« 이전계속 »
of it: a Juftin Martyr fays, that they were there improved by the Books of Mofes. All things fully proving, by Diodorus Siculus's Account, that they had learn'd in Ægypt whatever made them famous in Greece, as he fhews not only of their Religion, but of their Laws and Philofophy. b Plutarch mentions, that Solon, Thales, Plato, Eudoxus, and (according to fome) Lycurgus went into Egypt to converfe with the Priests there. It was by fome affirmed, that Plato and Eudoxus converfed with the Priefts in Egypt for thirteen Years. And Theodoret acquaints us, that not only Plutarch, but Forphyry, and Numenius, the Pythagorean wrote, that Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Thales, Solon, and Plato, were inftructed in Ægypt by the Hebrews dwelling there, as well as by the Egyptians. And the Egyptians being in their Principles both of Divine Worship and Moral Duties fo corrupted, as I have fhewn, it is reasonable to conclude, with the Generality of learned Men, whether ancient or modern, that whatever the Philofophers learnt in Ægypt, which recommends their Writings to us, must be from the Jews, and not from the Egyptians. Paufanias fays, that the Chaldeans and the Indian Magi firft taught the Immortality of the Soul, and that from them the Greeks, and particularly Plato, received it and yet he informs us, that Plato learnt this Doctrine in Egypt. He feems to have understood, that Plato was inftru&ted in Ægypt by the Hebrews, (for by this Name Paufanias always calls the Jews) and that the Hebrews came originally out of Chaldea. Indeed Abraham was the firft that was call'd a Hebrew, from his paffing over the River Euphrates, when he left Chaldea. This learned Author, from his great Search into Antiquities, must have had fome particular Reason for
a Cohort. ad Græc. b De Ifid. & Ofir. c Strabo. 1. xvii. De Fide. Serm. 1. Tom. 4. e Meffen.
f Eliac. p. 151. 203. Arcad. p. 250.
calling the Jews Hebrews, and Judea the Land of the Hebrews; fuch Expreffions could not fall by Chance from a Greek Antiquary, but must be defign'd to denote their Original from Abraham the Hebrew, a Chaldean; from whence it follows, that when he writes that Plato receiv'd this Doctrine from the Chaldeans, and yet that he learn'd it in Egypt, he muft mean, that he had it from the Hebrews dwelling there. Clearchus, one of Ariftotle's own Scholars, and a famous Peripatetick Philofopher, in a Book cited by Jofephus,
introduced Ariftotle faying, that the Jews were defcended from the Indian Philofophers, and that as Philofophers were by the Indians call'd Calani, (deriv'd perhaps from Chalane, or Calneh, Gen. x. 1o. a City of Chaldea) fo by the Syrians they were call'd Jews from Judea, the place of their Habitation. It is not mention'd, that this Information came from the learned Jew of Calofyria, with whom Ariftotle there declares that he had convers'd; but he might probably have it from fome in Alexander's Army, who might find divers of the Ten Tribes difpers'd as far as India, and whether they went under the Name of Calani, or the Calani came out of Chaldea, the Jews and the Calani must have had the fame Extraction. *The Indian Philofopher that converfed with Alexander, was called Calanus.
But a certain Critick has lately been pleas'd to remark, that the Old Teftament contains nothing fo clear, concerning another Life and a future Judgment, as is to be found in the Greek Authors, and he instances in Homer and Hefiod. How unjust this Reflexion is, I appeal to that Book of Solomon, from
8 Contr. Ap. 1. i. Eufebius has the fame Citation out of Clear-chus, but omits that Claufe, that Philofophers were call'd Calanf by the Indians; and Jews, by the Syrians, Euf. Præp. Evang. 1. ix. C. 5. Κάλαντα, Ινδός, cκ τ βραχμάτων· ἔτω ἢ πάντα σοφὸν οἱ Ινδοὶ προσαγορούστιν. Suid. in Κάλανο,
* Suid. ibid.
which the Enemies of Religion have thought, they 'could take most Advantage. Who knoweth the Spirit of man that goeth upward, and the fpirit of the beast, that goeth downward to the earth? Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy fpirit chear thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, and in the fight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. For God fhall bring every work into judgment, with every fecret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be Evil, Eccl. iii. 21. xi. 9. xii. 14. What can be more plain and exprefs? The Notions in Philosophy † of the latter Heathens, were much improv'd by Ammonius, a Chriftian and a Teacher of Philofophy in highest Esteem at Alexandria; infomuch that those who fucceeded him in his School, were faid to be in ensues, of the Sacred Defcent. And we find that upon the Propagation of the Gospel, Mo ral Philofophy in a few years attain'd to greater Perfection, than ever it had done before, as we may see in the Works of Seneca, Epictetus, h Plutarch, M. Antoninus, Maximus Tyrius, and others.
We may therefore reasonably conclude, that the Precepts and Rules of Morality, which Philofophers all along taught, had their Original from Revelation, rather than from the Strength and Sagacity of their own Reason, because they err in things no lefs obvious to Natural Reafon; and it appears that they had opportunities of becoming acquainted with the Scriptures, and that they fpared no pains either by reading
Vid. Porphyr. apud Eufeb. Hift. lib. vi. c. 19. & Hierocl. apud. Phot. cod. 214, 251. Η Μετὰ δὲ δὴ τ' τῇ Σωτῆς ἡμῶν ἐπιφάνειαν, ἔτοι (Plutarchus, Numenius, & alii) χρόνμοι δ Χρισιανικής θεολογίας πολλὰ τοῖς Dixcois dvéμižavaoyors, Theodoret. Tom. 4. Serm. 2. de Principio. καὶ μὲ δὴ καὶ * θείων Εὐαγελίων ὅτε Πλέταρχῶν καὶ ὁ Πλωτίνο υπηκεσάτω. Δηλοῖ δὲ τῷτο σαφῶς ὁ ̓Αμέλιση Πορφυρίς προ Tourus dialeions, &c. ib. "Agxird TH AμMavis To didασκάλε Πλωτίνε, καὶ Νομίίε τε Πυθαγορικές ειρημλία, Nemef. de Nat. Hom. c. 2..
or Conversation, in their own, or in foreign Countries, in their Search and Enquiries after Truth.
III. If the Heathen Philofophy had been as certain and excellent, as it can be pretended to be, yet there had been great need of a Divine Revelation. For,
1. The Rules of Philofophy lie fcatter'd up and down in large and learned Works, mix'd with many wrong and abfurd Notions, and therefore must be in great measure useless; how certain and excellent foever they may be in themselves, they can be no Rule of Life to us. No perfect Rule of Manners is to be found in any one Author; and if it were poffible to compile fuch a Rule out of them all, yet what Man is able to collect them? Lactantius is of opinion, that if all the Truths difpers'd up and down among the feveral Sects of Philofophers could be collected together into one System, they would make up a Body of Philofophy agreeable to the Chriftian Doctrine; but then he concludes it to be impoffible for any Man to make fuch a Collection, without a fupernataral Affiftance. And if there were no other reafon for it but this, it is no wonder that we find the Twelve Tables preferr'd before all the Writings of the Philofophers. If there be nothing fo abfurd, as Tully says, but the Philofophers have taught it, then it is neceffary that Men fhould not be left to the Uncertainties and Abfurdities of Philofophy: for though fome few of them might be free from fuch Extravagancies, yet their Notions were no Rule or Standard to the reft, and the best were not without many great Errors.
2. The Rules of Philofophy were no better than good Advice, and carried no Authority with them to oblige Men in Confcience; they had not the Force of a Law, and failing in this neceffary point, whatever their intrinfick Worth had been, they never could have had that Effect upon the Lives of Men, which
i Lactant. 1. vii. c. 7.
k Tull. de Orac. lib. i.
Reveal'd Religion has. Vertue was propounded by Philofophers rather as a matter of Honor and Decency, than of ftri&t Duty; thofe were esteemed and admired indeed that obferv'd it, but fuch as did not, only wanted that Commendation. Some Philofophers fpoke great and excellent things, but they paft rather for wife Sayings, than for Laws of Nature: Their own Reputation, which was greater or lefs with different forts of Men, was the only Authority they had: it might be Prudence to do as they taught, but there appear'd no abfolute neceffity for it. They commonly reprefented Vertue as very lovely, with many very great and powerful Charms; and all that were of another mind, did not know a true Beauty, and that was an intolerable Difgrace: the Sanction of Rewards and Punishments in the next Life was little infifted upon by them. They recommended Vertue for its own fake, not as it is enjoin'd by God, and will be rewarded by him, and the contrary punifh'd; and thofe, who could not foar to their Heights, were rather the worfe than the better for fuch Doctrines, which they look'd upon as the impracticable Speculations of fome, who had a mind to fpeak great things. And they often fpoke the Truth indeed, which they had from Tradition, or from the Excellency of their own Wit and Genius, but they were not able to make it out by any fuch Principles, as are wont to influence and govern humane Actions. Accordingly we find, that as the feveral Sects of Philofophy fuited to the Tempers and Humors of particular Men, fo far they prevail'd, and no farther. The curious and inquifitive betook themselves to the Academicks, the foft and effeminate to the Epicureans, and the morofe to the Stoicks; Men apply'd themselves to whatever opinion they liked beft, and found most agreeable to their Nature and Difpofition. Thus a fevere and haughty Gravity made up the Compofition of Cato; it had been hard for him to avoid being a Stoick, and he might