Philosophy

PHILOSOPHY. St. Paul bids the Colossians beware, lest any Man spoil them Coloss. ii. 8. Acts xvii. 18.through Philosophy. Ne quis vos decipiat per Philosophiam. And in the Acts, St. Luke relates, That when St. Paul came to Athens, he there found Epicurean and Stoick Philosophers, who made a Jest of his Discourses. The same Apostle in many Places of his Epistles, opposes the false Wisdom and wise Men of the Age, which is nothing else but the Pagan Philosophy, always contrary to the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, and the true Religion; which in the Notion of the Philosophers and Sophists of this World, seem’d to be mere Folly, being built neither upon Reasoning nor Evidence, nor the Eloquence and Subtilty of those that preach’d it, but upon the Power of God, and his single Authority, upon the Operation of the Holy Ghost, which actuated the Hearts and Minds of those whom he called to the Faith.

The Word Philosophy is derived from the Greek Word Philos, a Lover, and Sophia, Wisdom. Pythagoras was the first who took up the Appellation of a Philosopher, or a Lover of Wisdom, instead of Sophos, or a wise Man, which was given to all before him, who were excellent in the Sciences. In the Holy Scripture we find real wise Men, and real Works of Philosophy, in the Book of Proverbs, the Ecclesiastes of Solomon, the Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. These are moral Works, wherein we find a vast Number of excellent Maxims of Religion, of Piety, of Conduct for all States of Life. There is but little Reasoning or Argumentation. The antient Orientals did not so much amuse themselves with Reasoning, as the Greek Philosophers. They went directly to the Matter, and deliver’d their Precepts by way of Sentiment and Maxim. The Book of Ecclesiastes is a kind of Dispute, wherein are exhibited the Reasonings of the Wicked, and of those that deny the Immortality of the Soul, and Providence, and that place their chiefest Good in Pleasure, Riches, and Honour. Their Reasons are alledg’d with Strength, but Solomon shews the Vanity and Inconclusiveness of them, and determines in favour of Religion, and of the Fear of God.

The Book of Job is also a kind of Treatise of Philosophy, in which three or four Persons dispute by turns concerning Providence, the Proceedings of God towards Men, and upon this important Question, Whether all the Evils that happen to us in this World, are Punishments for our Sins, or if they are not sometimes sent by the Wisdom of God, as Proofs and Trials of his Elect?

The Book call’d the Wisdom of Solomon, is a Work of moral Philosophy, chiefly compos’d for the Instruction of great Men, and Princes of the Earth. Ecclesiasticus takes in a vast Scope; it comprehends all Conditions of Life, and gives moral Precepts to all sorts of Persons. It derives the Name of Sophia, WisdomEcclus. vi. 23., from the Hebrew Word Zaphniah, a secret thing, and describes to us the Imployment of a Hebrew Philosopher, as a Man applying Ecc. xxxix 1, 2, 3.himself to the Discovery of the Sense of antient Parables, to the Study of the Wisdom of the Antients, of the Writings of the Prophets, of the Histories of famous Men; to travelling in distant Countries, to learn the Manners and Sentiments of different Nations, and to know the Good and Evil that is among Men. But his chief Employment is in praying to the Lord, and in intreating Knowledge from him. If he grants it, the wise Man will pour out the Treasures of his Wisdom as a plentiful Rain, and his Reputation will spread itself to the Ends of the World.

About the same time that the several Sects of Philosophers were formed among the Greeks, as the Academicks, the Peripateticks, the Stoicks, one might observe also among the Jews, by a sort of Emulation, several Sects of Philosophers to arise, as the Essenians, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. The Pharisees had some Resemblance to the Stoicks, the Sadducees to the Epicureans, and the Essenians came near to the Academicks. The Pharisees were proud, vain, and boasting, like the Stoicks. The Sadducees, who deny’d the Immortality of the Soul, and the Existence of Spirits, freed themselves at once, like the Epicureans, from all Solicitude about Futurity. The Essenians were more moderate, more simple and religious, and therefore approached nearer to the Academicks.

Just as the Philosophy of the Greeks, after it had been for a long time honour’d and respected, for the Merit of those that profess’d it, afterwards fell into Disrepute and Contempt, by the Sordidness of the Vices of those that took upon themselves the Name of Philosophers; so among the Hebrews, the Pharisees, for example, who at the Beginning had recommended themselves for their steady adhering to the Law of God, made themselves afterwards very odious to those in Power, and contemptible to all good Men, by their excessive Ambition, and the erroneous Interpretations that they gave to the Law of the Lord.

The Philosophers against whom St. Paul inveighs, in his Epistle to the Romans, boasted the Extent of their Knowledge, the Purity of their Morality, the Eloquence of their Writings, the Strength of their Reasonings, and the Subtilty of their Arguments. Their Weaknesses were Pride, Curiosity, Presumption, Hypocrisy, Ambition. They ascribed every thing to human Reason, and would be superior in every thing. And although their Lives were full of Disorders, that were shameful and even injurious to human Nature, yet they would pass upon the World for good Men, and boasting of their Knowledge of God, they dishonour’d him by their Actions. To them St. Paul opposed the Humility of the Cross of Jesus Christ, the Force of his Miracles, the Purity of his Morals, the Depth of his Mysteries, and the evident Proofs of his Mission.

Phil. l. de vita Mos. p. 657, 658.‘Tis disputed whether or no the Heathen Philosophers have not borrowed the finest Sentiments of their Morality from the Sacred Scriptures. The Fathers have been much divided upon this Question: Some of them have maintained the Affirmative Side, and some the Negative. Philo the Jew teaches, that before the Translation of the Books of Moses, made at the Instigation of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the Gentiles had no Acquaintance with the Sacred Books. Aristæus makes Demetrius Phalereus to Arist. de 70 Interp.say, that the Greek Historians, Poets, and Writers, have made no mention of the Books of the Hebrews; and that some Writers being desirous of inserting something from them into their Works, were prevented by divine Punishments that happened to them, and of which he gives Instances. Origen maintains, that the Name Origen. in Cantic. Canticor. Joseph. l. 1. cont. App. p. 1051. Lactant. de origen. Err. l. 2. c. 11. Idem de vera sapientia l. 4. c. 2.of Moses was unknown to the Greeks, and that his Name is not to be found in any of their Writings. Josephus the Historian, acknowledges the Silence of the Greeks, and gives this Reason for it; That they had not read the Books of the Jews. Lactantius says expresly, that the Prophane had never read the Sacred Writings. Nullas literas veritatis attigerant. In another Place, that it was surprizing that Pythagoras and Plato should go into Egypt, into Chaldea and Persia, to be inform’d of the Religion and Customs of those People, and not go into Judea, whither they might easily have passed, and where they might have found what they vainly sought elsewhere.

But other of the Fathers, and those the greater Number, have been for the Affirmative: They assure us, that the most celebrated of the Philosophers were acquainted with the Sacred Books, and the Prophets. St. Austin thinks, a that Pythagoras knew Jeremiah in Egypt. Others believe that he also conversed with Ezekiel in Judea:¹ That he was acquainted with the Jews, and borrow’d several of their Laws, which he admitted into his Philosophy.² Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking to the Greeks, asserts,³ That whatever there is of Truth in the Laws of Plato, was derived from the Hebrews; that from thence their Poets have borrow’d all their finest Thoughts, and all their noblest Expressions. Justin Martyr⁴ undertakes a particular Discussion of this Matter, and shews, by many Examples, that Orpheus, Homer, Solon, Pythagoras, Plato, and many Others, have travelled into Egypt, and have consulted the Books of Moses. Celsus the Philosopher, an Enemy to the Christians, acknowledged the Conformity that was to be found between the Sentiments of Plato and those of Moses and the Jewish Prophets. And from thence he ridiculously concludes, that it was the Hebrews who had imitated the Greeks; as if Moses and the other sacred Writers had been more modern than Plato and the Greek Poets.

Tertul. Apologet.Tertullian maintains, that the antient Law-givers of the Heathen had nothing valuable but what they had borrow’d from the Hebrews. Sciatis ipsas quoque leges vestras, quæ videntur ad innocentiam pergere, de divina lege, ut antiquiore, formam mutuatas. That their Poets and Philosophers had drawn from the Fountain of the Prophets; that by the subtil Artifice of the Devil, some Stroaks of Truth have slipt into the Writings of the Profane, in order to undermine the same Truth at such Time as God should manifest it to the World. For the greatest Part of Mankind have either not Penetration enough, or not Sincerity enough, to distinguish the Truth from such Errors as they find it blended with. Justin Martyr had the same Way of Thinking. Eusebius has employ’d two entire Books of Eufeb. Præp. Evan. l. 11, 12.his great Work of the Gospel-Preparation, to shew that Plato had taken the principal Things of his Philosophy, and of his Theology, from the sacred Books of the Jews. Theodoret advances, that the antient Theodor. Serm. 1. ad Græcos, p. 466, 471, 472.Philosophers Pherecides, Pythagoras, Thales, Solon, and Plato, had travell’d into Egypt, and had received Instructions, not only from the Egyptians, but also from the Hebrews, even so far, as that Pythagoras received Circumcision, which the Egyptians had borrow’d from the Jews. St. Ambrose seems to think,⁵ that one of Plato’s chief Designs in coming into Egypt, was to consult the Laws of Moses, and the Oracles of the Prophets. Eruditionis gratia in Ægyptum profectus, ut Mosis gesta, legis oracula, Prophetarum dicta cognosceret.

But as this Question is concerning a Fact, it ought to be examined from Facts, rather than by Authorities. The Proofs from Fact are of two Kinds. First, The Agreement of Notions and Expressions, between the sacred Authors and the prophane, in such Matters wherein naturally they could not agree. Secondly, The Acknowledgment of Those who copied from Others, or the Testimony of cotemporary Authors. But in the Writings of the Poets and the prophane Philosophers, we find no Acknowledgment that they had borrow’d any thing from the sacred Writers; none of their cotemporary Writers take any Notice, that they did any thing like this. Those Strokes of Resemblance that may be observed between the sacred and prophane Authors, are merely fortuitous, and in such Passages wherein Men of Sense might easily be suppos’d to coincide, without copying from one another: Therefore nothing can be concluded from hence, in favour of the Opinion of Those, who pretend that the Greeks had read and imitated the Hebrew Writers.

Nay, they could not so much as have read them; for they must either have read them in the Originals, or else in Translations. The Grecians did not study foreign Languages; and the Jews were infinitely jealous of the Sacredness of their Books, nor would communicate them to prophane Heathens: Neither could they read them in any Versions; for there were none before that of the Septuagint, made by the Order of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a long Time after Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Chrysippus, Zeno, and the ancient Greek Philosophers and Legislators. There is even a great Propability, that the said Version of the Septuagint is still more modern than the Age of Philadelphus, as may be seen under the Article SEPTUAGINT.

Another famous Question, that has been debated on Account of the old Philosophers, is that, concerning their eternal Salvation. ‘Tis enquired whether they, by only following the Light of Reason, and living good moral Lives, in the Eye of the World, independantly of the Law and the Gospel, whether they, I say, could escape Damna-⁶ Rom. ii. 10. Rom. ii. 9, 10, 11, 12. Origen. contra Cel-sus, 1, 2. p. 438.Damnation and eternal Misery? St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, seems not to exclude even the Gentiles, who have lived good and virtuous Lives, from the Felicity of Heaven. Thus he expresses himself: The Philosophers of the Gentiles are without Excuse; because, having known God, they have not glorified him as God. If therefore they had glorified him, they might have been excused. He goes on: Tribulation and Anguish upon every Soul of Man that doeth Evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile: But Glory, Honour, and Peace to every Man that worketh Good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no Respect of Persons with God. For as many as have sinned without Law, shall also perish without Law; and as many as have sinned in the Law, shall be judged by the Law. For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by Nature the things contained in the Law; these having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves: Which shew the Work of the Law written in their Hearts; their Conscience also bearing Witness, and their Thoughts the mean while accusing, or else excusing one another. And ver. 26. Therefore if the Uncircumcision (or, the Gentile) keep the Righteousness of the Law, shall not his Uncircumcision be counted for Circumcision? And shall not Uncircumcision which is by Nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the Letter and Circumcision doest transgress the Law?

From all these Passages, it may be concluded, That the Philosopher of the Gentiles, who keeps the Law of Nature, and who worships God, is not less justified before the Sovereign Judge, who makes no Acceptation of Persons, than the Jew, who observes the Ceremonial Law: And He will even condemn the prevaricating Jew. Justin Justin. Apolog. 2. p. 83.Martyr maintains, That the old Philosophers who lived conformably to Reason, were already Christians, tho’ they did not know Jesus Christ; because they already follow’d his Rules and Doctrine: Such, among the Greeks, were Socrates, Heraclitus, and some others; and among the Barbarians, Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Mizael, Elias, and several others. Clemens Alexandrinus says, Clem. Alex. l. 6. Strom. p. 637, 638, 639. & l. 1. Stro. p. 319.That those who lived before Christ, had two Methods of obtaining Justification; the Law, and Philosophy. Philosophy might make them Just, or, at least, dispose them to Justice, or to one Degree of attaining it: It produced a kind of Justice, but not entire and perfect. He adds, That the Gentiles who died before our Saviour’s Death, in Hell waited for His Coming, or that of the Apostles; and there having heard their Preaching, they believed, and were saved.

Chryfost. Homil. 37. in Matth. p. 431.St. Chrysostom advances, That the Gentiles who lived before Jesus Christ, might be saved, without confessing him: That all that was requir’d of them, was, that they should renounce the worshipping of Idols, and should acknowledge and adore one only God, the Creator of all Things: That if, moreover, they have lived a regular and commendable Life, they shall have their Portion in the Happiness of Heaven; according to that Decision of St. Paul; Glory, Honour, and Peace to every Man that worketh Good. Origen says, That when the Soul of Jesus Christ departed from his Body, it had several Conversations with the Souls of the Dead, to convert those that were most tractable, or best disposed to receive his Doctrine. Gregory of Nazianzen, Greg. Na -zianz. O -rat. 42.speaking of Jesus Christ’s Descent into Hell, leaves it in Doubt, whether he saved all that were there, without Exception, or only those that had believed. Hilarius the Deacon, quoted under the Name of Ambrosiaster,Ambrosi-ast. in Eph. iv. 8. assures us, That Jesus Christ deprived Hell of its Captives that were detained there, either on the Account of Adam’s Sin, or, for their own Transgressions; and carry’d such to Heaven in Triumph, who were converted at his Preaching.

We may find these Sentiments scatter’d up and down in several ancient Authors, whom we have quoted in our Dissertation concerning the Salvation of the Gentiles, Rab. Mo -ses, & Rab. Meyr. Gu-bar.before the Epistles of St. Paul. The Jews allow a Place in Paradise to more than one Kind of Gentiles: They think, for Example, that those who have faithfully observed the Commandments, which, they say, were given to Noah, shall be in the Number of those who shall obtain Salvation; as also those who have known God, who have entertain’d rational Notions of the Deity, who have lived in a regular and laudable Manner: They give Instances in Socrates and Plato. The Thalmudists exclude from Salvation four Sorts of People; that is, such Gentiles as resemble Baalam and Doeg, and Jews which are like Achitophel and Gehazi. Whence it is to be inferr’d, that Pagans, who are like neither Baalam nor Doeg, according to them, may be admitted to Happiness.

Tostat. in Gen. xvii. Ambros. Catharin. in Epist. ad Rom. c. xi. Eras. Colloq.There are cited also Tostatus, Catharinus, Erasmus, and perhaps some other modern Authors, who seem to think, that some of the antient Philosophers, as Socrates, Plato, and Seneca, were in a State capable of Salvation; all which is upon a Supposition, that they knew God, and that they lived in a moral and laudable Manner. But when this Opinion is examin’d according to strict Theological Rules, and when we inquire more narrowly into the Sentiments and Lives of those Philosophers who have been most celebrated, we are soon undeceived as to the good Opinion that had been entertain’d of their boasted Merit.

Certain it is, that without Faith it is impossible Heb. xi. 6.to please God. Sine fide impossibile est placere Deo. That Faith without good Jam. ii. 26.Works is dead. Fides sine operibus mortua est. That without at least an implicit Faith in our Deliverer, our Messiah, we cannot attain Acts iv. 12.Salvation. Nec enim aliud nomen est in cœlo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. But the Philosophers, whose Merit is most cry’d up, had neither Faith enliven’d by Charity, nor good Works, nor Belief in the Messiah. It cannot therefore be asserted, that they had any Title to eternal Salvation.

Socrates, the most unexceptionable of them all, is accused of being addicted to that abominable Vice of the Love of Boys. He worshipped the Clouds, he us’d to swear by a Dog, by an Oak, by a Duck. Juven. Sat. 2. Aristoph. nubib. Tertull. Apologet.Lactantius makes him a Buffoon and Merry-Andrew, if he intended thereby to rally the Religion of the Athenians, among whom he lived, and the Solemnity of an Oath; or makes him a Fool, if he held these Things as Gods. The Disciples of Socrates vindicated their Master from the Imputation of Atheism, of which he was accused, and prove that he worshipped the Gods of the Grecians. At his Death he gave Orders, that a Cock should be sacrificed to Æsculapius. Can any Marks of a Saint, or of one predestinated to Salvation, be found in this Character?

Seneca, the Object of the Admiration of Aug. l. 10. c. 6. de Civit. Dei.several of the Antients, compos’d a Book of Pagan Superstitions, and after having shewn the Ridiculousness of them, he concluded, that the wise Man ought to observe these Things in compliance to Custom and the Laws, and to practise them in outward Appearance, without any inward Belief of them. Dio upbraids this Philosopher with Dio l. 61. & in excerptis Valef. p. 685, 686.the Commission of heinous Crimes, and with instructing his Pupil Nero to practise the same; with heaping up immense Riches in a very little Time, and with increasing them by daily Usury. Such were the most compleat of the Pagan Philosophers, Men that had a barren Knowledge of the Deity, which they dishonour’d by their Manners, and by their absurd Notions of Religion. We shall not farther enlarge upon this Subject, having treated of it elsewhere in a particular Dissertation, placed before the Epistle to the Romans.

The Orientals observe, that the Philosophy of Thales Milesius, who took Water to be the Principle of all Things, has a near Relation to that of Moses and the Egyptians, who were pretty much in the same Principles, as also the Phenicians, who contended for the Production of all Things out of temper’d Mud and watry Sediments; whereas the Persians and Zoroaster made a nearer Approach to the Principles of Anaxagoras, who suppos’d Fire to be the first natural Cause of all material Things.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages