The Court of the Gentiles Part 3, Book 1 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. The Vanitie of Pagan Philoſophie from its Forme and Proprieties.
The Corruption of Philoſophie from 1. Its Symbolic Forme, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4, foreign, v. 5, 6, 7, 15. foreign: the origine of the Jewiſh Cabala, 1 Tim. 4.7. foreign. Tit. 1.14. foreign. 2. From its formal Attributes. (1) Its deficience as to truth, and its clear diſcoverie. (2) It was only Traditional, Equivocal, and Artificial, not Ʋnivocal, Real, and Intuitive. It contemplated only Pictures, not native Ideas of things. Col. 2.23. foreign. Rom. 2.20. foreign, a ſhew, &c. (3) 'Twas only General, not Particular and Experimental. (4) It was cloudy and obſcure, not Evident and Divinct. Heb 11.1. foreign, i. e. either Natural or Philoſophic. (5) 'Twas only Ʋncertain and Opiniative; foreign. Faith is 1 Cor. 2.4 foreign, Gal. 3.1. foreign, Col. 2.2. foreign. (6) 'Twas not truely Dianoetic or diſcurſive, but Paralogiſtic. (7) 'Twas not truely Noetic or Intelligent of higheſt Principes. (8) Twas defective as to Prudence; viz. [1] Soul-reflexion. [2] foreign. [3] foreign. [4] foreign. [5] foreign. (9) 'Twas not Transformative, 2 Cor. 3.18. Changed. The Philoſophers falſly pretended to a foreign, or foreign.
§. 1.The Corruption of Philoſophie from its Symbolic forme or mode. WE have hitherto endeavored a Demonſtration of the Vanitie of Pagan Philoſophie from its original Cauſes and Mater, both Natural, Moral, and Supernatural: We now procede to make good and ſtrengthen the ſaid Demonſtration from the Conſideration of that Vanitie which attended the formal nature and proprieties of the ſame. And herein we ſhal begin with the Pythagorean, which was the ſource and moſt principal part of al the Grecian Philoſophie; yea, that which had the moſt cognation with, and reſſemblance of the ſacred fountains from whence it was, though by very corrupt derivations at firſt traduced. So that by proving the vanitie of the Pythagorean Philoſophie, which was the moſt noble, and ſo the meaſure of al the reſt, our Concluſion wil hold much more true of the other Parts and Sects. The Forme or Mode of Philoſophiſing (as we have frequently obſerved) amongſt the Pythagoreans was Symbolic and Enigmatic: yea indeed this was the uſual mode of Philoſophiſing amongſt the Ancients before Ariſtotles time, as he himſelf confeſſeth; which we no way dout they took up in imitation of the Jewiſh Church; as it's wel obſerved by Clemens Alexandr. lib. 1. foreign, The ancient mode of Philoſophiſing was Hebraic and Enigmatic: Therefore they embraced ſhort ſpeaking, which is moſt apt for admonition, and moſt profitable. That this mode of Symbolic diſcourſe was frequent amongſt the Jews in Pythagoras's time is apparent from what we find in Ezechiel, (who is thought to be Contemporary with, yea the Inſtructor of Pythagoras) as Ezech. 17.2. Put forth a riddle and ſpeak a parable, or Symbol. Now albeit this mode of Symbolic Philoſophiſing was originally Divine, and very uſeful for the infant-ſtate of the world, in that it affordes the phantaſie moſt pleaſant and lively colors or images of truth; yet was it not without much vanitie and corruption as made uſe of by thoſe ancient Philoſophers, both Pythagoreans and others.The origine of Symbolic Philoſophie and its vanitie. And the great principe on which this Symbolic mode of Philoſophiſing was founded, was this: foreign, Things ſenſible are but Imitamens of things intelligible. i. e. There is nothing in this inferior ſenſible world, but doth reſſemble ſomething in the ſuperior Intelligible world: ſenſible formes are but Symbolic Images of inſenſible perfections. Whence theſe blind Philoſophers (who traded in Oriental Jewiſh Traditions) were mighty greedy in catching after every ſenſible forme, corporal image or ſhadow, whereby Divine Truths were ſet forth: wherein none abounded more than the Jewiſh Church, which was the chief ſeat of al Symbolic Wiſdome. Hence therefore thoſe Grecians derived either immediately or mediately the chief of their Symbolic learning, both as to mater and forme: But not underſtanding the true mind and ſcope of theſe Jewiſh Symbolic Myſteries, they at firſt amuſed themſelves in contemplating the ſhel, cabinet, or bone only, without ever attaining unto the kernel, jewel, or marrow of Divine Truths. Thence having ſatiated their phantaſies, and glutted their curioſitie in their dreaming contemplations of thoſe Jewiſh Symbols, without any real notion of thoſe Truths which were wrapt up therein, they coin an infinitie of fables or falſe images, which they mixe with thoſe Jewiſh Traditions they met with in their travels; and herein their phantaſies (which are the greateſt Apes in the world) were ſo skilful and unwearied, as that they ſoon rendred the whole bodie of their Symbolic Philoſophie cloudy, dark, vain and monſtroſe; no way like its original Idea in the Jewiſh Church. This Grecian itch and humor of coining, fables (not for the illuſtration, but to the darkening of truth) the Jews alſo when they came under the Grecian Monarchie, ſucked in to the prejudice of their Religion; wherein they were in like manner followed by thoſe carnal Goſpellers the Pythagoriſing Gnoſtics in the Chriſtian Church: and al was by the father of Liars made uſe of as the foundation of Antichriſts throne, which was founded on Lying-wonders, or fabuloſe lies, as 2 Theſ. 2.9. And this is a good key to open to us thoſe bitter invectives uſed by the Apoſtles, ſpecially Paul, againſt thoſe Pythagorean and Jewiſh fables, which the Gnoſtics then endeavored, and Antichriſt after them, to bring into the Temple of Chriſt. And it ſeems there was none more infeſted with theſe fable-coining Pythagoriſing Dreamers, than the Church at Epheſus, where Apollonius Tyanaeus, that great Pythagorean Sorcerer, had been, and as it's thought infuſed ſome of his poiſon about the ſame time that Timothie reſided there. Alſo there were many Jews at Epheſus, who in this facultie of coining Fables and Wonders fully jumped with the Pythagoreans; and both joyning their forces had a mighty influence on thoſe many Gnoſtic Antichriſtian Fables, which creeped into the Chriſtians Theologie. Whence we ſee the ground why Paul in both his Epiſtles to Timothie, gives ſuch ſevere cenſures of and cautions againſt this Pythagoriſing Jewiſh humor of Fable-framing Philoſophie; which he then ſaw creeping into the Church, and which he foreſaw would give a mighty lift to help Antichriſt on his throne.1 Tim. 1.3. So 1 Tim. 1.3, I beſought thee to abide ſtil at Epheſus. Paul ſaw theſe Pythagoriſing Judaiſing Gnoſtics creeping into the Church at Epheſus, and by their Pythagorean Jewiſh Fables laying a foundation for Antichriſt; wherefore he beſought Timothie to continue at Epheſus, and behave himſelf there as a ſtout Soldier of Chriſt, againſt thoſe Gnoſtic Antichriſtian falſe Teachers. So it follows: foreign, That thou maiſt charge ſome that they teach no other doctrine: i.e. That they do not overthrow the Goſpel of Chriſt by their Pythagorean and Jewiſh Fables, as he expreſſeth himſelf v. 4. foreign, Neither give heed to fables. Ver. 4. foreign.foreign is a Philoſophic notion, and amongſt them it ſignified a Symbol or Fable, whereby they expreſſed ſome Philoſophic myſterie. foreign & foreign are much of the ſame import amongſt the Philoſophers. Thus Plato oft makes mention, foreign, Of a Syrian and Phenician Fable; alſo foreign, of an ineffable fable, whereby he underſtandes ſome Oriental Hebraic Tradition. But foreign ſignifies alſo a feigned Oration, Fable, or fictitious diſcourſe: thence it is expounded by Heſychius, foreign, vain falſe ſpeech, repreſenting truth. Thus it is taken in the New Teſtament, as here, ſo C. 4. v. 7. 2 Tim. 4.4. Tit. 1.14. 2 Pet. 1.16. of which hereafter. foreign does here alſo take in the Jewiſh Fables, which theſe vain Gnoſtics ſo much addicted themſelves unto. So Grotius on this place: The Apoſtle treats here (ſaies he) of ſuch as were converted from Judaiſme to Chriſtianiſme, and mixed Jewiſh Fables with Chriſtianitie, as it appears by what follows, alſo by Tit. 1.14, &c. Such were thoſe Jewiſh Fables concerning thoſe things which God did before the beginning of the world; of the firſt man which God made foreign, (i.e. partly man and partly woman) of his copulation with the beſtes, and with Lilith, with the Demons that ſprang thence; of Behemoth and Leviathan; of the Pre-exiſtence of Souls before the Bodie; of Angels their diſtribution into Stars and Regions; with the like. Theſe Fables, though they were entertained by the Jews, yet were they many of them of Pythagorean extract; namely that of the firſt mans being foreign, which alſo Plato aſſerted; likewiſe the opinion of the Souls Pre-exiſtence; to which we might adde that of the Metempſeuchoſis, which the Jews alſo, together with the Pythagoreans and Platoniſtes aſſerted. It follows: foreign,foreign. and endleſſe Genealogies. Theſe Genealogies the Jews cal foreign, becauſe they ſuppoſed ſucceſſive Productions and Emanations one after another. So Philo Judaeus diſcourſeth much of ſuch Genealogies. The origine of theſe fabuloſe Genealogies began with the firſt Poets, Orpheus, Heſiod, &c. Pherecydes alſo had his foreign, and the Pythagoreans after him filled up much of their Theologie with ſuch fictitious Genealogies, whom the Jews followed herein, as alſo the Gnoſtics; the moſt of whoſe Divinitie conſiſted of foreign and foreign, Conjunctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joining with another begets a third; whence ſprang their Aeones or fabuloſe Gods. So Grotius here: They feigned Emanations and Productions of one from the other: for which they would ſeem more learned than others, and ſo deſpiſed other Chriſtians as more rude; vvhence they aſſumed the name of foreign, Gnoſtics. I do not conceive that they were called Gnoſtics in the Apoſtles times, but in the following Age, partly from their own Pretenſions to a foreign, i. e. an high ſpeculative, myſtic knowlege; and partly from thoſe Characters which are given them in Scripture, as hereafter. Indeed the whole of their Theologie ſeems to have conſiſted only of ſome myſtic Fables and Genealogies, borrowed from the Pythagorean Philoſophie and Cabaliſtic Traditions. It follows: foreign, which miniſter queſtions rather. i. e. Theſe Pythagorean Jewiſh Fables, and Genealogies, taken up by theſe carnal Gnoſtics, produce nothing but vain Queſtions, which the Rabbines cal foreign, than edification of God in faith. As if he had ſaid, theſe Pythagoriſing Gnoſtics pretend to make uſe of theſe their Myſtic Fables and Genealogies, as explications of Evangelic Diſpenſations and Myſteries; but indeed they effect nothing leſſe; for the Oeconomie of the Goſpel holds forth a plain and ſimple way of believing in Chriſt,Verſ. 5. without ſuch fabuloſe narrations. So v. 5. foreign, Now the end of the Commandment is Love. i.e. The ſcope and drift of our Goſpel is Divine Love; whereas their pretended foreign, or fabuloſe Speculations tend only to foment endleſſe diſputes and ſtriſes about words. Then our Apoſtle procedes to give us the true Genealogie of Divine Love, in oppoſition to the fabuloſe Genealogies of thoſe Pythagoriſing Gnoſtics: foreign, out of a pure hears, and of a good conſcience, and of faith unfeined. Paul (ſaith Grotius) gives us a ſhort but very uſeful Genealogie. The Pythagoreans, and Jews after them, make much ado about the Genealogies of Virtues. Philo Judaeus (who did greatly Pythagoriſe) turnes much of the Hiſtorie of the Old Teſtament into Allegoric Genealogies of Virtues, &c. The Gnoſtics followed in the ſame pathes: Paul here gives us an eaſie and familiar Genealogie of true Chriſtian Love, in oppoſition to all their Myſtic Fables, which tended only to turne them aſide to vain janglings. So v. 6. foreign, From which ſome having ſwarved have turned aſide to vain jangling. Ver. 6.foreign primarily notes ſuch an one as unhappily erres from his ſcope or marque: Thence foreign ſignifies, either properly or figuratively, not to reach the marque. Theſe Pythagoriſing Gnoſtics aimed at high Speculation and Myſtic Notions, but they reached not their marque or end, but fel into a vain contention and ſtrife about words. foreign were ſuch as buſied themſelves only in vain diſputes, as Tit. 1.10. or fabuloſe narrations, as theſe Gnoſtics here, who would fain paſſe for ſome grand Sophiſts or Teachers. So v. 7. foreign,Ver. 7. deſiring to be teachers of the Law. That firſt notion foreign is very emphatic, denoting here an ardent deſire and ambitioſe affectation of a name and repute for Doctors of the Law. There were (ſaies Grotius) many Jews at Epheſus, ſome of whom embraced Chriſtianitie, but in ſhew only, retaining much of Judaiſme. Amongſt their Jewiſh Fables they aſſerted a Colloque of the Law with God before the Creation of the World; they would that the World ſhould have been made for the Law. Thus fabuloſe and vain were theſe Pythagoriſing Jews and Gnoſtics, who delighted themſelves in nothing more than in unintelligible fables. So it follows: foreign, underſtanding neither what they ſay, neither whereof they affirme: i. e. they wholly give up themſelves to fabuloſe Genealogies and Myſtic Traditions, which they neither underſtand, nor yet can affirme any thing poſitively of, as Tit. 3.8. which Fables are directly oppoſite, foreign, verſ. 10. as alſo to that great Evangelic Cabala or Divine Tradition touching Chriſt, v. 15, This is a faithful ſaying and worthy of al acceptation, 1 Tim. 1.15. foreign.that Chriſt came into the world to ſave ſinners, whereof I am chief. Our Apoſtle had in ver. 4. given a caution againſt thoſe Pythagorean Cabaliſtic Fables and Genealogies, which the carnal Gnoſtics had ſucked in, to the great prejudice of Evangelic Myſteries: in this v. 15. he gives them a Divine Cabala (in oppoſition to their fabuloſe Cabala, ver. 4.) foreign, and worthy of al acceptation. foreign anſwers to the Hebrew foreign Cabala, unto which our Apoſtle ſeems here to allude, as Paulus Fagius has obſerved on Deut. 5.27. Our Apoſtle, ſaies he, alludes to that Cabaliſtic mode: as if he had ſaid, If any affect to hear a Cabala, I wil ſhew unto him the true certain and undouted Cabala, which is no other than this, That Chriſt Jeſus came into the world to ſave ſinners, &c. The origine of the Jewiſh Cabala.For the more ful explication hereof, we muſt know that the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Monarchie, imbibed together with many other groſſe corruptions this mythologic fabuloſe mode of Philoſophiſing, which was ſo commun amongſt the Grecian Philoſophers, ſpecially the Pythagoreans, and indeed proved the bane of the Jewiſh Religion, as we ſhal ſhew hereafter. For look as Pagan Philoſophie was in its origine but a corrupt Imitamen of Sacred Hiſtorie and Myſteries, ſo the great corruptions which crept into the Jewiſh Church after the Babylonian Captivitie, had their foundation in ſome corrupt Imitation of Pagan Philoſophie; amongſt which this of their Jewiſh Cabala was one of the worſt. For theſe vain Jews growing weary of the plain and familiar ſimplicitie of Sacred Revelations, fal in love with that Mythologic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Myſtic kind of Philoſophiſing, which they obſerved amongſt the Grecians, ſpecially the Pythagoreans. This fabuloſe and Myſtic mode of Philoſophiſing they make uſe of in their Commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures, which they called foreign a Cabala, i.e. a reverential reception of their Rabbies Traditions: wherein they grew ſo vain and fabuloſe, that there was not the moſt plain, naked, and Hiſtoric Text, but they would bring it under ſome Cabaliſtic, Enigmatic or Myſtic ſenſe: which they caled foreign, or foreign the hidden ſenſe, which muſt be curioſely ſearcht into. Whence it grew into a commun ſaying amongſt theſe Cabaliſts, That there was no Scripture without its Cabaliſtic or Myſtic ſenſe. Theſe Pythagoriſing Cabaliſts were at firſt followed by the licentioſe Gnoſtics, whoſe whole deſigne was to compoſe a fleſh-pleaſing Theologie out of Pythagorean and Jewiſh Dogmes and Fables, which were afterward greedily received by Antichriſt and his Adherents; who glorie much in their Myſtic, or rather fabuloſe ſenſe and interpretation of Scriptures. Yea it cannot be denied but that ſome of the Fathers, ſpecially Origen (who being of the Alexandrian Schole did much Pythagoriſe) were too guilty of mixing their Fables, Allegories, or Myſtic ſenſe with Divine Revelations. Al this the Spirit of God foreſaw; and therefore he abounds the more in his Divine Cautions againſt ſuch Pythagoric, Cabaliſtic, Myſtic and fabuloſe mixtures in ſacred Theologie.1 Tim. 4.7. foreign. We find the like ſacred premonition, 1 Tim. 4.7. foreign, But refuſe profane and old wives fables. foreign, from foreign an old woman, ſignifies anile, or abſurd, ridiculoſe. He underſtandes, ſaith Grotius, the doctrine foreign, of the Metempſeuchoſe or Tranſmigration of Souls from one bodie to another, which is the foundation of this foreign, abſtinence. Theſe Fables are firſt profane, becauſe they are bottomed on no Divine Revelation; thence they are old wives fables, i. e. abſurd, like ſuch as old wives recite to Children. That this fable of the Metempſeuchoſe, which Grotius conceives to be here underſtood, was indeed of Pythagorean extract, has been at large proved. This and other Fables theſe Pythagoriſing Gnoſtics made the foundation of their Abſtinences, wherein they were afterward followed by Antichriſt, whoſe Doctrines of Demons were but one great fable or lye; which the Apoſtle here dehortes al Chriſtians from, under the name of Timothie, whom he exhortes rather to exerciſe himſelf to Godlineſſe: But exerciſe thy ſelf rather to Godlineſſe. foreign, properly ſignifies to exerciſe in the Gymnade. It follows, v. 8, 9, foreign, &c. Of which ſee hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. S. 3. §. 10. Our Apoſtle gives the like exhortation to Titus, whom he left in Crete to preſerve thoſe Churches from the leven of the Jewiſh and Gnoſtic infuſions. So Tit. 1.14, Not giving heed to Jewiſh fables: Tit. 1.14. foreign.There were in Crete many Jews, who had ſucked in this Grecian humor of coining Fables. They had their Fables concerning Behemoth, Leviathan, foreign, Metempſeuchoſis; alſo of their Meſſias his being a temporal Monarch, his War with Gog and Magog, &c. which they took up in imitation of the Grecian Fables. By al this we ſee how much Vanitie and Corruption enſued upon that Mythologic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Myſtic mode of Philoſophiſing, which was at firſt taken up, in imitation of Sacred Oracles, by the Phenicians and Egyptians, from whom the Grecians derived it; and from theſe the Jewiſh Cabaliſts, after their ſubjection to the Grecian Monarchie, brought it back again and mixed it with their Divine Oracles and Myſteries, to the great prejudice of their Religion, as alſo of the Chriſtian: for the Pythagoriſing Judaiſing Gnoſtics, to ſave themſelves from perſecution, did herein ſymboliſe both with the Jews and Grecians, as alſo Antichriſt and al his adherents, vvho have been as fruitful in fabuloſe myſtic Theologie, as the Grecians, Jews, or Gnoſtics ever were.
§. 2. Having demonſtrated the Vanitie and Corruption of Philoſophie,The Vanitie of Philoſophie in regard of its Proprieties. ſpecially Symbolic, from its forme or mode, we now procede to demonſtrate the ſame from its Proprieties. And herein we ſhal only mention ſuch Proprieties, as the Philoſophers themſelves have made eſſential to true Philoſophie; ſhewing how defective, yea corrupt their Philoſophie was in regard of thoſe very Attributes, which they themſelves conſtituted as eſſential thereto.1. The deſicience of Philoſophie as to truth. For, 1. The Philoſophers generally ſuppoſed that Truth was an eſſential ingredient, yea the ſpirit of al Philoſophie. This Plato largely proves, Repub. 6. pag. 485, &c. where he affirmes, That there could not be foreign, any thing more proper to Wiſdome than Truth; whence he addes, that it was impoſſible that the ſame nature ſhould be foreign, a Philoſopher and yet a lover of falſhood. That truth is an eſſential Attribute, yea indeed the principal end of al true Philoſophie, ſee Philoſoph. General. P. 2. l. 3. c. 1. Sect. 3. §. 1. Now that al the Pagan Philoſophie was greatly defective, and thence vain in regard of this Proprietie, is evident in that it was not only for a great part fabuloſe and falſe, but wholly ſhadowy and conjectural only.1. It was for the moſt part falſe. (1) That a great part of the Ethnic Philoſophie was fabuloſe and falſe, has been already ſufficiently demonſtrated from its effential parts both Mater and Forme, namely that al Phyſic Speculations about the origine of the Univerſe, its firſt Mater, Forme, and Privation, &c. were but fabuloſe, and for the moſt part falſe Traditions about the firſt Creation: that their Ethics were but falſe, or at beſt imperfect Ideas of Virtues: that their Politics were but carnal, and ſo falſe Reaſons of State; and therefore ſtiled in the Scripture, tromperie, deceit and lies, as Pſal. 119.113, 118, 128, 163. That the whole of their Theologie, as to their Doctrine of Demons, &c. was moſt corrupt and Idolatric. We have al ſummed up, Rom. 1.28. foreign, i.e. a droſſy, ſpurious, reprobate mind or judgement. 2. Philoſophie but a night-day.(2) That the whole of Pagan Philoſophie was but foreign, (according to the Platonic notion) a cloudy dark nocturne Philoſophie, is moſt apparent; whence it alſo follows, that it had little of truth in it: for al true knowlege ſuppoſeth ideal exiſtence or in-being of the Object in the Underſtanding; alſo that this exiſtence, which the Object has in us, be agreable to the exiſtence it has in it ſelf, otherwiſe our conceptions of it cannot be ſaid to be true. For what is knowlege but the Imitamen, Idea, or Image of a thing impreſſed on the Mind? how then can any have a true knowlege of a thing, unleſſe the ſubjective Idea in his mind exactly anſwer to the objective Idea of the thing in it ſelf? Yea, he that Philoſophiſeth on a thing truely, muſt have in his formal conceptions the latitude, and other dimenſions of the thing; alſo its Cauſes, Proprieties, Qualities, Operations and natural effects, al which ſuppoſe the inherence of the thing in the mind, (not Phyſically, but) in its ideal forme or image, as Digby has at large proved, in his diſcourſe of the Soul. Now how vaſtly ſhort theſe poor blind Philoſophers came of ſuch true ideas and notions of things is eaſie to gueſſe by their own Confeſſions. Plato ingenuouſly confeſſeth, That al men did but as it were dream in their contemplations and notions of things: And this dreaming Philoſophie he thus deſcribeth, Repub. 5. p. 476. foreign, To dream, is when a man counts that which is like to another, not like, but the ſame with that other, to which it is like. So agen, ſaies he, foreign, &c. Men curioſe to hear and ſee are much taken with beautiful, words and colors, and figures, and whatſoever procedeth hence: foreign, but it is impoſſible for the mind of ſuch to ſee and embrace the nature of beautie it ſelf, (he means God.) Then he addes, That ſuch as judge of good things, but yet cannot judge of good it ſelf, or the firſt Beautie, can be ſaid only, foreign, to live in a ſleep or dream. Such he cals, pag. 480. foreign, Lovers of opinion rather than lovers of wiſdome; which is a true character of al the Philoſophers. The like Plato addes, Repub. 7. pag. 534. foreign, Such an one knoweth not either good it ſelf, or any other good; but if he hath attained to ſome ſhadow of good, it is rather in opinion than certain knowlege: and thence the life which he now leads is as it were ſleepy and buried in the vain Images of Dreams, until he awake; and ſo deſcendes into Hel, there to take an eternal nap. I grant Plato in this and the forementioned citations ſpeakes not univerſally of al Philoſophers, but only of ſome who reſted ſatisfied in the contemplation of ſome lower ſhadows, pictures, or reflexions of good, but contemplated not the ſupreme original Good, Beautie it ſelf, or God: But yet upon the ſuppoſition of his Poſition, viz. That al true Philoſophie leads men unto and terminates on God, the knowlege, love and imitation of him, as foreign, the firſt Beautie and Good it ſelf; this, I ſay, being granted, (as it is eternally true) hence our aſſertion wil neceſſarily follow, that the wiſeſt of theſe blind Philoſophers were indeed but Dreamers, void of al true practic knowlege of God. But wil you hear Plato ſpeaking Categorically and univerſally of the whole maſſe of Mankind plunged in Cimmerian darkneſſe? Conſult then what he laies down in his Repub. 7. pag. 514. Let us ſuppoſe (ſaies he according to his Allegoric mode) a Subterraneous habitation in the faſhion of a Den, whoſe entrance lies open at a great diſtance; in which there are men even from their infance bound neck and heels together, lying on the ground, and beholding nothing but what lies before them, without being able to turne their heads: Let there be likewiſe a fire kindled over head behind their backs afar off: Let there be alſo a way made betwixt the perſons bound and the fire, for men to paſſe up and down, and a wal made ſome diſtance from the way, and over-topping it: Then let men walk up and down, carrying ſtatues and veſſeles of al ſorts, ſometimes talking, ſometimes ſilent: Hence let their ſome ſhadows of the ſhining fire fal upon the oppoſite part of the Den; neither let theſe men behold any thing ſave theſe ſhadows: without dout they wil think theſe ſhadows to be the things themſelves, and the truth of the very things: they wil think alſo the words of the men walking over head to be the words of theſe ſhadows. Such is the ſtate of theſe men lying bound in darkneſſe: The Den is this World in which we men lie proſtrate on the ground bound by chaines of native ignorance, ſo that we cannot turne our heads about, whence we cannot contemplate the true light foreign, of Being, [i. e. God] or foreign, of other Beings; but we can ſee only the ſhadows of things, which yet we gueſſe are the things themſelves; and thus we accommodate our words, which are foreign, the ſymbols of things, &c. Thus Plato ingenuouſly acknowlegeth mans native ignorance, in words worthy of a Chriſtian. He ſayes p. 533. that Human nature is fallen into a gulf of darkneſſe and ignorance: foreign, The eye of the ſoul is immerſt in the barbaric mire of Ignorance. Agen he tels us, Rep. 7. p. 521. how the Soul may be delivered from theſe chains of native ignorance, and that his Philoſophie was intended for this uſe: foreign, To be is the knowlege of the reduction of the Soul from its night-day (or ignorance) to the true knowlege of Being. (or God.) This knowlege of God he cals foreign, the Idea of the chiefeſt Good: alſo the Contemplation foreign, of being, not according to opinion, but according to eſſence. This he terms foreign, true Philoſophie; which he and al thoſe of his Tribe were void of. For albeit they pretended to ſome Metaphyſic Contemplations touching the firſt Being, yet that they were without any true Idea of God, and ſo without true Philoſophie, I think is evident by what has been ſaid. But the Scripture ſpeakes more fully of the falſhood and vanitie of Pagan Philoſophie: ſo in that famoſe Text, Col. 2.8, Philoſophie and vain deceit; i.e. as Grotius, vain and deceitful Philoſophie. So 1 Tim. 6.20,1 Tim. 6.20. foreign, of falſe knowlege; which Grotius underſtands of the Pythagoriſing Gnoſtics, their Philoſophic infuſions. foreign from foreign a lie, ſignifies primarily falſely ſo called, aſſuming a name not belonging to it, or, not anſwering its name. Theſe Pythagoriſing wanton Gnoſtics affected the name of Myſterious ſcience, or knowlege; they would fain paſſe for knowing men, ſuch as had a deep inſight into the moſt abſtruſe Myſteries: But Paul aſſures us, That al their Myſtic ſcience was but falſly termed ſuch: their ſpinoſe and argute queſtions were but frivolous and vain, imbibed from the Pythagorean ſource, and no way deſerving the name of true ſcience. So Clemens Alexandr. applying this Scripture to the Gnoſtics, ſaies, foreign, as pride and arrogant opinion ſpoiled Philoſophie, ſo falſe knowlege, knowlege, &c. With which that of Plato ſuites wel, foreign, I think nothing has done ſo much hurt to man as falſe opinion. To all which we may adde that of our Lord, Luk. 11.35, Take heed that the light which is in thee be not darkneſſe; i.e. content not thy ſelf with foreign, a dark, ſpurious, falſe night-Philoſophie, &c.
§. 3. A ſecond Proprietie of true Philoſophie, according to the Philoſophers themſelves,2. Proprietie of vain Philoſophie, that it is only Traditional, Equivocal and Artificial, not Intuitive and native. is that it be a contemplation of things, foreign, or foreign, not only by phantaſmes or imaginations, but according to the nature or eſſence of the things themſelves: i. e. al true Philoſophie gives a natural or native Idea of things; it is ſubſtantial, ſolid, real, intuitive knowlege. But now it's apparent, that Pagan Philoſophie was but artificial imitamens, traditional emty notions, and aerial ſpeculations about the pictures of things; they never ſaw nor yet underſtood the things themſelves, more than by ſome broken corrupt Tradition. And ſurely this gives us a great demonſtration of its vanitie. We have ſufficiently proved, that al Pagan Philoſophie was no other than traditional imperfect corrupt Imitamens of Jewiſh Revelations and wiſdome. Thoſe blind Philoſophers had no ſubſtantial, real, native, intuitive Contemplation of thoſe things about which they Philoſophiſed; they could obtain no more than ſome artificial pictures, or rather ſhadows only of the firſt principes of Nature, of God, and of other Divine Myſteries, which were conveighed to them by ſome broken oriental Jewiſh Traditions; theſe did much pleaſe their phantaſies, (as pictures do Children) but gave them no ſolid, real, intuitive notices or Ideas of thoſe Divine things they related to. Now we know Pictures or artificial Images give but equivocal, Pagan Philoſophie but an equivocal picture, not an univocal image or idea of truth.not univocal or natural repreſentations. Al know what a vaſt difference there is betwixt a real ſubſtantial intuitive view of the Sun in the Firmament, and the mere artificial equivocal Contemplation of its picture on a Signe-poſt: or betwixt the view of a Country with our own eyes, and the viewing of it in a Map, or by Tradition: ſuch is the difference betwixt the Mimic, Traditional, Artificial Philoſophie of the Pagans, and the real, ſubſtantial, native, univocal Wiſdome vouchſafed the Jewiſh Church. That al Pagan Philoſophie was but an equivocal image, an artificial picture, or rather but an imperfect dark traditional ſhadow of Divine Wiſdome and Philoſophie, may be eaſily gathered by their own conceſſions: ſo Plato, Repub. 10. foreign, Mimes or imitators make only phantaſmes or pictures, not things. This he more fully explicates elſewhere, telling us, That imitation is the third degree from truth; for it conſiders not the things themſelves, but their foreign, Idols or pictures, foreign, making phantaſmes of thing. Agen, Repub. 10. he addes, foreign, The Mime wil neither know nor think aright of thoſe things he imitates as to good or evil. This he does more fully explain in what follows, foreign, The Imitator knows nothing worthy of reaſon about thoſe things he imitates; but imitation is but a kind of jeaſt or play, not a ſerious ſtudie. This he proves in that al imitation is employed only in drawing ſhadows of things, it reacheth not the things themſelves. This indeed is an exact character of Pagan Philoſophie, which was but an artificial imitation of, or ſhadow reflected from Jewiſh Wiſdome and Myſteries. Theſe Gentile Philoſophers, the moſt ſharp-ſighted of them, ſaw thoſe Divine Myſteries they ſo boldly Philoſophiſed on in a Mimic broken glaſſe, or abſtract Idea only, conveighed to them by ſome imperfect corrupt Tradition; they had not any real intuitive viſion or contemplation of the things themſelves in their own native Idea, Proprieties and Effects. Thus much is acknowleged by Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 476. where ſpeaking of ſuch as were very curioſe to hear ſweet words, and contemplate beautiful colors and figures, he ſaies, foreign, It is impoſſible for the reaſon of ſuch intuitively to behold and embrace the nature of beautie it ſelf. This which he applies to particulars is univerſally applicable to the whole tribe of Pagan Philoſophers, who received ſweet ſounds, and ſaw ſome beautiful colors, figures, and pictures of Divine things in the broken glaſſe or abſtract of Jewiſh Tradition, but never had an intuitive contemplation of thoſe Divine Myſteries ſhining in their own real, native, glorioſe Ideas on the glaſſe of Sacred Revelation in the Jewiſh Church. Thus much indeed ſeems acknowleged by Plato himſelf in the aforeſaid place, Repub. 5. pag. 476. foreign, Are there not very few if any who are able to know and contemplate beautie it ſelf, [i.e. God] according to himſelf? i.e. intuitively. Whence he addes, foreign; Is not this therefore true knowlege, to contemplate the firſt Being in his native perfections, foreign, as being, under this reduplication? Agen, Repub. 5. pag. 480. Plato concludes thus, foreign, Such therefore as have embraced this ſingular ſelf-Being, are to be called Philoſophers, not Opiniators, or lovers of opinion. i. e. None deſerve the name of Philoſophers, but ſuch as have had a real intuition and contemplation of God; al others are but lovers of phantaſmes, pictures, or opinions. And Plato in his Philebus, pag. 40, gives us a more particular foreign, or diſcrimination of ſuch Philoſophers as had this intuitive, real knowlege, foreign, Virtuoſe perſons have for the moſt part true ideas or images engraven on their minds, becauſe they are Theophiliſts, or beloved of God, but wicked men have for the moſt part the contrary. Theſe (as he elſewhere addes) contemplate only beautiful colors and pictures, not beautie it ſelf. And if ſo, we may certainly conclude, that there was not one of thoſe Heathen Philoſophers that was truely ſuch as they pretended to be; for they were al wicked men, and therefore could not have a real, native, intuitive contemplation of God, who is Beautie it ſelf, which they make to be eſſential to al true genuine Philoſophie.Col. 2.18.23. foreign. Thus much alſo our Apoſtle, in his diſcourſe of that vain Pythagorean Philoſophie, which was ſuckt in by the Gnoſtics, Col. 2.18, 23. v. 18. he ſpeakes of their intruding into things they had not ſeen. foreign ſignifies, proudly invading or intruding into things beyond their reach; as before, c. 1. §. 3. i.e. They pretended to an intuitive knowlege of Angels, &c. but Paul gives a true character of al their Philoſophie, v. 23. which things have indeed a ſhew of wiſdome; foreign, i. e. of ſome excellent Philoſophic Contemplations, or ſublime notions, which ſeem rather to be dropt from Heaven than invented by men: but al this, ſaies our Apoſtle, is but a ſhew. foreign, i.e. ſaith Eraſmus, a ſpecies or forme, as 'tis oppoſed to a thing or ſubſtance; they had only a picture and artificial forme of wiſdome, or rather a falſe opinion, or apparent ſhadow, not a real ſubſtantial intuitive contemplation of things. This our Apoſtle affirmes univerſally of the Jewiſh wiſdome or Philoſophie in its degenerate ſtate,Rom. 2.20. foreign. Rom. 2.20. foreign, a forme of knowlege. foreign ſignifies the forme of a thing that is beheld; and being tranſlated to the mind it ſignifies the impreſſing or forming of an idea of the thing thereon; but here it ſeems to import only an abſtract forme, or artificial ſcheme, and picture of truth; ſo Oecumenius, foreign, manifeſting that they had not the true knowlege and godlineſſe, but an artificial image; for they had the ſcheme of truth, not the ſubſtance. Thence Heſychius expounds foreign by foreign, an artificial ſcheme; and Phavorinus, by foreign, a feigned ſcheme, forme, or picture of true knowlege; how much ſhort were the blind Pagans of any real, ſolid, ſubſtantial knowlege of things Divine? Is not this proper only to the true Church and people of God? Thence it's ſaid, Prov. 2.7,Prov. 2, 7. He layeth up ſound wiſdome for the righteous. foreign ſignifies primarily, that which really is eſſence, ſubſtance; thence it notes real, ſolid, and ſubſtantial wiſdome, ſuch as carries with it an eſſential true Idea of the thing known; which as to things Divine is proper only to the real Chriſtian. The ſame we find, Prov. 3.21, Keep ſound wiſdome.
§. 4. Hence it follows, that al Pagan Philoſophie is only univerſal and general, not particular and experimental; 3. Pagan Philoſophie vain; becauſe only general, not particular and experimental.which gives us a farther demonſtration of its imperfection and vanitie, ſpecially as to Morals and Metaphyſics. For Ariſtotle rightly informes us, that univerſal knowlege in maters of practice is vain, but particular more true. So Ariſtot. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 7. foreign, In Practic diſcourſes univerſals are more vain, but particulars more true; for Actions are about ſingulars. This the Civilian has wel obſerved: Then only (as Ariſtotle ſaies) we know any thing, when its parts are known and conſidered by us. i. e. When its Cauſes, Effects, Adjuncts, Qualities and Parts are apprehended by us. And it is a received opinion in the Scholes, That to know a thing in univerſal, as to the thing known, is more imperfect than to know it in particular; though an univerſal knowlege, as to the medium of knowing, be more perfect than a particular. Now this was the caſe of al thoſe Pagan Philoſophers, they had only ſome General Ideas, or looſe broken notices of thoſe things they diſcourſed of; they had not any particular apprehenſion of the Parts, Qualities, Cauſes, Influences, and Effects of things, ſpecially ſuch as depended on Divine Revelation: They had only ſome general rumors, or traditional notions of God, his Divine Perfections, Operations and Effects of Providence; they had only ſome traditional fragments of the firſt Origine of the Univerſe, the ſtate of Innocence, the Fal of Man, &c. but al their Philoſophiſings on, or notions of theſe things were only general, and ſo very imperfect and vain. Yet the main of their vanitie in this regard lay not ſo much in Naturals as in Morals and Supernaturals: For it cannot be denied, but that many of the Pagan Philoſophers had very particular, experimental, and curioſe Contemplations about Natural things; they were very exact in anatomiſing the bowels of Nature, and gathering up a Syſteme of Natural Experiments, which is the choiſeſt part of Natural Philoſophie, as it appears by Ariſtotle's excellent Hiſtorie of Animals, and Theophraſtus his Diſcourſe of Plants; wherein they have excelled moſt of this later age. But yet as to Ethics and Metaphyſics their Philoſophie was only traditional, general, and notional, not particular and experimental; and therefore very vain and uſeleſſe. This alſo may be demonſtrated out of Plato's own Conceſſions; for in his Theaetetus he laies down this as his opinion, foreign, It ſeems to me, that he who knows any thing has a ſenſate cognition of what he knows; for, as it now appears, ſcience is nothing elſe than ſenſation, or a particular experimental feeling knowlege. So Timaeus, pag. 103. foreign, wiſdome is a good ſenſe of ſoul. So Plato in his Gorgias, foreign, Experience makes our life to paſſe away according to rules of art, but Inexperience caſually. Agen he addes, That an experimental Philoſopher only can judge prudently of things; for, foreign, perſons unexperienced of the truth and other maters, have no ſound opinions of pleaſure and ſorrow. Now that none of theſe blind Philoſophers had this foreign, good ſenſation, or experimental particular knowlege of good and evil, pleaſure or ſorrow, is moſt evident; becauſe they had not foreign, a good habitude of ſoul, which they themſelves make eſſentially requiſite to this ſpiritual good ſenſation or experimental Philoſophie. So Ariſtotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 6. foreign, A virtuoſe man judgeth truely of what is good, but a wicked man caſually: as it is in bodies, ſuch as are wel-diſpoſed can judge truely of things that are wholeſome, or conducing to health; but thoſe who are ſick, otherwiſe; for to theſe bitter and ſweet have the ſame reliſh. This indeed was the very caſe of al theſe Pagan Philoſophers, they had foreign, an il habitude of ſoul; and ſo were void of this foreign, right ſenſation, or experimental knowlege; they had not thoſe foreign, Heb. 5.14. which rendred al their Morals and Metaphyſics vain.
§. 5. Whence it follows, That al Pagan Philoſophie is but cloudy, obſcure, and confuſed, not evident, clear, and diſtinct: 4. Pagan Philoſophie cloudy and confuſed, not evident and diſtinct.for it is a commun and true maxime, that in Ʋniverſals and Generals there lies much Ambiguitie, Obſcuritie, and Confuſion; al clear, evident, diſtinct judgement procedes from the conſideration of particulars. And that the evident, clear, diſtinct contemplation of things is eſſential to al genuine Philoſophie may be eaſily gathered from the Philoſophers themſelves, their own acknowlegements. Plato, Epinom. pag. 976. makes mention of an admirable facultie of diſcerning, which belongs to a Philoſopher; foreign, &c. Which many cal nature rather than wiſdome; and it is converſant in this, that a man does with facilitie and dexteritie learne a thing, and having learned it, commit it to a faithful and firme memorie, and recals it with celeritie as occaſion ſerves. This ſome cal foreign, wiſdome; others foreign, nature; others foreign, Sagacitie of nature. This natural Sagacitie is thus deſcribed, Platon. definit. foreign, Sagacitie is a good diſpoſition of ſoul, whereby he that has it is enabled to diſcerne what becomes every one; or more briefly in what follows, foreign, an acumen of judgement. This, ſaies Plato Repub. 2. pag. 376. Dogs are in ſome ſenſe endowed with, which have a natural ſagacitie to diſcerne their friend from their foe, only by the countenance. This Repub. 7 pag. 537. he makes a character of his Logician, that he be foreign, one that can accurately look into and diſtinguiſh things. And in his Repub. 9. he makes a Philoſopher to be foreign, a diacritic or very critic inſtrument; for look as the eye is foreign, an accurate critic of bodies, ſuch ſhould the Philoſophers mind be of good and evil. He tels us alſo in the ſame Repub. 9. whence this critic judgement ſprings, foreign, a critic judgement is made by Experience and Prudence, and Reaſon or Diſcourſe. And Seneca Epiſt. 71. tels us, That Socrates, who reduced al Philoſophie to Morals, affirmed, that this was the higheſt wiſdome; to diſtinguiſh betwixt good and evil. By al which it is evident how little of true wiſdome theſe Pagan Philoſophers had: For how could they diſtinguiſh aright betwixt Good and Evil without ſpiritual ſenſes exerciſed, as Heb. 5.15? This Intellectual Sagacitie is called foreign, dexteritie; which according to the Platonic definition, is foreign, an habit of chooſing what is beſt; which al wil grant theſe Pagan Philoſophers were void of. And indeed Plato ingenuouſly confeſſeth, That this facultie of diſtinguiſhing or diſcerning what was beſt, was not commun, but peculiar to the judgement of Jupiter. And Ariſtotle ſeems ſenſible of this, that there was much difficultie in diſtinguiſhing betwixt truth and falſhood; becauſe there was ſo much falſhood like to truth. So Rhet. l. 1. c. 1. foreign, for it belongs to the ſame facultie to judge of truth, and that which is like unto truth. Which facultie he and the reſt of his Tribe were greatly void of; for how often does a falſhood, if like to truth, paſſe with them for truth? ſo confuſed and indiſtinct were they in al their Philoſophemes. This is excellently ſet forth by Ariſtotle, Ethic. l. 3. c. 6. foreign, for a righteous man judgeth rightly of althings, &c. Then he addes, that this righteous or virtuoſe man doth accurately difference things, foreign, being as it were the canon, rule, and meaſure of althings: i.e. (ſaith Lambinus) not that truth dependes upon the judgement of a virtuoſe man, but that his judgement is conformed to truth. But then Ariſtotle concludes, foreign, the moſt of men ſeem to be under deceit by reaſon of pleaſure, &c. This indeed was the caſe of al thoſe poor Philoſophers; their fooliſh hearts were darkened and deceived by luſt, which rendred their Philoſophie, ſpecially in Morals and Supernaturals, extreme confuſed and cloudy. It is Faith only, according to Heb. 11.1. that is foreign, an evidence of things not ſeen, i.e. Supernatural.Heb. 11.1. foreign. foreign is either (1) a natural evidence; as the light is the evidence of it ſelf and althings elſe. (2) A Philoſophic evidence, as firſt principes are in themſelves moſt evident, and give evidence to al other lower principes; or as a demonſtrative argument is evident, and gives evidence to the concluſion. (3) Legal evidence; which is either of Right or Fact. (4) Supernatural evidence; ſuch is Faith of things naturally and rationally inviſible.
§. 6. Another Adjunct, 5. Pagan Philoſophie incertain and Opiniative only.which the Philoſophers made eſſential to their Philoſophie, is Stabilitie and Certaintie of Aſſent. For, ſaies Plato, Repub. 5. ſuch as content themſelves with fluid weak Opinions, are not foreign, Philoſophers, but foreign, lovers of Opinions. So agen in his Phaedrus, pag. 262. foreign, He that knows not the truth, but hunts after Opinions, wil exhibit only a ridiculoſe and inartificial Art. But Repub. 6. pag. 506. more fully thus, foreign, What then? doeſt thou not know that Opinions without ſcience are baſe, the beſt of which are but blind? or do they ſeem to thee to differ any thing from blind men, who, though going on in a right way, have only ſome opinions about truth without underſtanding? ſurely nothing. Whence he concludes, That it is not lawful to contemplate baſe and blind Opinions, when things more certain are before us. And in his Meno he gives us the privilege of a certain knowlege above opinion; foreign, He that has ſcience or certain knowlege alwaies reacheth what he aimes at; but he that has only a right opinion ſometimes attaines his end, ſometimes not. Now that theſe Pagan Philoſophers had not this Scientific or certain knowlege of things, (excepting ſome of their Mathematic Demonſtrations) but only ſome weak fluid dark opinions, is very evident. For according to their own principes, ſcience or certain knowlege is the reſult of foreign, Demonſtration, which ſuppoſeth a clear, ſtedfaſt knowlege of the Cauſes, and their cauſal connexion with the Effect; which the Pagan Philoſophie was, in its chiefeſt parts, wholly deſtitute of. For what jejune and ſlender notices had theſe purblind Sophiſts touching God, the firſt Cauſe of althings, his great Productive Acts of Creation and Providence? The certain knowlege hereof dependes wholly on Divine Revelation, the proper object of Faith, according to Heb. 11.3, Through faith we underſtand that the world was framed by the word of God. By which it's evident, that there can be no certain unmoveable aſſent or knowlege touching the firſt origine of things, (which comprehends a great part of Pagan Philoſophie) but what procedes from Faith aſſenting unto Divine Revelation. Whence the Spirits act in working this aſſent is called foreign,1 Cor. 2.4. foreign. 1 Cor. 2.4. Demonſtration, i.e. The aſſent wrought by the Spirit of God is as certain, as aſſent wrought by Mathematic ocular Demonſtration. foreign is a Mathematic notion, noting a moſt potent and eſſicacious conviction of the mind, which leaves no place for douting; and ſo it's oppoſed to foreign, which ſignifies a dark Adumbration, or rude draught, like the firſt lines in a demonſtration; whereas foreign ſignifies a complete ſcientific certain aſſent. The Pagan Philoſophers had ſome kind of foreign, or foreign, dark adumbration, or ſhadowy deſcription of the firſt principes of nature, &c. which they received by ſome broken Traditions from the Jews; but they had not this foreign, Demonſtration, or certain aſſent touching the Worlds origine: this is peculiar to Divine Faith, bottomed on Sacred Revelation, as Heb. 11.3. Yea, Divine Faith has according to its Sacred character,Col. 2.2. Col. 2.2. an objective foreign, i.e. a ful, ſtable, certain perſuaſion of the veracitie or truth of its Object; the Metaphor being taken from a Ship carried with ful ſails.Luk. 1.1. The like Luk. 1.1. foreign, of thoſe things which are fully and certainly aſſented unto by us. Every Believer has a direct, adheſive plerophorie, or certain aſſent touching the certaintie of the things contained in the Word of God; albeit he has not a reflexe plerophorie, or cortain aſſurance of his own proprietie and intereſt therein. Thence Gal. 3.1,Gal. 3.1. foreign. Before whoſe eyes Chriſt has been evidently ſet forth: foreign, painted forth, or drawn to the life; they had as certain and ſtedfaſt a viſion of Chriſt by faith, as they had who ſtood by the Croſſe and ſaw him crucified. This foreign is oppoſed to Plato's foreign, dark adumbration, or opinionative knowlege. The Divine Faith of Jews and Chriſtians gives them a ful, ſtedfaſt, certain, ſpiritual viſion of things inviſible as to ſenſe or reaſon, Heb. 11.27. foreign. But now the wiſeſt of the Pagan Philoſophers had only the foreign, dark ſhadowy notices of theſe Divine Revelations from Jewiſh Traditions. The Schole-men tel us, that the certaintie of Divine Faith, as bottomed on Divine Autoritie, is more infallible than that of human Science bottomed on Demonſtration. But this the moſt quick-ſighted of theſe Pagan Philoſophers were void of, and therefore could not attain to that certain knowlege of the principes of Philoſophie which they pretended unto. We have for this a great acknowlegement by Plutarch, one of the wiſeſt moderne Philoſophers, who in the life of Coriolanus ſpeaketh thus: Many times we think we hear what we do not hear, and we imagine we ſee what we ſee not; yet notwithſtanding ſuch as are piouſly bent, and zeloſely given to think on heavenly things, ſo as they can be no waies drawn from believing that which is ſpoken of them, they have this reaſon to ground the foundation of their belief on; that is, the Omnipotence of God, which is wonderful, and hath no manner of reſſemblance or likeneſſe of proportion unto ours, but is altogether contrary, as touching our nature, our moving, our art, and our force; and therefore if he do any thing impoſſible unto us, or doth bring forth and deviſe things above man's commun reach and underſtanding, we muſt not therefore think it impoſſible at al. For if in other things he is contrary to us, much more in his workes and operations he far ſurpaſſeth al the reſt. foreign, Many of the Divine maters are (according to Heraclitus) by reaſon of our unbelief hidden from our knowlege. Thus Plutarch ingenuouſly acknowlegeth their ignorance of Divine affairs, as alſo the root of al, which he makes to be unbelief. This incertaintie of Pagan Philoſophie gives us a farther Demonſtration of its vanitie.
§. 7. Philoſophers give this as a proprietie of true Philoſophie,6. Pagan Philoſophie not truely diſcurſive, but ſophiſtic or paralogiſtic. that it be foreign, & foreign, Dianoetic, Dialogiſtic, and Dialectic or Diſcurſive. i. e. originally ſpringing from, and ultimately determining in ſome neceſſary firſt Principes. Thence Philoſophie is deſcribed in the Platonic definitions, foreign, a true and unerring Ratiocination in the Dianoetic judgement. Thence Plato under the terme of Dialectic or Logic ſeems to comprehend the whole of his Philoſophie. So in his Repub. 7. pag. 533. foreign, Dialectic method procedes this way only, namely that removing the Hypotheſes it may arrive to the firſt principe, and lay a firme foundation for aſſent — uſing other arts as auxiliarie aides. Agen in the ſame Repub. 7. he defines his Logician thus: foreign, Thou calleſt a Dialectic one who conſiders the reaſon of every Being; for he that accurately diſcerneth things is a Dialectic. Yea indeed he makes nothing true Logic or diſcourſe but what determines in the knowlege of God, the firſt Principe, who is foreign, as the Platoniſts ſpeak, the ſum and comprehenſion of al reaſon or diſcourſe. By which it is apparent, that al Pagan Philoſophie was not truely Logiſtic or diſcurſive, but rather paralogiſtic and ſophiſtic. For indeed moſt of their Diſputes were but foreign, contentioſe Ratiocinations, vain both in their Principes and Concluſions. This Paul takes notice of in Rom. 1.21.Rom. 1.21. Vain in their imaginations. foreign, In their diſputes, or Dialogiſtic Ratiocinations: for their ancient way of diſputing was by Dialogues, or Interrogations and Anſwers, agreable to the Judaic Argumentation, as we have ſhewen, Court Gent. P. 2. B. 3. C. 8. §. 2. Al their Diſputes both Mental and Verbal were vain. So 1 Cor. 1.20. Where is the diſputer of this world? i.e. Al their Philoſophic Diſputations could not bring them to the knowlege of God the firſt Principe.1 Tim 6.4, 5. So 1 Tim. 6.4. Doting about queſtions; foreign. Which, as he addes, were but foreign, ſtrifes about words no way conducing to edification. Or, as he addes v. 5. foreign, very buſie, but perverſe diſcourſes about trifles. So that indeed al their Philoſophic foreign, diſputes, were but foreign, perverſe or falſe reaſonings no way conducing to clear up truth or any firſt principes, as has been obſerved Chap. 1. §. 6.
§. 8. Another Attribute,Pagan Philoſophie not truely Noetic, or Intelligent. or if you wil, formal part of Pagan Philoſophie is, that it be foreign, Noetic or Intelligent; i.e. comprehenſive of the firſt and higheſt Principes. This part of Philoſophie they uſually ſtile foreign, Intelligence; which they make to be a comprehenſion of the firſt Principes of Science; and ſo diſtinguiſh it from Dianoetic Philoſophie, which is the aſſent to Concluſions by diſcourſe from firſt principes; as alſo from foreign, Sapience, which they take to be the knowlege of the moſt excellent Being, God, &c. But Plato ſeems to make foreign, Intelligence, and foreign Wiſdome, to be the ſame, and ſo at preſent we ſhal conſider them. This Intelligence or Sapience Plato makes to be the ſupreme and moſt perfect of al Sciences. So Repub. 6. pag. 511. foreign, Intelligence in the higheſt place; which afterward he cals foreign, the moſt perfect of al; and foreign, the end of al Diſciplines: unto which al other Arts ought to be ſubſervient. So in his Phileb. pag. 58. he termes it, foreign, the principal Science; becauſe it preſcribeth mea2ure, weight, and rules to al other Sciences. And the original ground why this Intelligence or Sapience is ſo excellent a Science Plato laies down, Repub. 7. pag. 513. Where he makes foreign Intelligence to be the higheſt of Sciences; becauſe it is employed in the contemplation of foreign, the firſt Being, or foreign, the firſt Beautie, and foreign, namely from firme and eternal principles, foreign, proceding by diſcourſe to that which is ſingular; having caſt off the miniſterie foreign, of Idols: it quits not this contemplation until foreign, it comprehendes by its Intelligence that which is good it ſelf. This he explains more fully in his Theaetetus, pag. 140. where he ſaies, this Intelligence is foreign, the returne of the ſoul from its night-day to the true light of Being; i. e. of God. Whence he addes, pag. 176. foreign, The knowlege of this firſt Being is true ſapience and virtue, but the ignorance of him the worſt rudeneſſe and evil. So Alcibiad. 2. pag. 146. he ſaies, foreign, that the knowlege of other ſciences, without the knowlege of that which is beſt, is little advantageous. This gives us a farther demonſtration of the vanitie of al Pagan Philoſophie; which notwithſtanding al its pretenſions, was altogether void of this Divine Intelligence or Sapience. Thus much indeed Plato acknowlegeth in his Phileb. ſaying, that the knowlege of the one infinite Being was, foreign, a gift of God to men: which in his Theages, he ſaies, God gives to none but ſuch as are his friends. And Plato, Repub. 6. p. 483. gives us a large Analogie, or proportion, 'twixt the light of the Sun and this knowlege of God; ſhewing, that as the eye cannot contemplate the Sun but by its own light, ſo neither can the mind contemplate foreign, or foreign, Being it ſelf; i.e. God, unleſſe there be foreign, ſome Idea or beam of this chiefeſt Good; which, ſaies he, is the cauſe of al truth in every intelligent facultie, without which there can be no ſcience. Now that the wiſeſt of theſe Pagan Philoſophers were altogether void of this infuſed Divine Intelligence or light, I ſuppoſe no Chriſtian wil denie.
§. 9. Another formal Attribute or part they give Philoſophie is, that it be foreign, Prudential. Of this foreign, Prudence, 8. Pagan Philoſophie defective as to Prudence, viz. 1. Part of Prudence ſelf-reflexion.they make ſeveral parts. (1) Self-reflexion, or the knowlege of our ſelves, ſpecially our Souls. So Plato, in his Alcibiad. 1. pag. 133. foreign, If the ſoul wilknow it ſelf, muſt it not reflect upon it ſelf? — And to know himſelf, we confeſſe is wiſdome. And he addes, that ſuch as know not themſelves know not either their goods or their ils, or any thing elſe that belongs unto them, &c. foreign, Therefore this part thereof ſeems to be moſt like to the Divinitie; and if any reflect thereon, and behold al that is Divine, and God, and Sapience, he ſhal thus moſtly know himſelf. By which he inſtructs us, that by knowing the Divine part of the ſoul we come to underſtand what is Divine, both God, and Wiſdome, and our ſelves. So de legib. 1. pag. 650. he ſaith, It is the moſt profitable of al Sciences to know, 2. foreign, or Providence.foreign, the diſpoſitions and habits of the ſouls. (2) A part of this Prudence they cal foreign Providence; which the Platoniſts thus define, foreign, Providence is a Preparation for ſomething future. Whence ſay they it is the part of prudent perſons foreign to foreſee difficulties. And becauſe they eſtimed nothing more difficult than to die wel, thence Pythagoras, Plato, and Tullie define Philoſophie, 3: foreignthe Contemplation of Death. (3) The chiefeſt part of the Philoſophers Prudence conſiſted in the framing of happineſſe. So in the Platonic definitions: foreign, Prudence is a ſcience effective of happineſſe. So Stobaeus, Serm. 1. foreign, Prudence is the ſcience of Happineſſe as to life. So Ariſtotle. 4. foreign, or foreign.(4) As to preſent affaires, they make this Prudence to conſiſt in the right diſpoſing and ordering of althings with ſubſervience to our laſt end. So Pittachus makes Prudence to lie in foreign, the right management of what is before us. And Socrates makes a young mans Wiſdome to be foreign, the doing nothing raſhly. This Plato cals foreign, good conſultation. So Rep. 4. pag. 428. foreign. And Ariſtotle makes Prudence to be foreign, a conſultation what is to be done, 5. Practical knowlege.and what not. (5) More particularly the Philoſophers made Prudence to be foreign, a knowlege of good and of evil. i.e. [1] Rightly to diſtinguiſh betwixt good and evil. [2] To imitate what is beſt: foreign, Lay up what is beſt, and thoſe things do thou imitate, Stob. Serm. 3. [3] foreign, To uſe things conducing to this life wel, as Plato Charm. [4] To preſerve the rectitude of the wil, and regular order in the affections, &c. By al which Deſcriptions of Prudence it is apparent theſe blind Philoſophers were altogether void of it. For (1) How ſeldome or never did they reflect on their actions, ſouls, and ſtate? (2) How little foreſight of, but much leſſe preparation for a future ſtate, had they? (3) How little influential on future happineſſe was al their Prudence? (4) How little practic or directive as to preſent affaires was their Prudence? (5) Much leſſe could they attain to any true virtue by al their Prudence. Indeed al their human Wiſdome or Prudence was but carnal policie, according to the Platonic definition, foreign, Craft is an affection, whereby he that has it is enabled to deſigne his private intereſt; which is the greateſt ſolie, according to Eccleſ. 10.3. His wiſdome faileth him; foreign his heart, or his Prudence.
§. 10. The laſt Proprietie aſcribed to Pagan Philoſophie is foreign, a plaſtic, efformative, or transforming virtue: 9. Pagan Philoſophie defective as to that transforming power they pretended toSo Plato, Repub. 6. foreign, The Philoſopher converſing with what is Divine and excellent, becomes alſo, ſo far as its poſſible for a man, Divine and excellent: by imitating theſe Divine things we become like to them. Agen, Gorgias, p. 460. he tels us, foreign, He that ſtudies any thing is wrought by his ſcience into the likeneſſe of that which he ſtudies, — and he that ſtudies righteouſneſſe becomes righteous. But he ſpeaks more fully, Repub. 6. p. 501. where ſhewing how Philoſophers by their inſtitutes do forme men according to the Divine Exemplar: This Divine Product in men (ſaies he) Homer cals foreign, Deiforme, or little God in man. The like Rep. 9. p. 592. foreign, But there is placed in Heaven a moſt exact exemplar for any that wil to contemplate, and by contemplating conforme himſelf unto it. Agen, Theaetet. p. 176. he tels us, That the Soul's foreign, &c. aſſimilation unto God, ſo far as 'tis poſſible in righteouſneſſe and holineſſe, is the product of Wiſdome, or Philoſophie. But this Divine Metamorphoſe, or Transformation is peculiar to Divine and ſaving Faith, according to 2 Cor. 3.18. foreign, we are transformed; 2 Cor. 3.18.i.e. by beholding the glorioſe Ideas of Divine Wiſdome and Grace, reflected from the face of Chriſt on the glaſſe of the Goſpel, we are by the efficacioſe concurrence of the Spirit changed into the ſame glorioſe image of Chriſt. This Pagan Philoſophie could never reach: al its transformative virtue was to change mens minds and converſations into the image of Satan. Such was its Vanitie and Inſufficience to reach thoſe ends, which thoſe blind Philoſophers propoſed to themſelves. But this may ſuffice to ſhew the Vanitie of Pagan Philoſophie from its Formal nature, Attributes or Adjuncts.