unfeigned love of philosophy, represents this as proceeding from a kind of divine inspiration. «Εκ τίνος θειᾶς ἐπιπνοίας.” And he declares, concerning his own discourses, that they seemed to him to be delivered "not without a kind of in❝spiration from the gods.—oux άveu Tívos šπITvoías Deãv.” He frequently declares that all wisdom comes from God, and has many passages which tend to show the necessity of a divine instruction. Celsus is for sending men to the poets, wise men, and philosophers, as inspired by a divine afflatus: and particularly he mentions Orpheus as a man confessedly or without doubt quoλoyouμévws, inspired by a holy spirit;‡ though, as Origen observes, Orpheus wrote more impious fables concerning the gods than Homer himself. The latter Platonists and Pythagoreans, after Christianity appeared, pretended to frequent impulses, revelations, inspirations, and divine communications, which proceeded from a conviction that philosophy, as it signifies true wisdom, or the knowledge of divine things, ought to proceed from God, in order to its having a proper authority on the minds of men: but as they were not able to produce solid proofs of their divine mission, their philosophy and pretences fell together: whilst the Christian religion, which in reality had its original from heaven, though destitute of all worldly advantages, yet beingattended with the most convincing evidences of a divine authority, effected that which philosophy could never have accomplished, in subverting that system of Pagan polytheism and idolatry, which had the prescription of many ages to plead, and which seemed so firmly established, that no merely human wisdom or power was able to overturn it. * Plato Repub. lib. vi. Oper. p. 475. E. Edit. Lugd. † Ibid. p. 636. G. Origen. cont. Cels. lib. vii. p. 359. et ibid. p. 367. CHAP. XI. The affected obscurity of the Pagan philosophers another cause which rendered them unfit to instruct the people in religion. Instead of clearly explaining their sentiments on the most important subjects, they carefully concealed them from the vulgar. To which it may be added, that some of them used their utmost efforts to destroy all certainty and evidence, and to unsettle men's minds as to the belief of the fundamental principles of all religion: and even the best and greatest of them acknowledged the darkness and uncertainty they were under, especially in divine matters. ANOTHER observation which is proper to be made concerning the ancient philosophers is, that some of the most eminent amongst them, in discoursing of the principles of their philosophy, especially when they treated of religion and divine things, involved their sentiments in great obscurity, and were so far from intending them for general use, that they carefully concealed them from the people. The Egyptians, whose wisdom was so much admired and celebrated among the ancients, were particularly remarkable for this. They had, besides their popular theology, another which they kept secret, and only communicated to a few select persons, whom they thought fit to be intrusted with it. Clement of Alexandria, who himself lived in Egypt, observes that "the Egyptians did not expose their religious mysteries pro"miscuously to all; nor did they communicate the knowledge "of divine things to the people, but to those only who were "to succeed to the kingdom, and to those of the priests whom "they judged best qualified for it by their birth and extrac"tion, by their education and their learning." Plutarch says the same thing in his treatise, De Isid. et Osir.+ where he also observes that they were wont to place sphynxes before their temples, to signify that their theology had an enigmatical meaning in it. And Origen informs us that not only the Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. v. p. 670. Edit. Potter. Egyptians, but the Persians, Syrians, Indians, and other nations, had a secret theology distinct from the common, and known only to their wise men ; whilst the "dra-the vulgar " and unlearned," hearing only certain fables which they knew not the meaning of, looked no further than the outward symbols. * As to the Greeks, Orpheus and the eldest poets and philosophers, who derived much of their learning and philosophy from Egypt, did also, like the Egyptians, wrap up their doctrines of divine things in fables; whereby they came in time to be lost, or greatly depraved. Pythagoras to fables substituted numbers and obscure symbols, which were explained only to his disciples, and not to them till after a tedious preparation. Nor was the meaning of them long preserved and understood even among those of his own sect. A remarkable instance of which we have in the different explications given by them of the Tetractys, on which they, after Pythagoras, laid so great a stress. Concerning which see Burnet's Archæolog. lib. i. cap. 11. where he gives a long catalogue of ancients and moderns, who were divided about the meaning of the Tetractys. And certain it is, that a great obscurity reigned all along in the Pythagoric school. Socrates was the first among the philosophers, and almost the only one, who used a plain and familiar manner of instruction. But then he treated chiefly of things of a moral and civil nature, and meddled very little with the speculations of the philosophers about the gods, and * Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 11. We are told, also, that the ancient Chinese philosophers, who were the founders of the sect of the learned, had their symbols and hieroglyphics; and that the books which contain the speculative part of the Chinese doctrine, are full of those symbols, and treat of the mysteries, and efficient causes of numbers. It is also observed, concerning the three principal sects of China, that they have two several sorts of doctrines; one private, which they look upon as true, and is only understood by the learned, and professed by them under the veil of symbols and figures; the other vulgar and popular, which, by their learned men, is looked upon as false, in the superficial sound of the words. This they make use of for government, and in their civil worship, for inclining the people to good, and deterring them from evil. See F. Longobardi's Treatise in Navarette's Account of the Empire of China, in Churchill's Collection of Travels, &c. vol. I. p. 174. the nature of things; but declined and discouraged such enquiries. Xenophon, in an epistle to schines, cited by Eusebius, blames those who, quitting the plain and simple philosophy of Socrates, were in love with Egypt, and the regarwôns oopía, the portentous wisdom of Pythagoras. This, as Eusebius observes, was intended against Plato.* And indeed the greatest admirers of that famous philosopher must own that he is often obscure, and treats his subject, especially when he is discoursing on divine things, in a manner no way adapted to the capacity of the people. Hence the ridicule cast upon him by the comic poet Amphys, mentioned by Laërtius. "The good "whatever it is that you expect to get from this, I understand "less than Plato's good."+ And the reason is given by Alcinous, in his account of Plato's philosophy, chap. 27. “That "which is worthy of honour, such as the supreme Good, he "[Plato] conceived not easy to be found, and if found "not safe to be declared." Or, as Plato himself expresses it, 66 τὸν μὲν ἐν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τἶδε τὸ πάντος εὑρεῖν τὸ ἔργον, καὶ σε εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδυνατὸν λέγειν. — It is a difficult matter to find ❝out the Maker and Parent of the universe, and when you ❝have found him to declare him to all is impossible." Or, as Cicero gives the sense," to declare him to the vulgar is "unlawful.-Indicare in vulgus nefas." Ficinus, in his argument on Plato's seventh book of laws, taking notice of Plato's saying that the things he had said hitherto seemed to him to be like poetry, and not without a kind of inspiration from the gods, observes upon it, that "by this he signifies that all his "writings to that time, that is, to his old age, were in some "sort divinely inspired, and disposed in a poetical figurative "manner, and for the most part to be explained allegorically. "And, therefore, in his epistles, he says that his true meaning "was comprehended by none, or by. a very few, and that with * Præpar. Evangel. lib. xiv. cap. 12. p. 745. + Diog. Laërt. lib. iii. segm. 27. See Stanley's History of Philosophy, p. 192. § Plat. Oper. p. 526. F. Edit. Lugd. "difficulty, by a kind of prophetic sagacity.-In his significat " omnia ejus scripta in eam usque diem, id est senium, esse "quodammodo divinitus inspirata, atque poeticâ figurâ dis"posita, ut sint allegoricè plurimùm exponenda. Ob id, in "epistolis ait mentem suam vel a nullo, vel a quàm paucissimis, ❝et vix tandem ex quâdam vaticinii sagacitate posse compre"hendi."* Ficinus probably had an eye to a passage in Plato's epistle to Dion's friends, in which he says that none of those who thought they knew the things which were the subjects of his meditations, rightly understood them: nor had he ever written, nor would write of them, so as to explain them clearly to others: and that, if it had seemed to him proper to explain them, in word or writing, to the vulgar, he could not have done a more excellent thing in life, than to produce to the public what was useful to mankind, and to bring nature into a clear and open light: but that he thought the attempting to publish these things would not be of use to men, a very few excepted, who are able of themselves to find out and improve the hints which are given them. + These things, which he did not think fit to explain, related probably to his sublime speculations concerning the supreme God, the chiefest Good. And I think, from the account Plato himself gives of his own writings, we cannot well be sure at this distance that we hit upon his true meaning, and therefore ought not to lay any great stress upon what we imagine to be his notions. Origen, who had a great esteem for Plato, observes that very few profited by his beautiful and accurate discourses, and that his works were only in the hands of the learned. The latter Platonists and Pythagoreans, Plotinus, Jamblichus, Proclus, and others, affect a mystical theology: and though there are excellent things in their writings, they are no way accommodated to the use of the people. Now, whatever was the cause of this obscurity in some of the most eminent Pagan philoso *Plato. Oper. p. 836, 837. Orig. cont. Celsum, lib. vi. in initio, p. 275. † Ibid. p. 719. A. B. |