They change themselves to wonderments of things. So these men are sometimes Stoics, by and by Epicureans, anon Platonics, ⟨p. 15⟩then again Aristippians, and yet wholly Peripatetics, and so it seemeth they would be all things and nothing. Cicero laughs at L. Gellius, who, when he came Proconsul into Greece, called together all the Philosophers in Athens, and exhorted them earnestly to leave off all wranglings, and to spend no more time in contentions, which if they would promise to do, he promised likewise to hold with them in opinion. But are not Distinguishers like unto this Gellius? They see ⟨p. 16⟩well enough, that Philosophers do dissent in opinion? and what then? they, like pitiful men, go about to reduce them to an unity on equal conditions. But, because an unskilful person does undertake the business, it is the more ridiculous; And must the business be quite done & finished, because they make Aristotle the Judge? Whereas, if those ancient Philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and Tully did but hear a•ter what manner their own repugnant opinions, are accorded now adays, it is to be ⟨p. 17⟩doubted whether they would laugh or chafe at it. But if you please let us produce some one of these Distinguishers, which can defend the matter to their faces. Whom will ye have then, Buridanus, or Bricottus? I know ye cannot understand them, if they spake. Whom therefore will ye have? whom? Donatus Acci•iolus the Florentine, both more eloquent, then the rest, and better acquainted with you; who, if he should appear in place, and behold these Philosophers standing here with ⟨p. 18⟩Cicero, he would perhaps thus accost them. Why are ye thus in an uproar, and perplexity, O ye Philosophers? why are ye thus distracted with several opinions about Summum Bonum? What, do ye not know, how that all your jarring, and differing opinions may easily be reconciled by distinguishing? Have any of you wrote any thing concerning felicity or Summum Bonum, which (although it be clean contrary to all other opinions) yet may not be accounted true in his kind? I less ⟨p. 19⟩indeed wonder, that thou O Cicero, doest not understand the Philosophers, for thou hadst no distinctions; Be not offended with me, I say thou wantest distinctions. Otherwise why doest thou teach in thy Books de Finibus, is in thy first Book, that Epicurus placed Sū mum Bonum in voluptuousness, in the third Book;
They change thēselves to wōderments of things. So these men are sometimes Stoicks, by and by Epicureans, anon Platonicks, ⟨p. 15⟩then again Aristippians, and yet wholy Peripateticks, and so it seemeth they would be all things and nothing. Cicero laughs at L. Gellius, who, when he came Proconsul into Greece, called together all the Philosophers in Athens, and exhorted them earnestly to leave off all wranglings, and to spend no more time in contentions, which if they would promise to doe, he promised likewise to hold with them in opinion. But are not Distinguishers like unto this Gellius? They see ⟨p. 16⟩well enough, that Philosophers do dissent in opinion? and what then? they, like pittifull men, go about to reduce them to an unity on equall conditions. But, because an unskilfull person does undertake the businesse, it is the more ridiculous; And must the busines be quite done & finished, because they make Aristotle the Iudge? Wheras, if those ancient Philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and Tully did but heare a•ter what manner their own repugnant opinions, are accorded now adayes, it is to bee ⟨p. 17⟩doubted whether they would laugh or chafe at it. But if you please let us produce some one of these Distinguishers, which can defend the matter to their faces. Whom will yee have then, Buridanus, or Bricottus? I know ye cannot understand them, if they spake. Whom therfore wil ye have? whom? Donatus Acci•iolus the Florentine, both more eloquent, then the rest, and better acquainted with you; who, if hee should appeare in place, and behold these Philosophers standing here with ⟨p. 18⟩Cicero, he would perhaps thus accoast them. Why are yee thus in an uprore, and perplexity, O yee Philosophers? why are ye thus distracted with severall opinions about Summum Bonum? What, do yee not know, how that all your jar•ing, and differing opinions may easily be reconciled by distinguishing? Have any of you wrote any thing concerning felicity or Summum Bonum, which (although it be clean contrary to all other opinions) yet may not be accounted true in his kinde? I lesse ⟨p. 19⟩indeed wonder, that thou O Cicero, doest not understand the Philosophers, for thou hadst no distinctions; Be not ostended with mee, I say thou wantest distinctions. Otherwise why doest thou teach in thy Books de Finibus, is in thy first Book, that Epicurus placed Sū mum Bonum in vluptuousnes, in the third Book;
