, that their Wise man came short in any thing of Jupiter; that he owed nothing to God for his Wisdome; That Jupiter could not do more than a good man; that Jupiter was for a longer time good, but that a wise man esteemed never the worse of himself, because his Virtues were shut up within a narrower compasse of time: which you find in Seneca Epi••t. 73. that a man should kill himself, rather than endure servitude, con∣tumelies,

or great diseases.

Thus Grotius. And indeed Stoick Phi∣losophie, albeit it give us an excellent Idea of Moralitie, yet falling upon our nature as degenerate, and corrupt, it has hitherto been of little use, save to feed spiritual pride, and turn off men from the Covenant of Grace to live upon the old Covenant of Works. This is sufficiently evident from that poisonous influence which Sto∣ick Philosophie has had on Pelagianisme: For the chiefest of the Pelagian infusions received their first ferment from the Stoa; Whence sprang the Pelagian Right Reason; Free-will; Seeds of Vir∣tue; Impeccancie, or perfect state, but from the Stoick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.1000 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? as we shall else where, God willing, de∣monstrate fully. That Stoick Philosophie is very apt to puff up, and swell proud corrupt nature, Plutarch himself seems to confesse in Cleomene, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Stoick Philosophie, if it fall upon great, and acute natures, proves lubricous, inordinate, or doubtful; but if it be tem∣pered with a grave, and meek, or humble mind, it confers much to true, or proper good.

This great, or proud nature, which receives so much dammage by Stoick Philosophie, is com∣mon to all men naturally: and the truely humble, and Meek spirit (which Plutarch makes the only sit subject for Stoick Philosophie) is no where to be found, but in the Schole of Christ, namely among such, who being stript of their own Wisdom, Free-wil to all Good, and other legal sufficiencies, know how to improve those Stoick Principles of Moralitie on Gospel motives or grounds, with Gos∣pel dependance on Christ, and unto Gospel Ends, viz. the exal∣tation of Christ his free Grace, and the Glorie of it. This is the true Christian Stoicisme.

CHAP. IIII. Of Scepticisme.

I. Of the Scepticks, their several names. II. Pyrr••o his Chara∣cter and chief Dogme, that nothing was knowable. III. The formal Idea of Scepticisme. IIII. The main designe of Scepticks to over∣throw the Dogmes of other Sects. V. Scepticks denyed any thing to be just, or unjust. VI. The original of this Sceptick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Hera∣clitus's, and Plato's Schole. VII. Plato, and the old Academicks not Sceptick, but Dogmatick. VIII. Wherein the New Academicks differed from the Scepticks. IX. The Scepticks avoided all man∣ner of Dogmatizing. X. Scepticisme a great enemie to the Christi∣an Religion. XI. How far 'tis commendable, and useful.

§. 1. NExt to the Stoicks we shall mention the Scepticks,* 1.1001 who were also stiled Pyrrhonians from Pyrrho their chief Coryphaeus. Laertius in Pyrrho informes us, that they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Scepticks, be∣cause they alwaies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

consider a matter, but never deter∣mine any thing:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aporeticks, because they always 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doubt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ephecticks, because, after all their long, and tedi∣ous inquisitions, there follows no assent, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an hesitation, and suspension of judgement, or retention of assent. Lastly they were stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Zeteticks, because they were ever seeking, but never sound the truth.

§. 2. The Head of this Sect was Pyrrho, who flourished in the time of Theophrastus, and Epicurus, about the 109. Olympiad;* 1.1002 for he heard Dryso the Son of Stilp••, and Anaxarchus the Abderite; whom also he accompanied into India, in the Expedition of Alex∣ander the Great, yea was present, when the Indian upbraided Anaxarchus,

that he followed the Court of Kings, but taught no one Virtue: As Laertius in Anaxarchus: who also brings in Asca∣nius affirming of Pyrrho, that he seemed to have sound out a no∣ble way of Philosophizing by introducing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, incomprehension,

and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suspension:* 1.1003 for he asserted nothing: and truely (addes Laertius) Pyrrho's life was agreeable to his opinions; for he shunned nothing, nor took any heed to his waies.

We find the like mention of Pyrrho, and his incomprehension in Ammonius (Com∣ment. in Arist. Categ. pag. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Pyrrho the chieftain of this Sect said, that Beings had an incomprehension, &c.

* 1.1004§. 3. Hence the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or chief Dogme of the Scepticks is,

that nothing could be known, and therefore nothing might be affirmed, or denyed.

So Anaxarchus Pyrrho's master held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

neither did he know this, that he knew nothing. So Zenophanes said that, no one certainly knew any thing: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for truth lieth in an abysse.

Whence Sex∣tus Empiricus cap. 4. dennes

Scepticisme a facultie opposing Phae∣nomena's or apparences, and intelligibles all manner of waies, whereby we proceed through the equivalence of contrarie things, and speeches, first to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suspension, then to indistur∣bance. Thence those expressions of the same Sextus Empiricus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not more this, than that: agen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Every reason has a reason equal opposed thereto; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I define nothing:

Lastly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I persevere a Sceptick, or considering, &c.

§. 4. Whence the Scepticks made it their main businesse, to overthrow all the Dogmes of the other Dogmatick Sects, not by affirming,* 1.1005 or defining any thing; but by producing the opinions of all other Sects, and shewing their invaliditie or weaknesse.

They instanced (saith Laertius) in ten waies, by which things became doubtful to us:

as from the difference 1. of Animals, 2. of men 3. of Senses 4. of Affections, and their vicissitudes 5. of Edu∣cations, Institutions, Laws, and Customes, &c. Thence they deny∣ed, that there were any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 common principles known of themselves, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comprehensions; and so all Demonstration was by them taken away; concluding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the whole is indemonstrable. They also denyed, that there were any in∣fallible signes, &c. This their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they termed also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because their opinion held in bivio, without encl••ning to this, or that part: They named it also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because there was nothing affirmed, or denyed: for they durst not affirme that they were borne, or so much as that they were men.

§. 5. Yea the Sceptick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension reach'd so far,* 1.1006 as that they asserted nothing to be Good, or Evil; just, or unjust; but that men passed their judgement according to the institution of Laws, and Custome; not that one thing was in it self more just, or unjust than another. Yea at last they came to affect an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the very senses were not to be credited. So Anaxarchus being car∣ried against his will to Cyprus, where he was thrown into an hol∣low rock, and command given, that he should be beaten with iron hammers; he seeming not to regard his pain said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

beat Anaxarchus's Vessel, but Anax∣archus himself thou canst not break.

Lastly we find the whole mysterie of this Sceptick Hesitation well expressed by Aristocles in Eusebius Praepar. Evang. lib. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Things are equally indifferent, and uncertain, and undeterminable; wherefore neither can our senses, or opinions speak truth, or falshood; wherefore neither ought we to believe them, but leave them void of opination, and without inclination, or mo∣tion; declaring concerning every thing, that it neither is, nor is not; also that it is, that it is not, neither is it not.

§. 6.* 1.1007 As for the Original of this Sceptick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incomprehen∣sion, it seems to be more ancient than Pyrrho, or Anaxarchus; for Heraclitus laid a great foundation for it, by asserting all things to be in m••tion, and nothing certain: So Ammonius (in Ari••t. Categ. fol. 9 reckons Heraclitus among these Pyrrhonians because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Heraclitus said, that all things were in motion and fluxe, wherefore they are called Ephecticks from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, suspending their judgement of things.

Yea this Sceptick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suspension had a considerable room, and foundation in Plato's Schole, the old Academie, wherein there was allowed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Problematick kind of disputation pro, and con, for, and against the question, with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or libertie of suspending their judgements as to conclusions, about things dubious. For the old Academicks held two sorts of things some certain, and unquestionable, others doubtful, which might be affirmed, or denyed: As for things certain they held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

some

things are alwaies the same, without generation, whence they concluded, such things were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, truely knowable and certain:

in which rank of things they placed our notions of God; of the Soul; of happinesse; of the other life, &c. concerning these things Plato (and the old Academicks) allowed not any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, problematick disputation, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, suspension; but he laies them down as certain, and indubitable, or proves them to be such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from indubitable principles indubitably. But Plato laies down some sensibles, which are only Probable, or dubious; and of these he discourseth more freely, allowing an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sus∣pension of judgement concerning them; whence his difference 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of a Probable and demonstrative character. From this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Plato's Old Academie sprang the New Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension of judgement, which differs little from the Sceptick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or suspension.

* 1.1008§. 7. Albeit Plato, by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Probationarie disputes pro, and con, about sensibles, laid a considerable foundation for the Sceptick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet he seems professedly to dispute against this Sceptick Incomprehension, or suspension; discovering himself to be rather Dogmatick, than Sceptick. Laertius tels us, that it was much controverted whether Plato doth Dogmatize, or not? and he seems to conclude the question in the affirmative, that Plato did Dogmatize; because he expounds those things, which he conceiv∣ed true, and confuted those things which were false; though he suspended his judgement in things doubtful. So Sextus Empiricus c. 31.

Some (saith he) hold Plato to be Dogmatick, others Sceptick, others, that he was in some things Sceptick, in some things Dog∣matick: for in his Gymna••tick Discourses, where Socrates is brought in disputing with the Sophists, they say, he hath a Gym∣na••tick, or Sceptick Character: but when he declareth his own opinion, he is Dogmatick.

But Ammonius (in Arist. Categ. pag. 9.) gives us a more full account of Plato's judgement against this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incomprehension. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Plato in many discourses confuting this opinion (about incomprehension) after many things addes this also to them. When, Sirs,

ye say there is an incomprehension, ye comprehend there is an incomprehension, or not? if ye comprehend it, there is then a comprehension: if ye comprehend it not, we have no reason to beleive you, because you comprehend not, that there is an in∣comprehension.

By which argument Plato efficaciously over∣threw the Sceptick incomprehension.

§. 8. But the••e seems to be a greater affinity betwixt the New Academicks, and the Scepticks in so much,* 1.1009 that they are often taken for one and the same Sect. So Seneca Epist. 88.

The Pyr∣rhonians, and Megaricks, and Eretriacks, and Academicks, who intro∣duced a new Science, namely that nothing could be known, are verst almost in the same things.

So Suidas in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But Sextus Empiricus cap. 31. gives this difference 'twixt the Sceptick, and New Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Those (saith he) of the New Academie, though they say all things are incomprehensible, differ from the Scepticks perhaps in saying all things are incomprehensible: for they assert this; but the Sceptick admits it possible that they may be comprehended, &c. Again (addes Sextus) we differ also from the New Academie, as to what belongs to the End: for they use in the course of life what is credible; we following Laws, Customes, and natural affections, live without engaging our opinion. Lastly Sextus seems to observe this difference, that the New Academicks, Arcesilas with others, affirmed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, suspension to be Good, but Assent to be Evil, and that according to Nature: But Pyrrho judged these things to be so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not according to nature, but apparence.

By all which it appears, that the Academicks held this common first principle, that all things are incomprehensible, might be com∣prehended: wherefore they accordingly determined, that no∣thing could be determined. But the Scepticks durst not affirm, or denie any thing, not so much as their own first Principle, viz. that all things were incomprehensible.

§. 9. By which it appears,* 1.1010 that the Scepticks avoided all man∣ner of Dogmatizing, as well that of the New, as that of the old Aca∣demie, and of all other Sects. So Sextus Empiricus Chap. 6.

We say the Sceptick doth not Dogmatize: not understanding Dogme, as some do, in the general acceptation, for an assent to any thing; for the Sceptick assents to those affections, or impressions which are necessarily induced by fancie, or sense; but we say he doth

not Dogmatize in their sense, who takes a Dogme for an assent to any of those inevident things, which are inquired into by Sciences. For a Sceptick Philosopher assents to nothing, that is not Evident; neither doth he Dogmatize, when he pronounceth the Sceptick Phrases concerning things not manifest; as I assert nothing, &c. Thus Sextus Empiricus, who treats more fully of Scepticisme in his books against the Mathematicians, &c.

* 1.1011§. 10. This Sect of Scepticks is very contradictorie to the Chri∣stian Religion as it appears by the confession of Nicetas In Epitom. Clement. Roman. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

we have accu∣rately inquired into those things, which are delivered by the Philosophers; Especially those things, which are greatly repug∣nant to Piety towards God: namely the Dogmes of Epicurus, and Pyrrho, that so we might be the better able to refute them. And indeed Scepticisme is but a door to Atheisme: for by questioning every thing men at last come to believe nothing, though most certain, even the Being of a God.

* 1.1012§. 11. Albeit Scepticisme be a thing of dangerous Consequence, yet is it not wholly to be condemned in things naturals and as it was used, in its first original: for although there are many things certain, which ought not to be called into question, yet there are, especially in naturals, many more uncertain things, in such things, if we will not precipitately erre, we must not precipi∣tately Judge. but in things of this kind it is most agreeable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to suspend our assent; which was the practise of Plato, and his suc∣cessors in the old Academie, whence sprang the Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thence Tullie in Lucullo brings in the Academicks speaking thus:

We are not those, to whom nothing seems true; but we say that there are some falsehoods mixed with Truths, and that un∣der so great similitude, as that there remains in them no cer∣tain note of discretion, or difference. Agen saies Cicero: what can there be more rash, and unworthie the gravitie, and con∣stance of a Wise man, than to yield a false assent; or to defend without hesitation that, which is not sufficiently perceived, or understood.

This modest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or suspension was greatly affected by Socrates, who in things uncertain, or dubious gave himself, and Scholars a liberty of suspending; though in things necessarie, certain, and Moral he was very tenacious, and Dogmatizing.

CHAP. V. Of Epicurisme.

Epicurus his original, His Institution, Sect, and Character. His Pride, and con∣tention. His temperance according to the Character of his friends. His Indu∣strie, and Disciples. His Philosophie. 1. Physicks, of Atomes, &c. 2. His contempt of Logick, and Rhetorick. 3. His Ethicks: of Pleasure, and Passion. That Pleasure is the chiefest Good. That this Pleasure consists in Virtue: Epicurus's Atheistick Conceptions of God's Providence, &c. His denying the Immortalitie of the Soul, what opposition Christianitie found from the Epicureans.

§. 1. HAving taken some View of all other Sects,* 1.1013 we shall conclude with the Epicurean, which was but a branch of the Eleatick Sect; and received its Institution from Epicurus, who was born in the third year of the 109 Olympiad, seven years after Plato's death, and 341 before the birth of Christ. He was borne at Gargettus a Town belonging to the Egean Tribe; and was bred up at Samus till the 18 year of his age; at which time he went to Athens, Xenocrates living in the Aca∣demie, and Aristotle at Chalcis. About the 23 year of his age, he went to Colophon to his Father; and from the 32 year of his age, to the 37 he lived partly at Mitylene, partly at Lampsacum, where he instituted a Schole, as Suidas observes, and Gassendus after him (Chap. 5. of Epicurus) Epicurus returning to Athens about the 37 year of his age, he a while discoursed of Philosophie in publick with others, but after instituted a Sect in Private denominated from himself Epicureans. At first indeed ad∣miring the Doctrine of Democritus he professed himself a Democritian, or of the Eleatick Sect, unto which Democritus appertained. So Cicero de Nat. Deorum.

Democritus was a very great Person, from whose fountains Epicurus watered his Garden:

meaning his Schole, which was in a Garden. Yet afterwards, out of a spirit of Pride, and contention Epi∣curus rejects Democritus, and changeth many things in his Dogmes; Thence (saith Cicero)

he was very ungrateful towards Democritus, whom he followed.

Clemens Alexandrinus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. lib. 1. and others report Nausiphanes the Pythagorean, Disciple of Pyrrho, to have been master to Epicurus. Laertius affirmes, he was chiefly addicted to Anaxagoras. He also admired the Conversation of Pyrrho, as Gassendus in his Life cap. 4. By which it appears, that Epicurus first embraced Scepticisme, whence he fell into Atheisme, and Epicurisme; and indeed no wonder, for the Sceptick is the fittest matter to forme an Atheist, and sensualist out of, as hereafter.

* 1.1014§. 2. Epicurus having imbibed what he thought agreeable to his designe, both from the Eleatick and Sceptick Scholes, he formes and shapes his own Ideas into a peculiar Sect of his own, called from him Epicureans; and Pleasure being his main End, he purchaseth at Athens a very Pleasant Garden, where he lived with his friends, and discoursed of Philosophie. Apollodorus in Laertius tels us, that this Garden cost him 80. Pounds. We find this Encomium, of him in Petronius Arbiter, who followed this Epicu∣rean Sect.

Ipse Pater veri doctis Epicurus in hortis Jussit, & hanc vitam dixit habere Deos.

Epicurus the Father of truth dictated in the learned Garden, and he said the Gods led this life. Lucretius the Epicurean l. 3. gives him the like Character.

Tu pater, & rerum inventor, tu patria nobis Suppeditas praecepta, tuisque ex, inclyte, Chartis, &c.

Agen speaking of Epicurus.

Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit, & omnes Restinxit Stellas, Exortus uti aethereus Sol.

Lactantius lib. 3. Instit. producing the••e verses, subjoyns;

Truely I can never read these verses without smiling: for he spake not this of So∣crates, and Plato, who were as Princes among the Philosophers: but of a man, than whom no sick man ever dreamed, or talked more foolishly.

Indeed the Disciples of Epicurus extolled him (as some now adaies) to the Skies, as if he only of all the Philosophers had found out the Truth, and all others had embraced Shadows: Yea his adherents were so ravisht with the admiration of him, as that every moneth they Sacrificed to his birth day, and that on the 20. day; whence they called those holie daies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And they burned with so great love to their Master, as that they carryed his Picture engraven on a Ring as a luckie fortune wherever they went.

* 1.1015§. 3. But notwithstanding the great esteem Epicurus's Disciples had concerning him; others were not a little offended at him; especially for his Pride, Vanitie, and Contentious spirit. As for Epicurus's Pride, and Vanitie, Plutarch in his book against Epicurus acquaints us, that

he had so proud, and swelling an opinion of himself, as that he would call no one learned, but himself, and those, who proceeded from his Schole. And touching his contention, Cicero. 1. De Nat. Deor. relates, that Epicurus did most contumeliously vexe Aristotle: he did most shamefully rail against Phaedo the Socratick: he did by several volumnes oppose Timocrates the brother of Metrodorus, his companion; because he in some small matters differed from him in Philosophie: he was very un∣grateful

even to Democritus himself, whom yet he followed: he never stiled Chrysippus by any other name than Chesippus, &c.

As for Epicu∣rus's Conversation; those, who differed from him suppose him to have been immersed in all manner of sensual, and brutish pleasures.* 1.1016 But those, that conversed with him, and adhered to his Sect, make him to be very pious towards the Gods, his Parents, and Countrie: also very bountiful towards his Brethren, friends, and servants: grave, and tem∣perate, contenting himself with most simple, and mean diet; likewise sparing in Wine, yea living on bread and water only; So that he accoun∣ted it a great feast, if he had a little cheese.* 1.1017 They make him also to be very studious, and industrious; which they argue from the multitude of volumnes he writ, beyond any other of the Philosophers, to the num∣ber of 300. All which books are perisht, excepting three Epistles given us by Laertius in his 10. book, who has also given us a compende of his Philosophie. Epicurus lived 72. years; and died (as Laertius) of the stone stopping his urine, in the second year of the 127. Olympiad.

§. 4. Among the Disciples of Epicurus,* 1.1018 the first rank is given to Mus his servant, who Philosophized together with his master, and after him became the head of the Epicurean Sect, as Diogen. Laertius lib. 10. Also among the Sectators of Epicurus is reckoned Hermannus mention'd by Porphyrie lib. 1. de Abstinentia. Also Lucian was an Epicurean, and friend of Celsus the Epicurean, who writ against the Christians, and is answered by Origen. This Lucian is by some stiled the Atheist, because of his blasphemie against Christ, so Suidas: but herein he is vindicated by Vossius) de Philos. Sect. cap. 8. §. 24.) who shews, that Lucian no where speaks Evil of Christ, save in the person of a stranger, where he cals Christ a Sophist, a title of no ill import amongst the Philosophers, only he speaks unworthily of God, on which account I suppose he was term∣ed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Atheist. There were also many of the Romans, who adhered to this Epicurean Sect, as Lucretius, Cassius: also Maro, who dedicated the latter part of his life to the Epicurean Philosophie; as in like manner, Petronius Arbiter; with others. And indeed there was no Sect continued so long, as the Schole of Epicurus, which when all other Sects failed, persisted in continual succession, as Laertius boasts of it; and Lactantius lib. 3. Institut. easilie grants; giving this reason thereof.

The Disci∣pline of Epicurus was alwaies more famous than that of other Philoso∣phers; not that it brought any thing of reason with it, but because the popular name of Pleasure invites many: for all are prone to V••ce.

Nazianzen Orat. 23. on the praise of Hero Alexandrinus joyns these 3. in

Epicurus as containing the chief of his Philosophie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epicurus's Automatum together with his Atomes, & Pleasure.

* 1.1019§. 5. As for Epicurus's Philosophie, the best thereof consisted in Phy∣sicks, wherein he chiefly embraced the Dogmes of Anaxagoras, yet he dif∣fered from him in many things. Touching the Origine of the Ʋniverse. Epicurus held, that all things were composed of Atomes. Thence that of Au••tin de Civit. Dei. lib. 11. cap. 9. Epicurus held, that there were innu∣merable worlds produced by the fortuitous confluxe of Atomes. See Lud. Vives on the text. Epicurus's Hypothesis is supposed to have been this: viz.

that before the world was brought into that forme, and order it is now in,* 1.1020 there was an infinite emptie space, in which were an innume∣rable companie of solid particles, or Atomes of different sizes, and shapes, which by their weight were in continual motion, and that by the various occursions of these, all the bodies of the Universe were framed in that order, they now are in.

These his sentiments of Atomes Epicurus is said to have traduced from Leucippus, and Democritus; especially from the latter, as before; though indeed the first great assertor of Atomes was Mochus, that famous Phenician Physiologist, who tra∣duced them from the Jews, as has been proved in the Phenician Philoso∣phie. The whole of the Epicurean Physicks is comprehended by Lucretius the Epicurean in 6. books.

* 1.1021§. 6. Epicurus contemned Logick, Rhetorick, and the Mathematicks. His contempt of Logick is mention'd by Laertius in Epicurus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

They rejected Logick, as that, which perverts mens minds: for they say, that simple words suffice for Physicks.

Yea Cicero lib. 1. de Nat. Deorum, brings in Epicurus denying, that either part of Contradictorie Propositions were true. In the room of Logick Epicurus introduced his Ca∣nonick Ratiocination:* 1.1022 whence he composed a book styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was (as Laertius tels us) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, concerning the Rule of judgement, and Principle; also a Work, that delivered the first Elements. This Canon, or Criterion of judgement Epicurus made to be not Reason, but sense. So Cicero de Nat. Deor. lib. 1. Epicurus said, that the senses were the messengers,* 1.1023 or judges of truth. As for Epicurus's contempt of Rhetorick Laertius gives this account thereof 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he used a proper kind of speech, such as was accommodated to things, which because it was simple or plain, Aristophanes the Grammarian reprehended. So Cicero de Finibus lib. 1. acquaints us, that Epicurus neglected letters, and ornaments of Speech. Epicurus's

contempt of the Mathematicks is mentioned by Plutarch in his book against Epicurus.

§. 7.* 1.1024 In Epicurus's Philosophie nothing was more pleasing to corrupt nature, than his Ethicks especially touching the chiefest good, which he placed in Pleasure: so that he made the first, and last cause of all human actions to be Pleasure, or Delight arising from that good, which the minde enjoys. His Canons of Pleasure, and Passion (according to Gassen∣dus de Epicuri Philos. Morali, cap. 3.) are these: 1.

All Pleasure, which hath no pain joyned with it, is to be embraced. 2. All pain, which hath no Pleasure joyned with it, is to be shunned. 3. All Pleasure, which either hindereth a greater Pleasure, or procureth a greater pain, is to be shunned. 4. All pain, which putteth away a greater pain, or procureth a greater Pleasure, is to be imbraced, &c.

Epicu∣rus's Canons touching Pleasure, as the first and last good, were (accord∣ing to Gassendus cap. 3.4.5.) these. 1. That pleasure, without which,* 1.1025

there is no notion of Felicitie, is in its own nature good. 2. That Fe∣licitie consists in Pleasure, because it is the first Connatural Good, or the first thing agreeable to nature, as also the last of expetibles, or End of good things. 3. That Pleasure, wherein consists Felicitie, is Indolence of bo∣die, & Tranquillitie of mind: for herein the absolute good of man is con∣tained. The Indolence of the bodie is preserved by the use of tempe∣rance.

The health of the mind is preserved by Virtues provided, and applied by Philosophie.* 1.1026 Diogenes Laertius gives the like favorable inter∣pretation of Epicurus's Pleasures, in his Vindication of him against the imputations of Diotymus the Stoick. Epicurus (saith Laertius) held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That the chiefest happinesse was in God. 2. Hence he placed happinesse in the Pleasures of the mind, and reflexion on former enjoyments. 3. Laertius also tels us, that he held there was an unseparable connexion 'twixt Virtue, and true Pleasure: whence he said,

that Virtues were naturally conjoyned with a pleasant life: agen, live thou as God in immortal Virtues, and thou shalt have nothing common with mortal.

Ammonius in Aristot. Categ. pag. 9. gives the like account of the Epicurean Pleasure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Epicureans are called Hedonici, because they make Pleasure the last End; Pleasure; not that of the bodie, but the tranquille, and indi∣sturbed constitution of the Soul, following a Virtuous life, but they mistake saying 'tis the Carkasse of Virtue, or the shadow, seeing they

make it the last End. Seneca affirmes, that Epicurus complained, men were very ungrateful towards past enjoyments, because what ever good they enjoy, they reflect not again upon it, neither do they rec∣kon it among pleasures: where as there is no pleasure so certain as that which is past, because it cannot be taken from us. Present goods have not yet a compleat solid being: and what is future yet hangs in suspence, and is uncertain, but what is past is most s••t••. Yea Epicurus himself in his Epistle to Idomeneus, speaking of the torments, he was then under, being ready to dye, saies, that the joy, which he had in his mind upon the remembrance of the reasonings, which he had in his life time, stood in battail of array against all those torments (as great as could be imagined) of the strangurie he laboured under.

According to these accounts, Epicurus's Pleasures were not so grosse, as is generally conceived, yet sufficiently blame-worthy; in that he pla∣ceth mans objective, and formal happinesse in Pleasure, which is but a con∣sequent thereof.

* 1.1027§. 8. But whatever Epicurus's opinion was about Pleasure; certain it is, he was fouly mistaken in his Metaphysical Philosophizings about God, his Providence, &c. Its true; Epicurus (according to Laert••us) denyed not the Being, and spiritual nature, of God: for he held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that God was incorruptible, and most blessed, &c. Yet he denyed the Providence of God wherein he discove∣red the absurdnesse of his reason: for take away the belief of Divine Providence, and the notions of a Deitie, though never so excellent, will have no awe upon the spirits, and lives of men; and therefore soon be rooted out of men's minds. Wherefore some Ancient Philoso∣phers supposed, that Epicurus's designe in acknowledging a Dei••ie which he really believed not) was only to avoid the censure of down∣right Atheisme: assuring himself, that albeit he asserted one most excellent Being, which he called God, yet so long as he denyed his Provi∣dence, he sufficiently served his own Interest; which was to root out all common foundations of Religion, and so to establish a practical Atheisme. Thence Tullie de Nat. Deor. 1^o. tels us, that

Epicurus extracted Religion by the roots out of mens minds, seeing he took from the immortal Gods both assistance, and Grace. For albeit he affirmed the Nature of God to be most excellent, and best, yet he denyed Grace in God; and so took away that, which is most proper to the best, and most excellent Na∣ture. For what is better, or more excellent, than bonity and benefi∣cence?

which if you take from God, you make no one dear to God,* 1.1028 and no one beloved of him, &c.

Epicurus's great Canon, whereby he destroyed the Providence of God, was (according to Laertius lib. 10.) this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The blessed, and

immortal being neither hath any affairs of his own, neither doth he h••ed other mens. His great argument to defend this his Hypothesis was, that it was beneath the Majestie of the Divine Being, to condescend so far, as to regard and mingle with the affairs of this lower world.

Whence he placed all Religion in the adoration of the Divine Being, abstractly for its own excellence, without any regard to his Providence; which is indeed to destroy all Religion. This Atheistical perswasion makes Tullie, Plutarch, and the other Great Moralists degrade him from the title of a Philosopher.

§. 9. Epicurus also denyed the Immortalitie of the Soul,* 1.1029 which indeed was but the consequent of his foregoing Atheistical persuasion; and both, as I presume, imbibed together with his Sceptick Infusions from the Sceptick Schole: for Scepticisme naturally degenerates into Atheisme, and this into Sensualitie. Likewise Epicurus's Dogmes touching Atomes gave a great foundation to his Atheisme: For his Hypothesis being grant∣ed, that the first production of the Ʋniverse, and all successive genera∣tions proceed from a Casual combination of Atoms, it is easie to salve all the Phaenomenas of Nature without a Providence.

§. 10. What opposition the Christian Religion found from this Epi∣curean Sect is evident from Act. 17.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] He mentions (saith Grotius) two Sects of Philosophers most opposite to the Christian Religi∣on. For the Epicureans believed that the world was not created by God; and that God regarded not human affairs; that there were no Rewards or punishments after death; that there was no Good, but what was sensible:

§. 11. Campanella in his Politicks seems to make the Scepticisme, Atheisme, and sensualitie of the Epicureans the occasion of their Ruine.

The Philosophers (saies he) passed not from opinion to opinion, be∣yond Epicurus;

under whom denying God, and Providence, their Sects were destroyed. He makes this the curse of all that kind of Philosophie, which degenerating first into Scepticisme, and from thence into Atheisme, was then rooted out of the World. And no wonder, God blasted Philoso∣phie, when Philosophie dar'd so highly to blaspheme God: No wonder God should root that Philosophie out of the World, which in Epicurus, and his Sectators (the Swine of that Stie) became so debaucht, and vain, as

to attempt the eradicating of the Notion of a God, or at least his due Fear, and Reverence out of the World. But the Mischief of all such Vain Philosophie, to, and the Ʋsefulnes of sincere sound Philosophie in the Christian Religion, may be the matter of an other Undertakement; if this Historical Account now finisht (and mainly design'd in Order thereunto) find any such Reception, and Entertainment, as may give Encouragement to such a Worke.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the Hebrew Sophim.
• * 1.2

  Num. 23.14.
• * 1.3

  1 Sam. 1.1.
• * 1.4

  1 Sam. 19.18, 19.
• * 1.5

  Philosophie so called from the love of wisdom answerable to the Scripture Phrasiologie.
• * 1.6

  Cum majus ho∣mine Sapientis nomen esse de∣prehendisset, (Pythagoras) coram Leonte, Phi••asiorum si∣ve Sicyoniorum Tyranno, non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 se, sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h. c. ut veteres expli∣cant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, professus est. ••••c••. lib. 8. Horn••us Hist. Philos. l. 3 c. 11.
• * 1.7

  Philosophum o∣portet nihil sic agere, quam ut semper studeat a∣nimam corporis consortio separa∣re, & ideo exi∣stimandum Phi∣losophiam esse mortis affectum, co••suetudinem{que} moriendi, Apu∣leius lib. 2 de Philosophia.
• * 1.8

  Philosophers called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the Jewish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.9

  Dailie on Phii. 3.12. & 15. of which see Book. 2. chap. 6. par. 5.
• * 1.10

  God the first ef∣ficient and ex∣amplar of all Philosophie as well as its first object, or mat∣ter.
• * 1.11

  Philosophie from Admiration. See Vossias de Philosophia l. 1. c. 2. §. 6. & Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.12

  Eus••b. l. 1. Praep. c. 6. scribit, Aegyptios ferunt primos omnium cum oculos in caelum sustulis∣sent, modum, ordinem, & quantitatem corporum cae∣lestium admi∣ratos, Solem & Lunam Deos p••tasse. Haec nimirum illa ad∣miratio fuit, quam inter Phi∣losophiae caussas antiqui retulere Horn. Hist. phil. l 2. c. 5.

  That all heath••n Philosophie sp••ung from ad∣miration of Gods wonders in na∣ture o•• in his Ch••rch see Dr. Jackson on the Sc••••ptures fo••o 47 la•••• Edition
• * 1.13

  The first Institu∣tors of Philoso∣phie Divine
• * 1.14

  Adam the grea∣t•• human Phi∣losopher Gen. 2.19, 20
• * 1.15

  Seths Philoso∣phic.
• * 1.16

  Enochs Philoso∣phie.

  Ab Enoch se Astrologiam ac∣cepisse professus est Abraham teste Alexandro, ac Euseb. lib. 9. praepar. c. 5. De Mathusalah Artabanus apud Eusch. l. 9 praepar, c. 5. cum ab Angelis multa cognovisse, quae cae••eros docuerit, Hornius Histor. Philosoph. lib. 1. cap. 11.
• * 1.17

  Abrahams skill i•• Astronomie. See mo•••• of this chap. 4. Sect. 3. of Abrahams communicating Astronomie to the Chaldeans.
• * 1.18

  Of Joseph his instructing the Egyptians and by them stiled Hermes or Mer∣curius.
• * 1.19

  Gen. 44.5.
• * 1.20

  Act. 14 5.
• * 1.21

  Psal. 105.22.
• * 1.22

  That Joseph taught the Egyp∣tians Geometrie, &c. see Vossius de Philos. Sect. l. 2. c. 2. §. 2. as hereafter in the Egyptian Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.23

  Of Moses's Phi∣losophie.
• * 1.24

  Cum{que} Mo••es tot cum Deo ipso col∣loquia habuerit, tot leges conduderit, rerum ipsam natur••m primigeniam de∣scrips••••t, d••bium non est, quia pro∣fundissima sa••••entia praeditus fuerit. Qua etiam apud G••atile•• ••••heme••ter incla••••it. Qui, ut de aliis antiquis patribus pauca, ita de M••se plurima cogno ••runt. Ho••••ius Hist. Philos. l, 2. c. 13.
• * 1.25

  Sand oniathon & Mochus their Philosophie from Gen. 2.
• * 1.26

  Anaxago••as pro∣n••ncia••••t omnii•• verum principi∣um 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. men∣tem— Eidem menti omnia da∣bat Anaxago••as a••••. M••ses apud Hebraeos St••uch ••••gub••a de pe∣••••. ••hil ••. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.27

  Joh. Grammat. de mundi Creat. lib. 6. cap. 21.
• * 1.28

  Plato's M••ta∣physick contem∣plations of God and the Soul from Moses's Philosophie.
• * 1.29

  Pagan Geogra∣phie and Poli∣tiks from Mo∣ses.
• * 1.30

  Part 1. B. 3. C. 9.
• * 1.31

  Of Solomon his Philosophie.
• * 1.32

  Superavit ••m••i∣um mortalium ingenia Solomon. In quo D••us, quid in maxima Rege summa sa∣pientia posset, o∣stendit: De cujus capacissima sapi∣entia ita scriptu∣ra s. loquitur 1. Reg. 4.29, 30, 32, 33, 34. & cap. 10. Hornius Histor. Philos. l. 2. c. 13.
• * 1.33

  Solomo primus subtilissimam Philosophiam posteritati literis consecravit. In∣de Graeci caepe∣runt id, velut proprium sibi, vendicare scri∣bendi munus Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 2.
• * 1.34

  Of Job.
• * 1.35

  Of the Jewish Colleges and A∣cademies.
• * 1.36

  Of the Pythago∣reans symboli∣zing with the Essenes see God∣wins Jewish An∣tiquities of the Essenes.
• * 1.37

  Eusebius, prae∣par. Evang. lib. 11. de morali, naturali, rationali, & in∣tellectuali Phi∣losophia Hebraeo∣rumlate agit. Hornius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 13.
• * 1.38

  Judaei dispersi duas celeberri∣mas Academias, Pumpeduntha∣num, & Tiberi∣cusem erexerunt. Hornius Hist. philos. l. 7. c. 3.
• * 1.39

  The great repute the Egyptians had for Wisdom and Philosophie.
• * 1.40

  Jamblicl••s as∣serit Pythago∣••am & Platonem dogmata sua ex Columnis Tris∣megisti exscrip∣sisse Hornius Hist. phil. l. 2.6.
• * 1.41

  Sane Sacerdotes Aegyptiorum in sacris libris scri∣ptum inveniunt, Orphea, Musaeū, Melampoda, Dae∣dalum, Homerū, Lycurgum, Solo∣nem, Platonem. Pythagoram, Eu∣doxum, Demo∣critum, Enopi∣dem Chium, Ae∣gyptium petiisse. Hornius Hist. philos. l. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.42

  Agyptii Philoso∣phi Sacerdotes ac Prophetae appel∣labantur. Laer∣tius l. 1. de vitis.
• * 1.43

  The Egyptians skill in Philoso∣phie.

  The Egyptian Philosophie com∣hrehended the li∣beral Sci••nces, Hieroglyphicks, Mathematicks, Physicks, Ethicks, Poli∣ticks, Theologie▪
• * 1.44

  Mathematicks.
• * 1.45

  Astronomie.
• * 1.46

  The rise of Pla∣netary Deities & judicial Astro∣logie from Astro∣nomie. See more of this in Dr Owen De Ortu Idolol. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• * 1.47

  Geometrie.
• * 1.48

  Cumenim Nilus, subinde exua∣dans, agrorum li∣mites confunde∣r••••, quidam sa∣gaci ingenio Ge∣ometriae rationes invenerunt, qua∣rum indicio, sua cui{que} portio, bona side restitueretur, Inde res in im∣mensum excre∣vit. Horn. Hist. philos. l. 2 c. 7.
• * 1.49

  Touching this serenitie of the heavens, Bochart informed me, That it is only in the upper part of Egypt, where the heavens were alwaies clear: but in the lower parts they had not these advantages.
• * 1.50

  Geographie.
• * 1.51

  Their Natural Philosophie.
• * 1.52

  1. Experimental.
• * 1.53

  2. Their Natu∣ral Historie.
• * 1.54

  See Stillings. O∣rig. Sacrae Book 3. ch. 2.
• * 1.55

  Their skill in Medicine both conservative, purg••tive, and Chirurgick see Vossius de sec••is Ph••los. l. 2. c. 2. §. 8. & Still••••. Orig. sacr. book 2. c. 2.
• * 1.56

  Their embalming Gen. 50.2.
• * 1.57

  Their Moral Philosophie and Politicks. The Egyptians Laws the Source of the Grecian. Stilling. Origin. sacr. Book. 3•• ch. 2.
• * 1.58

  The Egyptian Laws from the Jews.
• * 1.59

  The Egyptian Politic, or Go∣vernment of State from the Jews.
• * 1.60

  The Egyptian Theologie from Joseph.
• * 1.61

  1. Their Cantor.
• * 1.62

  2. Their Horo∣scope, or Astrolo∣ger.
• * 1.63

  3. Their sacred scribe.
• * 1.64

  4. Their Ornator.
• * 1.65

  5. Their Prophet.
• * 1.66

  These Egyptian rites but corrupt imitations of the Jews
• * 1.67

  Their Gods Osi∣ris, Apis and Serapis Symbols of Joseph.
• * 1.68

  Stilling. Orig. sacr. B. 3· Ch. 5.
• * 1.69

  Their Demons from Joseph.
• * 1.70

  Orus Joseph.
• * 1.71

  Psal. 105.22.
• * 1.72

  Isis.
• * 1.73

  Busiris.
• * 1.74

  Of these Egypti∣an Gods see Kir∣cher. O••dip. Ae••∣gypt Tom. 1. Syn∣tag. 3. cap 3, 4, 5, 6, &c.
• * 1.75

  Distincti autem fuerunt Sacerdo∣t••s, & Prophetae. Illi enim praeci∣pue sacra cura∣bant, h•• vero ora∣culis praeerant; e∣disser••bant quo{que} res divinas, quod nunc Doctores A∣cademiarum sa∣cere solent. Quae omnia lucem ca∣••ient ex Exod. 7.1. Horn. Hist. Philos. l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.76

  Of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks and their origi∣nal from the. Jews.
• * 1.77

  Primi Aegyptii per siguras ani∣malium sensus effingebant, & antiquissima monumenta in∣geaii humani im∣pressa saxis cer∣nuntur. Tacitus lib. 11.
• * 1.78

  The sundrykinds of expressing things amongst the Egyptians.
• * 1.79

  Of the three fo••d manner of writing among the Egyptians vulgar, sacred and Hierogly∣phick.
• * 1.80

  A••gyptii ad hoc denotandum, Sphi••gem ante sua templa con∣stituere soliti sunt, innuentes sua placita 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. esse Horn. Hist. philos. l. 7. c. 6.
• * 1.81

  De opertis adyti pro••ert quosdam l b••os literis ig∣norabilibus prae∣notatos, partim figuris cu••usce∣modi animalium, concepti sermo∣nis compendiosa verba suggerea∣tes, partim nodo∣sis, & in modum rota•• ••ortuosis capreolatimque condensis apici∣bus, à curiosa profanorum lecti∣one munitos. A∣puleius lib. 11.
• * 1.82

  Hieroglyphick Philosophie tran∣slated by Pytha¦go••as from Egypt into Greece.
• * 1.83

  Eum modum (Symbolicum) ex oriente in Graeci∣am Pythagoras tulit, cujus Phi∣losophia nil nisi arcana mysteria erant. Hornius Hist. philos. l. 7. c. 6.
• * 1.84

  The extent and benefit of this Hieroglyphick way of philoso∣phizing: and of its traduction from the Jews.
• * 1.85

  That the Egypti∣an Philosophie was traduced originally from the Hebrews & Scriptures.
• * 1.86

  Lud. Vi••es's Testimonie.
• * 1.87

  The Confession of the Egyptians.
• * 1.88

  A nonnullis Ae∣gyptiorum Sacer∣dotibus, quidisci∣plinam nostram altius conside∣rarunt, Dei ho∣mines Gens no∣stra est appella∣ta. Eleazar. Pon∣tifex ad Ptol. 2. apud Euseb. praepar. l. 8. c. 3.
• * 1.89

  Serranus's Te∣stimonie.
• * 1.90

  Ne{que} ullo modo dubitari potest quin, quaecunque vera & Scriptu∣rae consentientia cum apud al••os, tum imprimis, Ae∣gypti••s Philoso∣phos inveniuntur, ea omnia ab Ebraeis, quibuscum jam à temporibus Abrahae frequenter, & diu ••onversati sunt, acceperint. ••••primis à Josepho, pl••rima, cui, cum proximus à Rege esset, con••••adicere ••••mo ausus est. Ho••nius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 10.
• * 1.91

  Alii s•• ri••sisse de sapientia Mercu∣rium non negant, sed haer, quae ho∣die circumferuntur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mercurii esse, id vero pernegant. Olim enim Librarii, ut quaestum uberiorem ex suis nugis co••raderent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 libros lectoribus ob∣trudebant. Hornius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 6.
• * 1.92

  Mr Bochart in a conference told me that none of the Egyptian Gods were more ancient than the Patri∣archs.
• * 1.93

  Josephs provisi∣b•• for the College of Egyptian Priests, and his instructing of them as also of th••ir King in the knowledge of God, &c. of which see more in what precedes ch. 1. §. 9▪ of Joseph.
• * 1.94

  Gen. 47, 22▪
• * 1.95

  The advantage the Egyptians received from the Jews as to Philosophie after the Captivitie by the Greek versi∣on, or LXX.
• * 1.96

  The beginning of the Schole at Alexandria.
• * 1.97

  The fame of the Alexandrian Schole for its Li∣brarie wherein were treasured up the sacred O∣racles.
• * 1.98

  Ammonius the great Master of the Alexandrian Schole his mix∣ing Scripture with Platonick Philosophie.
• * 1.99

  What advance the Schole of A∣lexandria recei∣ved from the Church there.
• * 1.100

  Of the Phenici∣ans their tradu∣cing Philosophie into Greece, and other parts f••om the Jews origi∣nally.
• * 1.101

  The Phenicians skill in Geogra∣phie and Navi∣gation, &c.
• * 1.102

  The Phenicians skill in Astrono∣mie and Arith∣metick.
• * 1.103

  The Phenicians skill in Mecha∣nicks.
• * 1.104

  1 Kings 5.6.
• * 1.105

  The Grecians borrowed much of their Philoso∣phie from the Phenicians.
• * 1.106

  The Phenicians received their Philosophie from the Jews.
• * 1.107

  The manner how Philosophie was traduced out of Judea in∣to Phaenicia.
• * 1.108

  Of Sanchonia∣thon his origina∣tion.
• * 1.109

  Bochart Canaan lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.110

  G. Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib. 1. cap. 1.
• * 1.111

  Sanchoniathon's skill in Philoso∣phie, Mythologie, and Natural Historie.
• * 1.112

  See more Bochart Canaan lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.113

  Of Taautus his origine, &c.
• * 1.114

  Taautus the same with Mo∣ses.
• * 1.115

  The original of Sanchoniathon's Philosophie from the Jewish Church.
• * 1.116

  Porphyrie's tessi∣monie to prove that Sanchonia∣thon derived his Philosophie from some Jewish Priest.
• * 1.117

  Bochart Can. lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.118

  Sanchoniathon's receiving the chief materials of his Philoso∣phie from Gide∣on.
• * 1.119

  Jerombalus Priest of Jao, i. e. the God of Is∣rael.
• * 1.120

  Sanchoniathon's mythologick mode of philoso¦phizing from the Jewish Church.
• * 1.121

  Euseb. praep. E∣vang. lib. 1.
• * 1.122

  The matter of Sanchoniathon's Philosophie. His 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. his Theologie & Generation of the Gods.
• * 1.123

  Of Beelsamen frō 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gen. 1.16.
• * 1.124

  Gen. 1.16.
• * 1.125

  Eliun from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Gen. 14.19.
• * 1.126

  Gen. 14.19, 22.
• * 1.127

  Ilos from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.128

  Elocim from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.129

  B••tulia from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bethel.
• * 1.130

  Of the Phenici∣an Sacrifices, &c.
• * 1.131

  Israel from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.132

  Anobret from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.133

  Of Angels and the human Soul.
• * 1.134

  Sanchoniathon's Physiologie or Natural Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.135

  His Chaos from Gen. 1.2.
• * 1.136

  Ereb from Gen. 1.5.
• * 1.137

  Mot from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.138

  Est enim humida natura, quod apud Antiquos Cha∣os, a fusione, hu∣miditate, terra, aqua, commista, hyle, id est literis inversis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, li∣mus, humus. Steuchus Eugu. de peren. Philos. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.139

  Gen. 1.2, 5.
• * 1.140

  Thales, Pytha∣goras, Plato con∣cur with San∣choniath••:, and they all with Moses.
• * 1.141

  Gen. 1.2.
• * 1.142

  Sanchoniathon's Chronologie and Geographie.
• * 1.143

  Of other Pheni∣cian writers e∣specially Mo∣chus.
• * 1.144

  Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib. 3. pag. 390. edit. Ludg. 1651. These words which Vossius cites out of Ca∣saubon, I could not find in Ca∣saubons animad∣versions, but found the contra∣ry: namely his citing of Tatia∣nus touching Mo••h•••• as also Euseb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.145

  Mochus his Philosophie.
• * 1.146

  Prima mundi materia fuit dis∣perforum Ato∣morum chaos, nulla sua parte coharens. Comen. physic. c. 2.
• * 1.147

  Of Abdomenus.
• * 1.148

  Vossius's account of the Phenician Philosophie its traduction from the Jews, as the Grecians from them.
• * 1.149

  As the Law, so the Gospel shone in its first pro∣mulgation, or dawning on the Phenicians.
• * 1.150

  The Division of Philosophie into Barbarick and Grecian.
• * 1.151

  Teslantur autem non modo s. lite∣rae Graecos a Barbaris natos, ut supra, sed ip∣simet Graeci, se juniores Barba∣ris esse, & do∣ctrinam, sermo∣nem{que} ab illis acceptum▪ Omni∣um{que} est testimo∣nium, Pythago••ā in Aegyptum, So∣lonem, Eudoxū, Platonem acces∣sisse, ut andi rent corum Sacerdo∣tes. Steuch. Eu∣gub. De peren. philos. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.152

  The Chaldaic•• Philosophie, and its advantages from the Church of God in No∣ahs familie.
• * 1.153

  The Chaldeans famous for Phi∣losophie.
• * 1.154

  Vossius de phi∣los. sect. l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.155

  Their main Phi∣losophie consisted in Astronomie.
• * 1.156

  Chaldaei in Astrologiae studio sibi pa••es non habuere. Nam ut ex Simplicio Comment. 46. in Aristo••clem l. 2. de Coelo con∣stat, Callisthenes Aristotelis ro∣gatu, in Graeciam misit observa∣iones Chaldaeo••um, ab annis 19••3. ante Alexandri tempora, i. e. ducentis circiter ante natum Abrabamum annis. Has observa∣tiones se vidisse Porphy••ius testa∣tur. Hornius Histor. philos. lib. ••. cap. 3.
• * 1.157

  How Astrono∣mie and Astro∣logie were com∣municated to the Chaldeans by Abraham, &c.
• * 1.158

  The Historie of the Creation and Providence con∣veighed down by Church-Traditi∣on.
• * 1.159

  Gen. 1.16. Ps. 136.7, 8.
• * 1.160

  Sapientes ex No∣achi schola viri, in campis Babylo∣niae Senaar, Phi∣losophiae dediti, imprimis Astro∣logiam excole∣bant. Quod prae∣ter Mosem, etiā Gentilium eru∣ditiores, ex Chal∣daeorum traditi∣one, non ignora∣runt. Hornius Histor. philos. lib. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.161

  Gen. 18.17, 19.
• * 1.162

  The people of God much taken up in the contem∣plation, and ad∣miration of the glorie of God shi∣ning in those ce∣lestial bodies which gave foundation to Astronomie.
• * 1.163

  Ps. 136.4, 5, 7.
• * 1.164

  How natural Astronomie and Astrologie, dege∣nerated into Ju∣dicial. Rom. 1.19, 20.21.

  See more of this in our account of the Egyptian A∣stronomie. chap. 2. §. 2.
• * 1.165

  Rom. 1.21.
• * 1.166

  Deut. 4.19. See more of the original of this Zabaisme in Dr. Owen de Idole∣lat. lib. 3. c. 4. p. 117, &c.
• * 1.167

  See Stilling. O∣rig. sacr. book 1. chap. 3.
• * 1.168

  The Heathen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answerable to the Jewish Te∣raphims Judg. 17.5. and the Popish Agnus Dei.
• * 1.169

  The Chaldaick Theologie among the Zabii.
• * 1.170

  See Stilling, O∣rig. sacrae book 1. chap. 3.
• * 1.171

  Numb. 22.5.
• * 1.172

  Balaam one of these Zabii.
• * 1.173

  Mat. 1.2. These wise men Zabii.
• * 1.174

  The Rites of the Zabii mentioned in Scripture.
• * 1.175

  Job 31.26, 27. Beholding the Sun a piece of Pagan Worship.
• * 1.176

  Job. 31.27. Kissing the hand bowing to or a∣doring the Sun.
• * 1.177

  Lev. 26.30. Why they wor∣shipped the Sun under the Sym∣bol of Fire.
• * 1.178

  The Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from that opini∣on that the Sun was Fire.
• * 1.179

  The Sects of the Chaldeans.
• * 1.180

  The Chaldeans received much light from the Jewish Scholes.
• * 1.181

  Of the Persick Philosophie.
• * 1.182

  The chief Phi∣losophers among the Persians cal∣led Magi.
• * 1.183

  The Magi insti∣tuted by Soroaster had many rites from the Zabii and Chaldeans.
• * 1.184

  Magia sine du∣bio orta in Per∣side a Soroastre Plin. hist. lib. 3. cap. 8.
• * 1.185

  Salmasius Ma∣gos dictos vult a Zoroastre, cui cognomen Mog fuerit, unde Ma∣gus factum Hor∣nius philos. lib. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.186

  Plutarchu de Isid. tradit Zoroa∣strem apud Chaldaeos Magos insti∣tuisse, quorum imitatione etiam Per∣sae suos habuerint. Horn. l. 2. c. 5.
• * 1.187

  Vossius de philo. sect. l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.188

  Of the Indian Philosophers viz. the Gymnosophi∣sts, Germanes, and Brachmanes so called from Manes.
• * 1.189

  Horn. Hist. phil. l. 2. c. 9.
• * 1.190

  Indi nihil anti∣quius habuerunt, quam sapientiae, neglectis caeleris rebus, operam dare Hornius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 9.
• * 1.191

  The Brachmanes
• * 1.192

  The Phrygians.
• * 1.193

  The African Philosophers. 1. Atlantick Philosophers.
• * 1.194

  2▪ Ethiopick Philosophers.
• * 1.195

  European Philo∣sophers.
• * 1.196

  The Scythians.
• * 1.197

  Thracian Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.198

  Spanish Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.199

  Of the Druides.
• * 1.200

  Primus Romano∣rum J. Caesar Druidun Ritus, Leges, Philoso∣phiam mandavit Scriptis. Selden. Jani Anglor. p. 16.
• * 1.201

  Of the Phenici∣ans trading with the Britains and Gauls, see part 1. book. 1. chap. 7.
• * 1.202

  The Druides so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Oke, thence deru and drew.
• * 1.203

  The Druides first in Britan∣nie.
• * 1.204

  Their Academies and privileges.
• * 1.205

  Their Degrees. Druides à bello abesse consueve∣runt, ne{que} tributa unà cum reliquis pendunt, mi••itiae vacationem, om∣nium{que} rer••m ha∣bent, immunita∣tem. Caesar l. 6. Selden Jan. Ang. l. 1.
• * 1.206

  Their skill in the chiefest parts of Philosophie natural, Moral, Medicine, Ma∣gick.

  Their symbolick mode of philoso∣phizing from the Phenicians and Jews.
• * 1.207

  Their skill in Geographie, A∣stronomie, &c.
• * 1.208

  Their distin∣ctive babits.
• * 1.209

  Their Rhetorick.
• * 1.210

  Their Theologie, the Souls immor∣tality.
• * 1.211

  Caesar l. 6. dog∣ma boc iis tribu∣it: non interire animas, sed ab aliis post mortem transire ad alios, hinc animosi in praeliis Luc. lib. 1. Vossius de philos. sect. lib. 2. cap. 3. §. 7. Their Ecclesia∣stick dignities, power and disci∣pline.
• * 1.212

  Their worship and sacrifices.
• * 1.213

  Vtut se ••eshabet, constat hinc li∣quido vetustissi∣mos inter Gen∣tium Philosophos, antiquissimos in∣ter corum LL. Custodes suisse Druidas. Seld. Jani! Anglor. p. 22.

  A brief account of the Druides their Philosophie.
• * 1.214

  They were called Saronides from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Oke.
• * 1.215

  ••numeras quer∣cus liquidus pro∣ducit Jaon De∣super.

  The Bardi, Eu∣ates, and Drui∣des.
• * 1.216

  The Okes of Mamre the ori∣ginal Idea of the Druides Oke re∣ligion.
• * 1.217

  Gen. 13.18.
• * 1.218

  Gen. 14.13.
• * 1.219

  Gen. 15.9.
• * 1.220

  Ad sacros Druidum Ritus, & do∣ctrinam quae ulterius attinent, praeter Caesarem, Strabo, Plinius. Diodorus Siculus, Lucanus, Pomponius Mela, Ammianus Marcellinus; Heurnius in Barbariae Philosophioe Antiquitatibus, alii satis explicate tradiderunt. Sel∣den Jani Anglor. l. 1.
• * 1.221

  The Grecian Philosophers re∣course to Egypt and Phoenicia.
• * 1.222

  That the Greci∣an Philosophie was derived from the Jews.
• * 1.223

  The Testimonie of Heathen Gre∣cian Philosophers Plato, &c.
• * 1.224

  Numenius.
• * 1.225

  Hermippus,
• * 1.226

  Testimonies of Jews. Aristobulus.
• * 1.227

  Josephus.
• * 1.228

  Testimonies of the Fathers.
• * 1.229

  Tertullian.
• * 1.230

  Clement Ale∣xand. De quo argumen∣to praeter Euse∣bium, prolixe a∣gunt prisci pa∣tres, Cl. Alex∣and. passim, im∣primis lib. 1 & 5. Strom. Theo∣philus lib. ad Autolycum. Ta∣tia••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Hornius Hist. philos. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.231

  Eusebius.
• * 1.232

  Theodoret.
• * 1.233

  Jo. Grammati∣cus.
• * 1.234

  Testimonies from moderne Papists.
• * 1.235

  Aug. Steueq. Euguhinus.
• * 1.236

  Justinianus.
• * 1.237

  The Testimonie of Protestant Writers. Melancthon. Serranus.
• * 1.238

  Julius and Jo∣seph Scaliger.
• * 1.239

  Vossius.
• * 1.240

  Heinsius.
• * 1.241

  Bochart.
• * 1.242

  Grotius.
• * 1.243

  Hornius.
• * 1.244

  Testimonies of the English. Jackson.
• * 1.245

  Usher.
• * 1.246

  Preston.
• * 1.247

  Sir Walter Ra∣legh.
• * 1.248

  Owen.
• * 1.249

  Stillingfleet.
• * 1.250

  Selden.
• * 1.251

  Of the Grecian Philosophie its traduction from the Jews.
• * 1.252

  Of Mythologick Philosophie in general.
• * 1.253

  Mythologick Philosophie strictly taken first seated a∣mongst the Poets.
• * 1.254

  How these Greek Poets disguise the Traditions which originally came from Scri∣ptures.
• * 1.255

  The use and a∣buse of Mytho∣logick Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.256

  Symbolick Philosophie from the Jewish Types, Enigmes, &c.
• * 1.257

  Erat adhuc alia species Mythi∣cae Philosophiae, & ea uti etiam ex sacris apparet, praesertim libro ju∣dicum, omnium antiquissima. Nam fabulae artificiosè compositae rudibus popu is proponebantur, quae sub ima∣gine brutorum, aut aliarum rerum instituendae Vitae rationem ostende∣rent. Quae fabulae postea collectae uni A••sopo, quia is maximè excel∣luit, adscribi coeperunt. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.258

  Metaphorick & Allegorick Phi∣losophie from the Jews.
• * 1.259

  Taautus Theolo∣giae suae mysterta non nisi per alle∣gorias tradebat: teste Sanchonia∣thone, Euseb. l. 1. Praep. c. 7.
• * 1.260

  Mat. 13.3.
• * 1.261

  The matter of Mythologick Philosophie from sacred works, and truthes.
• * 1.262

  The causes of Mythologick Philosophie. 1. Ignorance.
• * 1.263

  1. Ignorance of the Hebrew Idi∣ome.
• * 1.264

  Gen. 46.26. 2. Ignorance of the matter of their traditions.
• * 1.265

  1. In Theologie.
• * 1.266

  2. In Natural Philosophie.
• * 1.267

  3. Ignorance of the Jewish form, or mode of Do∣ctrine.
• * 1.268

  Mat. 13.13. 4. Ignorance from the imper∣fection of Jew¦ish traditions.
• * 1.269

  2. Admiration the cause of all Mythologick Philosophie.
• * 1.270

  Aristotles ac∣count how ad∣miration was tbe cause of all Philosophie, espe∣cially Mytholo∣gick.
• * 1.271

  3. Imitation a cause of Mytho∣logick Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.272

  Plato's great skill in imitation both as to the practice, and Theory thereof.
• * 1.273

  4. Curiosity and affectation of Novelty.
• * 1.274

  Act. 17.21. Some new thing.
• * 1.275

  5. Pride and self advance∣ment.
• * 1.276

  6. Inclination to Idolatrie.
• * 1.277

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.278

  7. Carnal policie to avoid the peoples envy and hatred.
• * 1.279

  A general con∣clusion that all Philosophie, even Aristotles, as to us matter, was traduced from the Jewish Church.
• * 1.280

  The chief heads of the Ionick & Italick Philoso∣phie from Egyp∣tians, Phenici∣ans and Jews.
• * 1.281

  Succedunt Ionicî illi, qui primi se∣ctae nomen dede∣re. Nam aliàs certum est nulli∣bi antiquiores Philosophos quam in Ionia suisse. Horaius Hist. Philos. l. 3. c. 12.
• * 1.282

  Of this first di∣vision of the Greek Philoso∣phers into the Ionick and Ita∣lick Sects, see August. de civit. Dei lib. 8 cap. 2. with Lud. Vives thereon.
• * 1.283

  Of Thales his extract from Phaenicia. Multi tamea Thalem non Mi∣lesium, sed I hoe∣nicem fuisse pu∣tant, t••s••e Euseb. lib. 10. P••aep. cap. 2. Hornius Histor. Philos. l. 3. c. 12.
• * 1.284

  Thales quo{que} sa∣pien••iae amore sa••cius, in ori∣entem abiit, ibi{que} Aegyptiis sacer∣dotibus familia∣riter adhaesit. Laert. lib. 1.
• * 1.285

  Thales his Wis∣dom and Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.286

  The seven wise men, and their Philosophie.
• * 1.287

  Lud. Vives, in Aug. Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 2. saies, that Thales was the first in Greece, that began to philosophize of things natural, being born O∣lympiade 35. as Laertius.
• * 1.288

  Thales's Natu∣ral Philosophie from the Pheni∣cians immediate∣ly, but originally from the Scri∣pture relation of the Creation.
• * 1.289

  Thales's great prinicple, that Water was the first matter of all things, immedi∣ately from San∣choniathon's Phi∣losophie, but ori∣ginally from, Gen. 1.2.
• * 1.290

  Thales's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same with Sanchoniathon's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.291

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. slime, or a mixture of mud and water, the same with Tha∣les's water,
• * 1.292

  That Sanchoni¦athon and Tha¦les received these their principles not by universal Tradition but o∣riginally from Gen. 1.2.
• * 1.293

  Other principles of Phisiologie as∣serted by Thales.
• * 1.294

  The origine of the world by Gods spirit Gen. 1.2.
• * 1.295

  The beauty and perfection of all things. Gen. 1.13.
• * 1.296

  Gen. 1.5.
• * 1.297

  Thales's Mathe∣ticks.

  1. Astronomie.
• * 1.298

  Laertius l. 1.
• * 1.299

  Thales's Geo∣metrie from E∣gypt, and his A∣rithmetick from Phenicia.
• * 1.300

  Thales the first of the Grecians, that philosophi∣zed of God, his nature, &c.
• * 1.301

  Iamblichus de Vita Pythag. c. 12.
• * 1.302

  Of the Scholars & Successors of Thales, see more August. de civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 2. with Lud. Vives thereon.
• * 1.303

  Vossius de Sect. Philos. l. 2. c. 5. Sect. 6.
• * 1.304

  Danaeus ad en∣chirid. Laurent Hora. Hist. phil. l. 3. c. 12. Empedocles.
• * 1.305

  Heraclitus.
• * 1.306

  Heraclitus sen∣tentiarum sua•••• nuhilus. Apul. de Mundo.
• * 1.307

  Babylonem, etiam & Persas, & E∣gyptum, ut disce∣ret, pet••it Demo∣critus. Hor. Hist. phil. l. 3. c. 12.
• * 1.308

  Epaminondas.
• * 1.309

  Hippocrates.
• * 1.310

  Hippocrates non tantum omnia prisco∣rum Philosophorum ad unguem tenuit, sed & om••ium judicem egit, primus hic ipsis Aegyptiis palmam praeripuit: qui medicinam cum philosophia ita jun∣xit, ut dubium sit, maiorne Philo∣sophus, an Medicus suit. Certe cius placitis summa semper autoritas, & quasi sacra fuit. Hornius Histor. phi∣loso, h. lib. 3. cap. 12.
• * 1.311

  Pherecydes his original from Sy∣rus.
• * 1.312

  Pherecydes his father Babys, his birth, &c.
• * 1.313

  The original of Pherecydes's Philosophie from the Phenicians, and Jews.
• * 1.314

  Pherecydes the first that writ Philosophie in Prose.
• * 1.315

  His Philosophie Mythologick.
• * 1.316

  Pherecydes's Natural Philo¦sophie.
• * 1.317

  His Astronomie, and invention of the Heliotrope.
• * 1.318

  Mar. 27, 1664.
• * 1.319

  Pherecydes's Theologie, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the Pheni¦cians.
• * 1.320

  Pherecydes's ten books of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.321

  Pli•• opinion of the Souls immor∣tality.
• * 1.322

  Pherecydes Py∣thagorae praecep∣tor fuit, multa{que} ••••tilissima, impri∣mis animarum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Graecos primus ••do••uit. Hornius Hist. philos. l. 3. c. 12.
• * 1.323

  The 2. distribu∣tion of Ph••loso∣phers into Sects. 1. Pythagorea••s. 2. Platonicks. 3. Cyrenaicks. 4. Megaricks. 5. Acad••micks. 6. Sce••ticks. 7. Stoicks. 8. Cy••ic••s. 9. Epicurean••. 10. Perip••t••t••cks
• * 1.324

  Pythagoras's Philosophie tra∣duced from the Jews, proved by Testimonies.
• * 1.325

  Of Pagans.
• * 1.326

  Jews.
• * 1.327

  Aristobulus Py∣thagoram ex Mo∣s••s lege multa di∣dicesse non dissi∣tetur. Clemens. l. 1. Strom. Euseb. praep. l. 9. c. 3. Joseph. l. 1. con∣tra Apion.
• * 1.328

  Fathers.
• * 1.329

  Modern Learn∣ed.
• * 1.330

  Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 11.
• * 1.331

  Pythagoras's extract and ori∣ginal from the Phenicians.
• * 1.332

  Pythagoras Mne∣sarchi sil••us, ut Apuleius Flo••id. 15. vel Dema∣rati Samii, ut Justinus l. 20. vir suit ingenio acer, indust••ia singulari•• promp∣tus simul & ad∣mirabundus. Horn. Hist. phi∣los l 3. c. 11.
• * 1.333

  Mnesarchus.
• * 1.334

  Pythagoras flou∣rished about the 60. Olympiad an••. 3360.
• * 1.335

  Pythagoras's Preceptors in Greece before his Travels.
• * 1.336

  Pythagoras how he was first changed from a Wrestler into a Philosopher.
• * 1.337

  Pythagoras's travelling into Phenicia.
• * 1.338

  His conference with the succes∣sors of Mochus.
• * 1.339

  And with Jews.
• * 1.340

  His travels into Egypt and con∣versation with their Priests, etc. see more chap. 7. §. 2.
• * 1.341

  Venit & ad Aegyptios Pytha∣goras, & Ara∣bas, & Chaldae∣os, à quibus ra∣tionem insomnio∣rum edidicit, vaticinio{que}, quod sit thurc, primus usus est, & in Aegypto cum Sa∣cerdotibus est ver∣satus, sapientiā∣{que} Aegyptiorum & sermonem didicit. Sic Por∣phyrius, Steuch. Eugub. de peren. philos. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.342

  See Stanly of Pythagoras ch. 4.
• * 1.343

  His conference with the Jews in Egypt.
• * 1.344

  The motives which might en∣duce him to en∣quire into Jew∣ish Mysteries.
• * 1.345

  Pythagoras's tra∣vels unto Baby∣lon, &c.
• * 1.346

  See Stanly of Py∣thagoras ch. 5.
• * 1.347

  Pythagoras's converse with Jews under the name of Chalde∣ans, Zabratus, &c.
• * 1.348

  The advantages he had for con∣versation with the Jews, f••om his skill in the Egyptian and Chaldee tongues.
• * 1.349

  His returne to Samos, and de∣parture thence.
• * 1.350

  His going to Crete and Spar∣ta.
• * 1.351

  Pythagoras's coming into Ita∣ly, and restoring those Cities to their liberty, and unity, by commu∣nicating good Laws, &c.
• * 1.352

  Pythagoras's character by Iamblichus.
• * 1.353

  His eminent qualities both natural and ac∣quired.
• * 1.354

  His freedome f••om irregular passions.
• * 1.355

  His care of his health, modera∣tion in use of the Creature, & diligence in em∣proving time.
• * 1.356

  His aweful pre∣sence & rebukes.
• * 1.357

  His contentation and contempt of honors.
• * 1.358

  Pythagoras's 2. sold Schole and Disciples. 1. His Homoco••∣ion, or common Schole where were his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hearers.
• * 1.359

  Pythagoras's College or Co••¦vent, where were his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or genuines.
• * 1.360

  Habebat (Pytha¦goras) domi suae plurimos jute∣nes, quos ex col∣latis opibus ale∣bat; corúmque conversatio 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicta est. Gellius l. 1. c. 9. quod omnia iis com∣munia essent. Laërt. lib. 8. Hora. Hist. Phi∣los. l. 7. c. 12. In Pythagoras's College or Co∣vent, 1 were his Novices or Probationers.
• * 1.361

  Pythagoras's ••mitting his Scholars after examen &c. from the Jewish rite of admit∣ting Proselites.
• * 1.362

  Probationary Discipline, and Exercises.
• * 1.363

  The Pythagore∣an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Silence.
• * 1.364

  Finis autem si∣lentis bujus alius non erat, quam ut discentes ini∣tio intra mode∣stiae terminos se continentes di∣scerent diligen∣ter voci prae∣ceptoris auscul tare. Horn. Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.365

  The Pythagore∣an distinction of Disciples into Novices and perfect, from the Jews meerly. Phil. 3.12.
• * 1.366

  Phil. 3.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alludes to the Jewish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perfect.
• * 1.367

  1 Tim. 3.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Novice.
• * 1.368

  The Discipline of Pythagoras's Schole and Col∣lege.
• * 1.369

  The confoedera∣tion or consocia∣tion in Pythago∣ras's College founded in vir∣tue.
• * 1.370

  See Stanly of Pythag. Symbols fol. 120.
• * 1.371

  Pythagoras's College from the confoedera∣tion of the Jew∣ish Church.
• * 1.372

  Exod. 19.5, 6. peculiar trea∣sure.
• * 1.373

  Pythagoras's Symbol of Salt as a sign of con∣foederation and covenant from the Jewish use of this type.
• * 1.374

  Levit. 2.13. Salt of the Co∣venant. Numb. 18.19. Covenant of Salt.
• * 1.375

  The Covenant by Salt the same with the Cove∣nant by Sacri∣fice.
• * 1.376

  Luk 13.26. Salt used as a Symbol of Co∣venants and friendship.
• * 1.377

  Ezra. 4.14.
• * 1.378

  Salt also used as a Symbol of Sanctitie.
• * 1.379

  Marke 9.49.
• * 1.380

  Pythagoras drew the pat∣tern of his Col∣legiate life from the Essenes.
• * 1.381

  The Discipline of the Essenes.
• * 1.382

  The Pythagore∣ans imitation of the Essenes.
• * 1.383

  1. The Pythago∣reans great Se∣paratists from all that were not of their So∣cietie.
• * 1.384

  Gal. 2.9. See Chap. 9. Parag. 3.
• * 1.385

  Mat. 7.6.
• * 1.386

  2. Their shun∣ning worldly pleasures, &c.
• * 1.387

  3. Their strict consociation & community of goods.
• * 1.388

  Inter Pythago∣raeos col••batur societ as insepa∣rabilis, quod à communione appellabatur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hunc morem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apud Judaeos imitati sunt Essenes, qui omnia communia habebant. Horn. Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.389

  Their Celibate from the Essenes, or Jewish Priests.
• * 1.390

  Pythagorean ab∣stinences from Jewes and Es∣senes.
• * 1.391

  Col. 2.16. Pythagorean Praecepts.
• * 1.392

  Col. 2.21.22. Pythagoras's Dogmes.
• * 1.393

  1. Tim. 4.3. Commanding to abstain from meats.
• * 1.394

  6 Their purifi∣cations both Ce∣remonial and Moral.
• * 1.395

  7. Their obser∣vation of Festi∣vals.
• * 1.396

  8. Their white distinctive vest∣ments from Ec∣cles. 9.8. Let thy garments be white.
• * 1.397

  Their perpetual silence, or con∣celing their mysteries from strangers.
• * 1.398

  Their Reve∣re••ce towards their Elders.
• * 1.399

  They own Fate.
• * 1.400

  Their Devoti∣on.
• * 1.401

  Their studies, Contempla∣tive, Active.
• * 1.402

  The Pythago∣rean dayly ex∣ercises, with their morning Premeditati∣ons, and even∣ing Recollecti∣on of all.
• * 1.403

  Pythagoraei exercendae me∣moriae causa, singulis diebus quid egissent, quid legissent, quid profecis∣sent, in Vita, in Doctrina, vesperi com∣memorabant: benefacta lau∣dem, malefa∣cta vituperium merebantur. Hornius. Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.404

  Constancie, and against Apostacie.
• * 1.405

  Their Excom∣munication.
• * 1.406

  A general Pa∣rallel 'twixt the Essenes & Pythagoreans.
• * 1.407

  A distribution of Pythagore∣an Philosophie
• * 1.408

  Pythagoras received part of his Phi∣losophie. 1. from Orphe∣us.
• * 1.409

  2 part from Egypt.
• * 1.410

  3 From the Chaldeans.
• * 1.411

  4 From the Thracians.
• * 1.412

  Pythagoras begins with the Mathema∣ticks.
• * 1.413

  Pythagoras first entred his Scholars in Arithmetick.
• * 1.414

  2. His skill in Musick.
• * 1.415

  Pythagor••is certe moris f••it, & cum e∣vigilassent a∣nimos ad ly∣ram excitare, quo essent ad agendum e∣rectiores, & cum somnum peterent, ad eandem le∣nire mentes, ut si quid fuis∣set turbidiorū cogitationum, componerent. Quintil. l. 9. c. 4.
• * 1.416

  3. His skill in Astronomie.
• * 1.417

  The Earths motion.
• * 1.418

  Geometrie.
• * 1.419

  His Weights, and Measures of Jewish ori∣ginal.
• * 1.420

  Pythagoras's Physicks.
• * 1.421

  1 Contempla∣tive, which was the Histo∣rie of the worlds origine
• * 1.422

  1. The world made by God.
• * 1.423

  Gen. 1.31.2. The first Matter, Gen. 1.1, 2.
• * 1.424

  3. The Forme of the World, its Order, &c. Gen. 1.13.
• * 1.425

  The main Ac∣tive principle Fire.
• * 1.426

  Gen. 1.2.
• * 1.427

  Pythagoras's Medicine.
• * 1.428

  Pythagoras's Moral Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.429

  1. Ethicks.
• * 1.430

  1. Pythagorean Dogmes rela∣ting to Mo∣ral Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.431

  2 Their pathe∣tick precepts, and exhortati∣ons to virtue.
• * 1.432

  Characteristi∣cal Ethicks. A wicked state represen∣ted by a Cof∣fin, and Death. Virtutis studi∣um litera Y. significabat Lactant.
• * 1.433

  Luk. 15.24.
• * 1.434

  2. Salt a Sym∣bol of holie Communion.
• * 1.435

  3. The Swal∣low a Symbol of a s••loathful Student.
• * 1.436

  4. Against Passion. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.437

  Diogen. is for Patience. 6. Against Co∣vetuousnes. 7. Fortitude. 8. Against di∣stracting Cares 9. Justice. 10. Virtue ex∣pressed by Harmonie, Health, &c.
• * 1.438

  The summe of Pythag.'s Ethicks. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.439

  Pythagoras's Politicks.
• * 1.440

  The original of Pythag.'s Politicks from the Jewish & Mosaick Laws.
• * 1.441

  The Pythago∣reans greatly verst in Poli∣ticks.
• * 1.442

  The two main Pythagorean principles of Politie, were 1. For Liber∣tie, 2. against Faction.
• * 1.443

  Pythagoras's great Apo∣thegm.
• * 1.444

  Platoni disci∣plinam Pytha∣goricam dili∣genti et ma∣gnifica opera instructam vi∣sam fuisse: e∣umque ab ipsis intellectualem Philosophiae partem acce∣pisse. Apuleius de Philos.
• * 1.445

  Pythagoras. made Theolo∣gie the Center of his Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.446

  Philosophie properly only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.447

  August. Steuch. lib. 10. d•• Per••n. Philos. cap. 10.
• * 1.448

  Pythagoras's Tetractie from the Jewish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.449

  Haec omnia funt nomin•• Naturae Divi∣nae, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vnitas, ipsum esse, ipsa Immobilitas Steuch. E••g. Peren. Philos. l. 3. c. 7.

  Pythagoras's Metaphysick contemplations about Gods Essence from Mosaick De∣scriptions of God.

  Exod. 3.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 genere tantum d••fferunt. Steuch. Eugub. Paren. Philos. Dico ••andem rem ab cis (scil. Philos.) nuncupatam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ipsum Ens, ipsam Infinitatem Steuch. Eugub. Peren. Philos. lib. 3. c. 7. Jambl. c. 29.
• * 1.450

  Pythagoras's Scriptural tradition of the unitie of God.

  Empedocles autem, et Par∣menides, auto∣re Aristotele, appellabant

  Deum nomine Vnitatis: ergo idem est apud eos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ipsa Vnitas, er u∣num Principi∣um Steuch. Eugub. Peren. Philos. l. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.451

  Celebre est dictum apud Platonicos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 omninum re∣rumradix, & principium u∣nitas Steuch. Eugubinus de Peren. Philos. l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.452

  Pythagoras's Jewish Tradi∣tion of Gods Simplicitie.
• * 1.453

  Pythagoras's Divine Ideas the same with the Scriptural tradition of Gods Decrees.
• * 1.454

  The Foundati∣on of the Py∣thagorean I∣deas, that fa∣mous oriental tradition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.455

  Parmenides his opinion of Ideas.
• * 1.456

  Timaeus Lo∣crus his opini∣on of Ideas.
• * 1.457

  The primarie Idea of things possible seated in the Divine Essence.
• * 1.458

  The secondarie Exemplar of things future, the same with Gods decrees.
• * 1.459

  The difference 'twixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.460

  The goodness of all things consists in their answer∣ing to their Original Ex∣emplar in Gods Decrees.
• * 1.461

  Of Gods Cre∣ation & Pro∣vidence.
• * 1.462

  See Stanly of Pythagoras's Philosophie, chap. 3.
• * 1.463

  Pythagoras's Model of Di∣vine Worship.
• * 1.464

  1. Against all Images or vi∣sible formes in Worship.
• * 1.465

  Exod. 20.4.
• * 1.466

  2. That God is to be wor∣shipped by Rites of his own appoint∣ing.
• * 1.467

  The Pythago∣rean exactnes in Divine Worship, from Eccles. 5.1.
• * 1.468

  Pythagoras's Daemons, their nature, and office.
• * 1.469

  A three-fold Theologie, Mythick.
• * 1.470

  Politick, Natural.
• * 1.471

  Of the Aeones.
• * 1.472

  Of the Soul.
• * 1.473

  Pythag.'s Me∣tempsychosis a corrupt tra∣dition of the Resurrection.
• * 1.474

  That Pytha∣goras's Me∣tempsychosis was Symbo∣lical, see c. 9. paragr. 8.
• * 1.475

  See more of this, Stanly cap. 7. fol. 145.
• * 1.476

  A general Idea of Py∣thagoras's Theologie.
• * 1.477

  Pythagoreans acknowledge their Igno∣rance.
• * 1.478

  Of Divina∣ti••••.
• * 1.479

  Pythagoras's mode of Phi∣l••sophizing Symbolick.
• * 1.480

  Pythagoraei sapientiam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quibusdam, & integumentis repraesentabant, quae ipsi Symbola appellant. In quibus ita Philosophiae praecepta comprehens•• erant, ut vel ambitionis dissuasionem, et otii sugam, vel pravorum sodalium declinationem contine••ent. Plut. l. d•• edu••. Laert. l. 8. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.481

  Pythagoras's Symbols from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Jews.
• * 1.482

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Symbol a∣mongst the an∣cients signified a Scar••, or other mark, where∣by Souldiers were distin∣guisht from their ene••i••s: thus the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ca¦stles Creed was called •• Symbol of Faith.
• * 1.483

  An enumerati∣on of Pythag. Symbols, which he re∣ceived from the Jews.
• * 1.484

  1 Symbol. Give the right of fellowship to none but Pythagoreans. Gal. 2.9.
• * 1.485

  To abstein from things dead Mat. 8.22. Numb. 6.6.
• * 1.486

  Salt a Symbol of Covenants, Friendship, & Sanctitie, ac∣cording to the Jewish rite.
• * 1.487

  Symbols rela∣ting to the Forme of Py∣thagoras's Philosophie.
• * 1.488

  Ethick Sym∣bols.
• * 1.489

  Pythagoras's Metempsycho∣sis Symbolical of Morals &c.
• * 1.490

  Nebuchadnez∣zars Metemp∣chosysis, Dan. 4.32, 33. The rise of the Py∣thagoreans.
• * 1.491

  The Pythago∣rean Absti∣nence from Flesh Symbo∣lical in imita∣tion of the Jews.
• * 1.492

  Abstinence from Beans Symbolical.
• * 1.493

  Pythagoras 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 suis dice∣bat & à vene∣re illicita ab∣stinendum do∣cebat. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enim notabant vasa seminaria sive testiculos. Horn. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.494

  Symbols of things Divine. Numbers Symbols of God, &c.
• * 1.495

  Pythagoras's Symbols of Divine Wor∣ship of Jewish extract.
• * 1.496

  Pythagoras's Works, whe∣ther he left any thing in Writing.
• * 1.497

  The Pythago∣rean Sect de∣stroyed, and why. Hornius Phi∣los. Hist. l. 3. c. 11.
• * 1.498

  Pythagoras's Followers, & their Writings.
• * 1.499

  Pythagorizing Philosophers.
• * 1.500

  The Pride of the Pythago∣reans, and all other Philoso∣phers.
• * 1.501

  The Eleatick Sect.
• * 1.502

  Xenophanes the Founder of the Eleatick Sect.
• * 1.503

  Parmenides's Philosophie.
• * 1.504

  Zeno the Eleatick.
• * 1.505

  Logick inven∣ted by Zeno the Eleatick, Vossius Hist. Graec. l. 4. c. 2. p. 437.
• * 1.506

  Leucippus his Dogmes of A∣tomes.
• * 1.507

  Democritus's Opinion of A∣tomes.
• * 1.508

  Democritus's skill in Natu∣ral Philoso∣phie, Experi∣ments, & Me∣dicine.
• * 1.509

  Branches of the Italick sect. The Heracliti∣an.
• * 1.510

  The Epicurean
• * 1.511

  The Sceptick.
• * 1.512

  Vossius de Philos. Sect. part. 2. cap. 5. paragr. 7. Lud. Viv. Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 2.
• * 1.513

  Socrates the Author of Mo∣ral Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.514

  Galenus initio libri de Sectis Philos. S••crati inventionem Ethicae, et Lo∣gicae tribuit. Hornius Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 13.
• * 1.515

  Why Socrates applyed him∣self wh••lly to Moralitie.
• * 1.516

  Socrates a•• U∣niversal Scho∣lar.
• * 1.517

  Socrates juni∣or adhuc in∣credibili cupi∣ditate naturalis Scientiae arsit, uti de se apud Platonem, lib. de anima testa∣rur: Senior factus cam Philosophiae partem, ut dubiam, incertam, inutilem, prorsus repudia••it. Hornius Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 13.
• * 1.518

  Socrates's Me∣taphysicks.
• * 1.519

  Socrates hi•• Metaphysick Contemplati∣ons from Scri∣pture traditi∣ons.
• * 1.520

  4. That Virtue comes from God.
• * 1.521

  5. That all true know∣ledge of God is by Divine infusion.
• * 1.522

  Socrates's Dae∣mo••.
• * 1.523

  Socrates ute∣batur Daemone 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sive domestico, & familiari; ex cujus pr••scrip∣to omnia age∣bat: de quo integro libro de Deo So∣cratis Madau∣rensis agit. Hornius i Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 13.
• * 1.524

  8. Of faith, and Prayer.
• * 1.525

  9. Of the Soul it's immorta∣litie, &c.
• * 1.526

  Socrates's Active Moral Philosophie how far con¦templative.
• * 1.527

  All Philoso∣phie ought to determine in Virtue and Action.
• * 1.528

  Socrates's Moralitie.
• * 1.529

  1 His Insti∣tutes against self conceited∣nes, and fla∣terie, with advice to studie our selves.
• * 1.530

  2. For the go∣vernment of the tongue.
• * 1.531

  Socrates's mode, or forme of Philosophi∣zing, Natural, and familiar.
• * 1.532

  1. His Rheto∣rick mode Iro∣nical.
• * 1.533

  2. His Dialect∣ick by Inducti∣on, which con∣sisted of Inter∣rogations.
• * 1.534

  These Diale∣ctical interro∣gations of Jewish origi∣nal.
• * 1.535

  The occasion and instru∣ments of his Death.
• * 1.536

  Tandem cum nonnullorum odia in se con∣citasset, accu∣satus quòd cor∣rumperet ja∣ventutem, et novas supersti∣tiones induce∣ret ad cicutae forbitionem condemnatus est Socrates. Quint. l. 4. c. 4. Apul. 10. miles. Horni∣us, Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 13. Socrates's Character.
• * 1.537

  Of Socrates's Scholars, and their different persuasions a∣bout Morals, the chiefest Good, &c. whence they fell into di∣vers Sects.
• * 1.538

  Xenophon.
• * 1.539

  Aristippus Founder of the Cyreniack••
• * 1.540

  Antisthenes of the Cynicks, and Stoicks.
• * 1.541

  Euclid of the Megaricks.
• * 1.542

  Phaedo of the Eleaticks.
• * 1.543

  Plato of the Academicks.
• * 1.544

  That Plato borrowed the choicest of his Notions from the Jews, pro∣ved by Testi∣monies of Heathens. 1. Plato him∣self.
• * 1.545

  2. Plato ac∣knowledgeth his choicest Traditions to be from the Barbarians, by whom he means the Jews.
• * 1.546

  Testatus Pla∣to Graecos à Barbaris didi∣cisse, sed ab eis accepta melio∣ra fecisse. Steuch. Eugu∣binus de Per∣e••. Philos. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.547

  Plato's Syri∣an, and Phe∣nician Fables Jewish.
• * 1.548

  Plato's anci∣cient Traditi∣ons Jewish.
• * 1.549

  Plato's Tradi∣tion of the Ancients.
• * 1.550

  Plato's anci∣ent Tradition.
• * 1.551

  Plato's Divine Word.
• * 1.552

  Plato's proba∣ble Tradition, or Fable.
• * 1.553

  Plato's Fable of the Golden Age.
• * 1.554

  Why Plato conceled the Jewish name and Traditi∣ons.
• * 1.555

  Numeni••s.
• * 1.556

  Testimonies of Jews. Aristobulus.
• * 1.557

  Josephus.
• * 1.558

  Testimonies of Christians more Ancient, and Moderne. Clemens A∣lexandr.
• * 1.559

  Just. Martyr.
• * 1.560

  Jo: Gramma∣ticus.
• * 1.561

  Ambrose.
• * 1.562

  Augustin▪
• * 1.563

  Cudworth.
• * 1.564

  Stillingfleet.
• * 1.565

  The Historie of Plato's life.
• * 1.566

  Plato's origi∣nal.
• * 1.567

  His institution under Socrates
• * 1.568

  Platos's tra∣vels into Ma∣gna Graecia & instructions from the Py∣thagoreans.
• * 1.569

  Plato Pytha∣goricae, praeter caeteras omnes disciplinae par∣ticeps est. Eus. contra Hieroc.
• * 1.570

  Plato's travels into Egypt, where he in∣formed him∣self in the Jewish wis∣dom.
• * 1.571

  Quae ejus p••∣regrinatio om∣nium celeber∣r••ms fuit. Nam in Aegypto Praecipuum Sacerdotem Sech ••••phim Heliopolita∣num, ut Conu∣phim, Eudox∣us audivit Hornius Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 14.
• * 1.572

  Plato whilst in Egypt lear∣ned from the Jewish Do∣ctrine.

  1. The Origine of the Uni∣verse.
• * 1.573

  How Plato might receive information from the Jew∣ish Records whilst in E∣gypt.
• * 1.574

  Plato's skill in the Egyptian Language, gave him ad∣vantage to read the Jew∣ish Records.
• * 1.575

  Plato's Colle∣ctions from the Phenician Theologie, and Philosophie.
• * 1.576

  Plato's Aca∣demie. Academia à Cad ••o nomē accepit non ab Academo: Erat Aedificiū nobile, amplū, amaenum, mul∣tis arboribus consitum, um∣bram praeben∣tibus, Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 7. c. 3.
• * 1.577

  Mortuo (Pla∣to ••) summus ac pene Divi∣nus honor à Discipulis ha∣bitus. Singulis annis ejus me∣moriam tan∣quam Herois celebrabant, teste Eusebio, l. 10. praep. c. 1.Horn. Hist. Philos. l. 3. c. 14.
• * 1.578

  Plato's cha∣racter. Philosophorū quis dubitet Platonem esse praecipu•••• sive acumine disse∣rendi, sive Elo∣quentiae facul∣tate divina qu••dā & Ho∣merica? Fabius, l. 10. c. ••.
• * 1.579

  Plato's Works.
• * 1.580

  Of the old A∣cademie, and its difference from the new in point of Suspension.
• * 1.581

  Whether Plato D••gmatized?
• * 1.582

  The New Aca∣demicks, and their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with it's original.
• * 1.583

  This is but that one Do∣ctors Opinion.
• * 1.584

  The difference 'twixt the New Acade∣micks, and Scepticks.
• * 1.585

  The original of the New Pla∣tonicks, and their chief Seat, or Schole at Alexandria
• * 1.586

  Arcesilas recte aliorum sustulit disciplinas, sed non recte fun∣davit suam— Quid ergo promovit Ar∣c••silas nisi quod confectis omnibus Phi∣losophis seipsū quo{que} eodem mucrone confixit? Gladium igitur habebat, non scutum. Lact. de Ira Dei l. 3. c. 3.4.
• * 1.587

  Potamon. Ammonius. Plutarch. & Philo Judaeus.
• * 1.588

  Ammonius the Platonist.
• * 1.589

  His borrowing the choicest of his Notions from Scripture.
• * 1.590

  Of Plotinus his Character.
• * 1.591

  In Plotino privatum quic∣quam non est quod admire∣ris, qui se un∣dique praebet admirandum, quem de D••vi∣nis divine, de Humanis hu∣mane longe super hominem docta sermonis obliquitate lo∣quentem su∣dantes Plato∣nici vix intel∣ligunt, Pic. Mirandul. in Apol. 90. thes.
• * 1.592

  Of Porphyrie.
• * 1.593

  Iamblichus.
• * 1.594

  Lud. Vives, on Aug. de Civi••. l. 8. c. 12.
• * 1.595

  Voss. de script. Graec. lib. 2. c. 10. p. 208.
• * 1.596

  Syrianus.
• * 1.597

  Proclus his succession.
• * 1.598

  See Suidas.
• * 1.599

  Johan. Gram∣maticus.
• * 1.600

  Maximus Ty∣rius.
• * 1.601

  Alcinous.
• * 1.602

  Apuleius.
• * 1.603

  Chalcidias.
• * 1.604

  Mars. Ficinus.
• * 1.605

  These New Platonists cal∣led Electicks, because they chose out the best of all Sects.
• * 1.606

  The general design of these New Plato∣nists to re∣forme Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.607

  The defects of this Platonick Reformation begun by Am∣monius.
• * 1.608

  1. In Concele∣ing the Origi∣nal of these Scriptural Notions.
• * 1.609

  2. The too great extolling of Platonick Philosophie.
• * 1.610

  Particular E∣vils, that fol∣lowed upon that Platonick Reformation. 1. As to Pa∣gans.
• * 1.611

  The sad effect. of this Plato∣nich Reforma∣tion in the Christian Churches.
• * 1.612

  Plato's Symbo∣lick mode of Philosophi∣zing.
• * 1.613

  How Symbo∣lick Philoso∣phie ought to be regulated.
• * 1.614

  Plato's Symbo∣lick mode of Philosophizing from the Jews.
• * 1.615

  Plato affects the Socratick mode of Phi∣losophizing yet with some superaddition of his own.
• * 1.616

  Wherein Plato differed from Socrates, as to his mode of Philosophiz∣ing.
• * 1.617

  1 Socrates was more Aporema∣tick, but Plato more Dogma∣tick.
• * 1.618

  Plato's mode of Philoso∣phizing dif∣ferent from Socrates i•• point of Sym∣bols, and Alle∣gories.
• * 1.619

  This Platonick mode of rea∣soning by Di∣alogues of Jewish origin.
• * 1.620

  The distributi∣on of Platonick Philosophie as to its Matter into

  • ...1. Pythagorick.
  • ...2. Heraclitick.
  • ...3. Socratick.
• * 1.621

  1. Plato as to Theologicks Pythagorizeth.
• * 1.622

  2. Plato as to Sensibles fol∣lows Heraclit.
• * 1.623

  3. As to Mo∣rals Plato fol∣lows Socrates.
• * 1.624

  2. Division of Platonick Phi∣losophie into Contemplative and Active.
• * 1.625

  Plato's 3d di∣stribution into Moral, Natu∣ral, and Ra∣tional.
• * 1.626

  This division of Jewish ex∣tract.
• * 1.627

  Ammonius's distribution of Philosophie in∣to Organick, Theoretick, & Practick.
• * 1.628

  The imperfe∣ction of this distribution as to Plato's no∣tion of Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.629

  The Distribu∣tion of Plato∣nick Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.630

  1. Logick.
• * 1.631

  2. Natural Philosophie.
• * 1.632

  1. Philosophie, 1. Contempla∣tive.
• * 1.633

  2. Active.
• * 1.634

  Moral Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.635

  Plato's Meta∣physicks.
• * 1.636

  Plato's Idea of Natural Philosophie▪
• * 1.637

  The Generick notion of Phi∣losophie is Ap∣petition.
• * 1.638

  Knowledge of things, object of the inclina∣tion of the mind, know∣ledge of things invariable.
• * 1.639

  1. Intelligence the knowledge of first Prin∣ciples.
• * 1.640

  2. Discourse, or Science de∣monstrative.
• * 1.641

  •• Faith
• * 1.642

  4. Imitation.
• * 1.643

  The simple Ob∣ject.
• * 1.644

  3. The Speci∣fick Act. Theo∣retick, or Con∣templative.
• * 1.645

  The Qualities of his Contem∣plation.
• * 1.646

  4. The Terme, or effect of Philosophers Truth.
• * 1.647

  The Idea of Moral Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.648

  1. Its Genus. Moral Pru∣dence.
• * 1.649

  Prudence what?
• * 1.650

  Its Objects.
• * 1.651

  Its Offices.
• * 1.652

  The parts of Prudence.
• * 1.653

  1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Providence.
• * 1.654

  2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dexteritie.
• * 1.655

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sagacitie.
• * 1.656

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.657

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Experience, its use as to the production of Prudence.
• * 1.658

  2. The subject of Moral Prudence the Soul, and par∣ticularly the Conscience.
• * 1.659

  Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Conscience's Law.
• * 1.660

  1. Synteresis, or habit of principles
• * 1.661

  2. The Synei∣desis, self re∣flexion.
• * 1.662

  The Rule of Prudence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Right Reason.
• * 1.663

  Right Reason is 1. Subjective.
• * 1.664

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.665

  2. The Object. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Law of Na∣ture.
• * 1.666

  3. Plato's Divine Philosophie in the contempla∣tion, affecti∣on, imitation, of God.
• * 1.667

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.668

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.669

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.670

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.671

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.672

  This Divine Philosophie is 1. The Supreme Science.
• * 1.673

  2. Affective and sweet.
• * 1.674

  Plato's Cha∣racters of a true Philoso∣pher.
• * 1.675

  1. Philosopher. must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.676

  2. Well insti∣tuted.
• * 1.677

  3. A lover of Truth.
• * 1.678

  4. Wholly de∣voted to Phi∣losophie.
• * 1.679

  5. Not Cove∣tous.
• * 1.680

  6. Nobly di••¦posed.
• * 1.681

  7. Courageous.
• * 1.682

  8. Not Morose.
• * 1.683

  9. Of an Har∣monious Na∣ture.
• * 1.684

  10. Virtuous.
• * 1.685

  Plato's mode, or Forme of Logick consist∣ing in Dia∣logues.
• * 1.686

  The original of this Dialogi∣zing mode, from the Elea∣tick Schole of Zeno.
• * 1.687

  Plato's Dia∣logizing Lo∣gick original∣ly from the Jews.
• * 1.688

  The Scripture mode of dispu∣ting by Dia∣logues.
• * 1.689

  Logick a Key, Organ, or Me∣thod for the disquisition of Truth.
• * 1.690

  Plato's Lo∣gick Precepts for the disqui∣sition of Truth. 1. A Logician must be of ripe age, Grave, Moderate, not vain glorious, or contentious.
• * 1.691

  How far the old Academie was guiltie of contentious Disputes, which gave rise to the new Academick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.692

  See more of this Acade∣mick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in what pre∣cedes of Pla∣to's Academie.
• * 1.693

  2. R. The mat∣ter of Logick debates must be momentous and useful.
• * 1.694

  3. Rule for the laying good foundation Principles.
• * 1.695

  4. R. A metho∣dical proce∣dure from par∣ticulars to ge∣nerals, from part to the whole.
• * 1.696

  5. R. The use of Examples.
• * 1.697

  6. R. To distin∣guish rightly 'twixt Truth, and Falshood.
• * 1.698

  7. R. To state well the Affir∣mative, and Truth.
• * 1.699

  8. R. We may not expect more exactnes than the mat∣ter will afford
• * 1.700

  9. R. Libertie of judgment.
• * 1.701

  10. R. Reason more to be va∣lued than Au∣thoritie.
• * 1.702

  Non inventio∣num acumen, sed rerū pon∣de••a am••mus.
• * 1.703

  11. R. Modestie, Candor, and Moderation to be used in Di∣sputes.
• * 1.704

  12. R. Of the manner of con∣futing Errors, See Hoonrb. Sum. Controv. p. 30, 31.54.56.13. R.
• * 1.705

  Plato's Dia∣lectick accord∣ing to Alcino∣us, cap. 5.
• * 1.706

  The Elements of Dialectick 5
• * 1.707

  Division.
• * 1.708

  Definition.
• * 1.709

  Analysis.
• * 1.710

  Induction of judgment.
• * 1.711

  Proposition Affirmative, or Negative, Universal, or Particular.
• * 1.712

  Ratiocination.
• * 1.713

  Ratiocination Categorick.
• * 1.714

  Hypothetick.
• * 1.715

  Mixt.
• * 1.716

  Categories.
• * 1.717

  Notation.
• * 1.718

  Plato's Phy∣sicks, a storie of the worlds Origine.
• * 1.719

  That Plato had his Storie con∣cerning the O∣rigine of the Universe from Moses's Histo∣rie of the Cre∣ation Gen. 1.
• * 1.720

  Plato follows Moses, Gen. 1.1 in asserting the Worlds begin∣ing.
• * 1.721

  How Plato af∣firmes the world to be e∣ternal.
• * 1.722

  God the first cause of all.
• * 1.723

  Gods Ideal Efficiencie.
• * 1.724

  Of Plato's In∣telligible World.
• * 1.725

  The Difference 'twixt Plato's Ideas, and Exemplar.
• * 1.726

  Gods Energe∣tick Efforma∣tive Efficien∣cie.
• * 1.727

  Of Plato's Anima Mundi or Universal Spirit.
• * 1.728

  Nunquam fu∣turus est Pla∣tonicus, qui allegoricè Pla∣tonem non pu∣tat intelligen∣dum: nisi for∣te Aristotelico more in Plato∣nis verba, non in sensum o∣pertum, & pro∣fundiorem figna inferre velit. Cael. Rho∣dig. l. 9. c. 12.
• * 1.729

  Plato's Uni∣versal Spirit exactly an∣swers to the Spirit's Effor∣mative Virtue, Gen. 1.2. Moved, &c.
• * 1.730

  Plato's Uni∣versal spirit refers to the spirit's preser∣vation, and Providence.
• * 1.731

  3. Plato' Soul of the world taken for its Harmonie, and Order.
• * 1.732

  4. Plato's igni∣fick virtue how far it may be ••ited the Uni∣versal spirit.
• * 1.733

  The Bodie of the Universe, and its origi∣nal matter.
• * 1.734

  The Parallel 'twixt Moses and Plato in description of the First Mat∣ter of the Uni∣verse.
• * 1.735

  1. In it's Cre∣ation.
• * 1.736

  1. Moses's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the same with Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.737

  Moses's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the origine of Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.738

  Euseb. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.739

  Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Moses, Gen. 1.25.
• * 1.740

  5. Gen. 1.2. Face of the deep.
• * 1.741

  6. Gen. 1.2. Moved on the face of the waters.
• * 1.742

  The bodie of the Universe, and its consti∣tutive parts the 4. Elemen.
• * 1.743

  Plato received this distributi∣on of the bodie of the Universe into 4. Ele∣ments from Moses, Gen. 1.1. &c.
• * 1.744

  Serranus his Analysis of Gen. 1.1, 2. out of Beza.
• * 1.745

  The Forme of the Universe, its Harmonie, Order, and Beautie.
• * 1.746

  The Affections of the Uni∣verse
• * 1.747

  1. Perfection.
• * 1.748

  2. Affecti••n of the Uni∣verse is its U∣nitie.
• * 1.749

  3. Finitenes.
• * 1.750

  4. The Uni∣verse has a Figure round.
• * 1.751

  5. Color.
• * 1.752

  6. Time, an∣other Affecti∣on of Bodies.
• * 1.753

  7. Mobilitie.
• * 1.754

  8. Generation.
• * 1.755

  9. Daration.
• * 1.756

  Second part of Physiologie, of the parts of the Universe.
• * 1.757

  1. The Creati∣on of the An∣gels.
• * 1.758

  2. The Crea∣tion of the Heavens, their matter Fire.
• * 1.759

  That the Sun and Stars are Fire, Gen. 1.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fire as well as Light.
• * 1.760

  Gen. 1.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the same with Ur, Gen. 11.28.
• * 1.761

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fire, the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gen. 1.3.
• * 1.762

  Of Light, and Darkness, Gen. 1.5.
• * 1.763

  Of the Lower World.
• * 1.764

  Wind.
• * 1.765

  Air.
• * 1.766

  Water.
• * 1.767

  Of Meteors.
• * 1.768

  Of Active Physiologie touching Plants, and Animals.
• * 1.769

  Of Man's Ori∣ginal & For∣mation accor∣ding to the I∣mage of God.
• * 1.770

  The Souls perfection.
• * 1.771

  The under∣standing.
• * 1.772

  The will.
• * 1.773

  Plato's noti∣ons about the Soul from Scripture.
• * 1.774

  Physical Apho∣risms for the conservation of mans body in health.
• * 1.775

  The advanta∣ges of a good habitude of body.
• * 1.776

  1. The cau∣ses of di∣seases to be avoided. 1. Dispropor∣tion of first qualities.
• * 1.777

  2. Alterations
• * 1.778

  3. Ataxie of humours.
• * 1.779

  Cruditie the Mother of diseases.
• * 1.780

  Nature is to be maintained in her due of∣fices and mo∣tions.

  Natura est morborum medicatrix: medicus na∣turae minister eam{que} recte agentem im∣itari debet Sennert. med.

  1 Excretion.
• * 1.781

  2 Perspiration
• * 1.782

  3 Spirits.
• * 1.783

  Bene vivere est, bene as∣pirare, respi∣rare, & per∣spirare.
• * 1.784

  Rules for Ali∣ment.
• * 1.785

  Bene vivere est bene in∣gerere, di∣gerere; & egerere.
• * 1.786

  Therapeutick Physick.
• * 1.787

  The character of a good Phy∣sician.
• * 1.788

  Plato's Moral and Metaphy∣sick Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.789

  1 Plato's Ethicks. 1. Of the chiefest good.
• * 1.790

  2. Of Virtue.
• * 1.791

  8. Of Sin.
• * 1.792

  4. Of the Affections, their Tempe∣rance & Mo∣deration.
• * 1.793

  Particularly of Love.
• * 1.794

  Of Justice▪
• * 1.795

  Plato's Oeconomicks.
• * 1.796

  Plato's Politicks.
• * 1.797

  Plato's Metaphysicks.
• * 1.798

  1. Of God, his Essence, and 2. Attributes. 1. Ʋnitie.
• * 1.799

  Of God's Simplicitie.
• * 1.800

  Gods Immu∣tabilitie.
• * 1.801

  God's Eter∣nitie.
• * 1.802

  God's Omni∣presence.
• * 1.803

  God's Justice.
• * 1.804

  Of God's Veracitie.
• * 1.805

  God's Puritie.
• * 1.806

  God's Benig∣nitie.

  God's Omni∣science.

  God's incom∣prehensibilitie God's Will the cause of all things.
• * 1.807

  2. Of the Human Soul.
• * 1.808

  The Traducti∣on of Aristo∣tle's Philoso∣phie from the Jews proved, 1. By Testi∣monies of Aristobulus.
• * 1.809

  Of Clearchus
• * 1.810

  Aug. Steuch. Eugubinus.
• * 1.811

  Rational Ar∣guments. 1. From Ari∣stotle's con∣verse with Jews.
• * 1.812

  2. Alexan∣der's procu∣ring him all Oriental Books.
• * 1.813

  3. Aristotle's Philosophie from Plato.
• * 1.814

  1. Aristotle's Physicks from Plato, and both from Gen. 1.2. &c. Aristotle's first matter.
• * 1.815

  Aristotle's first mover from Plato's description of God.
• * 1.816

  Of the Soul its spirituality
• * 1.817

  Aristoteles mirifice con∣sentit cum Theologia Mosaica, ho∣minem à Deo conditum, formatum{que} corpus, da∣tam{que} sexus varietatem▪ animam au∣tem exterius inspiratam. Steuch. Eugu∣bin. de Peren. Philos. l. 9. c. 7
• * 1.818

  2. Aristotles Metaphysicks from Plato.
• * 1.819

  Principal ob∣ject of Meta∣physicks from Exod. 3.14.
• * 1.820

  The Affections of Ens, Ʋnity, Veritie, and Bonitie.
• * 1.821

  Aristotle's knowledge of God.
• * 1.822

  Touching Ari∣stotle's Noti∣ons of God, and their con∣formitie to Moses. See Steuch. Eu∣gubinus de Peren. Philos. l. 4. c. 1.7.8.9. &c.
• * 1.823

  The Soul separated.
• * 1.824

  A rational account why Aristotle re∣jected some of the more sub∣lime, and My∣stick Traditi∣ons of Plato.
• * 1.825

  3. Aristotle'•• Ethicks.
• * 1.826

  4. His Poli∣ticks from the Jews.
• * 1.827

  Aristotle's Life.
• * 1.828

  Peripatetici a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nominati sectae suae conditorem & caput ag∣noscunt Ari∣stotelem, qui in Xysto seu horto ambu∣lationi ac∣commodato docebat. Laert. lib. 5. Hornius Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 15
• * 1.829

  Aristotle's Character.
• * 1.830

  A comparison 'twixt Plato, & Aristotle.
• * 1.831

  1. As to Rhe∣torick.
• * 1.832

  Plato omni∣um Philoso∣phorum prae∣cipuus uberē, amplam, uno verbo Ulys••e∣am orationē affectabat. Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 7. c. 14.
• * 1.833

  2 As to Logick.
• * 1.834

  3. As to Me∣taphysicks.
• * 1.835

  Aristotle's Doctrines either Acroa∣tick or Exote∣rick.

  Aristoteles horis matu∣tinis legebat ea, quae sub∣tilioris erant indaginis, sive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; à me∣ridie Exote∣ricis dabat operam. Gell. l. 20. c. 4. Hor∣nius hist. Phil. l. 7. c. 4.
• * 1.836

  Illud non est praetermit∣tendum, cir∣ca Aristote∣lis tempora, Grammati∣cam, quae vo∣catur Me∣thodica. Phi∣losoph••ae ad∣junctam esse. Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 15.
• * 1.837

  Aristotle's works what genuine, what not?
• * 1.838

  Aristotele's books how conveighed to posteritie.
• * 1.839

  Hornius Hi∣stor. Phil. l. 3. c. 15.
• * 1.840

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rather than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.841

  Plutarch. in Sylla.
• * 1.842

  Aristotle's Successors, Theophra∣stus, &c. Apud Theo∣phrastum graviter ela∣borata est Philosophia. Pic. Mirandul. in Apol. 90. Thes.
• * 1.843

  Alexander Aphrodiseus the chief com∣mentator on Aristotle.
• * 1.844

  Greek Com∣mentators.
• * 1.845

  Themistius.
• * 1.846

  Olympiodo∣rus.
• * 1.847

  Proclus.
• * 1.848

  Philoponus.
• * 1.849

  Ammonius.
• * 1.850

  Simplicius.
• * 1.851

  Arabians.
• * 1.852

  Averroes, &c.
• * 1.853

  Which are followed by the Schole-men.
• * 1.854

  Est Arabica gens, uti pa∣trii soli, ita & linguae suae amans. Igitur cum incidis∣sent in scrip∣ta Aristotelis Graeca, jam pene apud ipsos Graecos ignota, caepe∣runt inde qu••dam, mox plera{que} vertere in Patriam lin∣guam. Horni∣us. Hist. Phi∣los. l. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.855

  A general Idea of Ari∣stotle's Philo∣sophie.
• * 1.856

  The end of Aristotle's Philosophie the knowledge of God.
• * 1.857

  Aristotle's mode of Phi∣losophizing simple.
• * 1.858

  The Chara∣cter of a ge∣nuine Auditor.
• * 1.859

  The Chara∣cter of a good Expositor.
• * 1.860

  The Distribu∣tion of Aristo∣tle's Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.861

  Aristotle's Lo∣gick and it's distribution by Ammonius.
• * 1.862

  A Scheme of Logick.
• * 1.863

  The parts of Logick.
• * 1.864

  We may not expect the like exactnesse in all matters.
• * 1.865

  The parts of Dialectick. 1. Invention. Ram. Logic. lib. 1.
• * 1.866

  2. Judgment. Ram. Logic. lib. 2. cap. 1.
• * 1.867

  1. Axiomatick Judgment. Cap. 2.
• * 1.868

  2. Dianoetick, or discursive judgment, which is,

  1. Syllogisme, therein is,

  1. The Antece∣dent, wherein is,

  1. A proposi∣tion.

  2. An Assum∣tion.
• * 1.869

  2. The conse∣quent, or Con∣clusion. Cap. 9.
• * 1.870

  Cap. 10.
• * 1.871

  Method c. 17.
• * 1.872

  Cap. 18.
• * 1.873

  Aristotle's Ethicks.
• * 1.874

  1. of human Happinesse.
• * 1.875

  1. Objective. Characters of the chiefest good which must be
• * 1.876

  1. The first principle.
• * 1.877

  2. The last End.
• * 1.878

  3. desireabl•• for it self.
• * 1.879

  4. Simply good.
• * 1.880

  5. The mea∣sure of all good.
• * 1.881

  6. Most pro∣per, & con∣natural.
• * 1.882

  7. Most com∣municative.
• * 1.883

  8. Most rare.
• * 1.884

  9. Possible.
• * 1.885

  10. Real.
• * 1.886

  11. Most permanent.
• * 1.887

  12. Most effe∣ctive of Good.
• * 1.888

  13. Which ad∣mits no excess.
• * 1.889

  14. Self-suffi∣cient, and per∣fect.
• * 1.890

  Of Man's for∣mal happi∣ness.
• * 1.891

  1. Its original from God.
• * 1.892

  2. Its formal Idea, or defi∣nition.
• * 1.893

  1. The formal reason of for∣mal happiness in operation.
• * 1.894

  2. The proper subject, the whole Soul.
• * 1.895

  3. The quali∣fication of the Soul, and its act Virtue.
• * 1.896

  4. The state of humane hap∣pinesse is a perfect life, which conno∣tes perfection.
• * 1.897

  1. Extensive, or of parts.
• * 1.898

  2. Intensive, or of degrees.
• * 1.899

  3. Protensive, or of duration.
• * 1.900

  The principles of humane Acts.
• * 1.901

  1. Practick knowledge.
• * 1.902

  Of Volition, or the will strictly taken.
• * 1.903

  The end, the proper object of Volition.
• * 1.904

  3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consultation.
• * 1.905

  Quod in∣consul to fe∣cimus, con∣sulto revo∣camus.
• * 1.906

  The Object of Consultation.
• * 1.907

  2. The Sub∣ject of Consul∣tation.
• * 1.908

  3. The Act of Consultation.
• * 1.909

  4 Of Election. first its diffe∣rence from Consultation, and Volition.
• * 1.910

  2. Its object the means.
• * 1.911

  3. The Sub∣ject of Electi∣on the ratio∣nal Will.
• * 1.912

  4. The Act of Election. 1. 'Tis ratio∣nal.
• * 1.913

  2. Fixed, and determined.
• * 1.914

  5. Its diffi∣cultie.
• * 1.915

  6. Its effect as to Virtue.
• * 1.916

  7. Its d••fini∣tion.
• * 1.917

  Approbation.
• * 1.918

  Of Voluntari∣nesse, and Libertie.
• * 1.919

  The definition of Voluntarie.
• * 1.920

  Coactive ne∣cessitie alone excludes Li∣bertie.
• * 1.921

  Libertie of contrarietie, or Indifferen∣cie not Essen∣tial to Free-will.
• * 1.922

  Libertie es∣sential to the will.
• * 1.923

  Est in pote∣state natura∣li, quod cum volumus sa∣cimus. Au∣gust.
• * 1.924

  God's necessi∣tating con∣curse destroyes not Libertie.
• * 1.925

  God's prede∣termining concurse to the wil's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 makes h•• not the Author of sin.
• * 1.926

  Touching the moralitie of human acts.
• * 1.927

  1. Of Moral good or virtue.
• * 1.928

  1. Virtues are not Passi∣ons.
• * 1.929

  2. Virtue not a power.
• * 1.930

  3. Virtue an habit.
• * 1.931

  What an ha∣bit is.
• * 1.932

  The formal nature of Vir∣tue in Medio∣critie.
• * 1.933

  How Virtue consists in Me∣diocritie.
• * 1.934

  The mediocri∣tie of Virtue harmonie.
• * 1.935

  The measure or rule of this mediocritie is Right Reason, or the Law of Nature.
• * 1.936

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 est unicum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Virtutis.
• * 1.937

  Bonum ex causis inte∣gris malum ex quoliber defectu.
• * 1.938

  The Idea o•• definition of moral Virtue.
• * 1.939

  1. Virtue con∣sists of the best End and best work.
• * 1.940

  2. All Virtues have one and the same Idea.
• * 1.941

  What Vice is.
• * 1.942

  Aristotle's Physicks.
• * 1.943

  1. Of God's universal cau∣salitie as the first mover.
• * 1.944

  2. That the Soul is incor∣poreous and immortal.
• * 1.945

  Aristotle's Me∣taphysicks.
• * 1.946

  Aristotle's metaphysicks called by him the first Phi∣losophie, or Theologie.
• * 1.947

  A character of Aristotle's Sa∣pience the ob∣ject whereof is.

  1. Things most universal.

  2. Things most difficult.

  3. The first causes.

  4. Sapience is desireable for it self.

  5. Sapience is architecto∣nick and Principal.
• * 1.948

  6. Sapience is of things most universal and immaterial.
• * 1.949

  7. Of things first, and most excellent.
• * 1.950

  Sapience or Metaphysicks The most no∣ble, divine, and excellent of all Sciences.
• * 1.951

  Aristotle's Sa∣pience appli∣cable to none but God, and things Di∣vine.
• * 1.952

  The original of the Cynicks from Anti∣sthenes, and his Schole the Cynosarges.
• * 1.953

  Why called Cynicks.
• * 1.954

  The professors of Cynicisme. Antisthenes.
• * 1.955

  Diogenes.
• * 1.956

  Crates.
• * 1.957

  Demetrius.
• * 1.958

  The affinitie 'twixt the Cynicks, and Stoicks.
• * 1.959

  The principles of Cynicisme. 1. That Virtue is our chiefest End.
• * 1.960

  2. That Ex∣ternal goods are not desire¦able.
• * 1.961

  That a wise man enjoys all in God.
• * 1.962

  3. Their ab∣horring flatte∣rie & bearing reproaches.
• * 1.963

  4. The Cynicks affected a kind of im∣pudence.
• * 1.964

  5. Cynicks great repro∣vers of Vice, especially of pride.
• * 1.965

  Diogenes La∣ertius.
• * 1.966

  6. They reje∣cted all Phi∣losophie, but moral.
• * 1.967

  Diogen. Laer∣tius.
• * 1.968

  7. Their Reli∣gion without superstition.
• * 1.969

  8. Their ju∣stice & faith∣fulnesse.
• * 1.970

  9. Esteem of libertie.
• * 1.971

  10. Virtue teachable.
• * 1.972

  The Cynick Philosophie from the Jew∣ish Church ori∣ginally.
• * 1.973

  Chap.
• * 1.974

  Of Zeno his original, and Instructors.
• * 1.975

  Zeno's insti∣tution of the Stoick Self, with his Cha∣racter.
• * 1.976

  Zeno in tant•• apud Atheni∣enses aestimie fuit, ut coronae aurea dona∣rent: ipsi a∣ram consecra∣rent: dubiis{que} temporibus claves urbi•• apud eum de∣ponerent. Cer∣tatim igitur undi{que} juven∣tus non Artica solum, sed & totius Graeciae ad eum con∣fluebat. Horni∣us, Hist. Phil. l. 3. c. 16.
• * 1.977

  Zeno's succes∣sor Cleanthes his Character.
• * 1.978

  Of Chrysippus. Reliquit dis∣cipulum Chrysippū, acutissimum omnium Phi∣losophorum; unde Chry∣sippeū acu∣men, •• qui tamen pri∣mus corrupit virilem Se∣ctam Spino∣fo accumine Quaestionū. Lipsius l. 1. de Const. c. 10.

  Of Diogenes Babylonius.
• * 1.979

  Antipater Si∣donius.
• * 1.980

  Possidonius.
• * 1.981

  Roman Sto∣icks.
• * 1.982

  Cato. Varro. Antoninus. Tullie. Seneca.
• * 1.983

  Christian Sto∣icks.
• * 1.984

  That the Sto∣ick Philoso∣phie was but a corrupt de∣rivation from the Jewish Theologie.
• * 1.985

  Of Stoicisme in general, and its com∣bination with other Sects.
• * 1.986

  The Stoicks conspire with the Cynicks.
• * 1.987

  Their diffe∣rence with the Peripa∣tetick.
• * 1.988

  Their contests with the New Academicks.
• * 1.989

  The particu∣lar Dogmes of Stoicisme. 1. Comprehen∣sion.
• * 1.990

  2. The Stoicks notions of God, and his nature.
• * 1.991

  God's creati∣tion and Pro∣vidence.
• * 1.992

  Of Provi∣dence.
• * 1.993

  Of Fate.
• * 1.994

  God's provi∣dence over Mankind.
• * 1.995

  Stoicks Phy∣sicks. 1. Of the Soul. 2. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.996

  The Stoicks Ethicks.
• * 1.997

  2. That passi∣ons are irra∣tional. Diogenes Laertius in Zeno.
• * 1.998

  The corrupti∣ons of the Stoick Philo∣sophie, and its contradiction to Christiani∣tie.
• * 1.999

  Rom. 8.5.
• * 1.1000

  Stoick Philo∣sophie, a cause of Pelagia∣nisme.
• * 1.1001

  Of the Scep∣ticks their se∣veral names.
• * 1.1002

  Of Pyrrho, his Character.
• * 1.1003

  his chief Dogme that nothing could be known.
• * 1.1004

  The formal Idea of Scep∣ticisme.
• * 1.1005

  The Scepticks made it their businesse to overthrow the Dogmes of o∣ther Sects.
• * 1.1006

  The Sceptick Suspension reached even to the denying any thing to be just, or un∣just, or that sense was to be credited.
• * 1.1007

  The original of this Scep∣tick Suspensi∣on from He∣raclitus and Plato's Schole.
• * 1.1008

  Plato and the old Aca∣demie not Sceptick but Dogmatick.
• * 1.1009

  The New Academicks differ from the Scepticks, and wherein.
• * 1.1010

  The Scepticks avoided all manner of Dogmatizing.
• * 1.1011

  Scepticisme a great Enemie to the Christi∣an Religion.
• * 1.1012

  How far Scepticisme is commendable.
• * 1.1013

  Of Epicu∣rus his Ori∣ginal.
• * 1.1014

  Epicurus's institution of his Sect, and Chara∣cter.
• * 1.1015

  Epicurus's Pride, and Contention.
• * 1.1016

  Epicurus's temperance according to the relation of his friends.
• * 1.1017

  His indu∣strie, and Works.
• * 1.1018

  The Disci∣ples of Epi∣curus.
• * 1.1019

  Epicurus's Philosophie. 1. Physicks of Atoms.
• * 1.1020

  Stillingf. Orig. Sacr. l. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.1021

  Epicurus his contempt of Logick.
• * 1.1022

  His Canon.
• * 1.1023

  His con∣tempt of Rhetorick, and Mathe∣maticks.
• * 1.1024

  Epicurus's Ethicks. 1. That Pleasure is the chiefest Good.

  Of Plea∣sure, and Passion.
• * 1.1025

  That Plea∣sure is the chiefest good.
• * 1.1026

  That this Pleasure is in Virtue, and Men∣tal.
• * 1.1027

  Epicurus's Atheistical conceptions of God, his Provi∣dence, &c.
• * 1.1028

  How Epi∣curus un∣dermined the Provi∣dence of God.
• * 1.1029

  He denyed the immor∣talitie of the Soul.