Thirdly, Observe also how rare that Knowledge was among them. It may be in all the world there may be a few hundreds of learned Philosophers, and among those there is one part Epicures, another Peripatetics, &c. that acknowledge not a future Happiness or Misery: And of those few that do acknowledge it, none knows it truly, nor the way that leads to it. How few of them could tell what was mans chief good? And those few, how imperfectly? with what mixtures of falsehood? we have no certainty of any of them that did know so much, as that there was but one God. For though Socrates dyed for deriding the multitude of gods, yet there is no certain Record of his right belief of the Unity of the Godhead. Besides, what Plato and aPlotinus did write of this, that was found, there is far greater probability that they had it from Scripture, then merely from Nature and Creatures. For bthat Plato had read the Writings of Moses, is proved already by divers Authors. The like may be said of cSeneca, and many others. So that if this means had contained any sufficiency in it for salvation, yet it would have extended but to some few of all the learned Philosophers: And what is this to an universal sufficiency to all mankind? Nay, there is not one of all their exactest Moralists, that have not mistaken Vice for Virtue; yea, most of them give the names of Virtue to the foulest Villainies, such as Self-murder in several cases, Revenge, a proud and vainglorious affectation of Honour and Applause, with other the like; so far have these few learned Philosophers been from the true Knowledge of things ⟨p. 248⟩Spiritual and Divine, that they could never reach to know the principles of common honesty. Varro saith, That there were in his days two hundred eighty eight Sects or Opinions among Philosophers concerning the chief good: What then should the multitudes of the vulgar do, who have neither strength of wit to know, nor time, and books, and means to study, that they might attain to the height of these learned men? So that I conclude with Aquinas, that if possibly Nature and Creatures might teach some few,4 enough to salvation, yet were the Scriptures of flat necessity; for first, the more commonness: secondly, and more easiness, and speediness: thirdly, and the more certainty of Knowledge and Salvation.
Thirdly, Observe also how rare that Knowledg was among them. It may be in all the world there may be a few hundreds of learned Philosophers, and among those there is one part Epicures, another Peripateticks, &c. that acknowledg not a future Happiness or Misery: And of those few that do acknowledg it, none knows it truly, nor the way that leads to it. How few of them could tell what was mans chief good? And those few, how imperfectly? with what mixtures of falshood? we have no certainty of any of them that did know so much, as that there was but one God. For though Socrates dyed for deriding the multitude of gods, yet there is no certain Record of his right belief of the Unity of the Godhead. Besides, what Plato and aPlotinus did write of this, that was found, there is far greater probability that they had it from Scripture, then meerly from Nature and Creatures. For bthat Plato had read the VVritings of Moses, is proved already by divers Authors. The like may be said of cSeneca, and many others. So that if this means had contained any sufficiency in it for salvation, yet it would have extended but to some few of all the learned Philosophers: And what is this to an universal sufficiency to all mankinde? Nay, there is not one of all their exactest Moralists, that have not mistaken Vice for Vertue; yea, most of them give the names of Vertue to the foulest Villanies, such as Self-murder in several cases, Revenge, a proud and vainglorious affectation of Honor and Applause, with other the like; so far have these few learned Philosophers been from the true Knowledg of things ⟨p. 248⟩Spiritual and Divine, that they could never reach to know the principles of common honesty. Varro saith, That there were in his days two hundred eighty eight Sects or Opinions among Philosophers concerning the chief good: VVhat then should the multitudes of the vulgar do, who have neither strength of wit to know, nor time, and books, and means to study, that they might attain to the height of these learned men? So that I conclude with Aquinas, that if possibly Nature and Creatures might teach some few,4 enough to salvation, yet were the Scriptures of flat necessity; for first, the more commonness: secondly, and more easiness, and speediness: thirdly, and the more certainty of Knowledg and Salvation.
- aSir Walter Raleigh, Hist. of the World, showeth that Pythagoras, Orphaeus, and Plato had their doctrine of God from Scripture, but durst not profess it. Plotinus was Origens condisciple of Ammonius, therefore no wonder if he be liker a Divine then the rest. See Pemble Vind. Grat. of this, pag 60.61, 62. &c.Sir Walter Raleigh, Hist. of the World, sheweth that Pythagoras, Orphaeus, and Plato had their doctrine of God from Scripture, but durst not profess it. Plotinus was Origens condisciple of Ammonius, therefore no wonder if he be liker a Divine then the rest. See Pemble Vind. Grat. of this, pag 60.61, 62. &c.
- bTherefore Numenius cited by Orig. against Celsus, doth call him Moses Atticus. And divers of Numenius his Books do recite with great reverence many texts out of Moses and the Prophets.
- cThough the Epistles betwixt Paul and Seneca may be feigned, yet it is more then probable that he had heard or read Pauls Doctrine.Though the Epistles betwixt Paul and Seneca may be fained, yet it is more then probable that he had heard or read Pauls Doctrine.
- 4Aquin. Sum. prima 1ae. Art. 1. Q. 1. & 2a. 2ae. Q 2. Art. 3 4.
