Well, Zeno's servant, he saith, when he was punished by his Master for a fault that he had done, told his Master out of his own grounds, that he was unjustly beaten, because he was, Fato coactus peccare: and hereupon making his reckoning without his host, concludes that, Certainly if Malefactors could not choose but play their rude pranks, they could not be justly punished for them: Wherein he tells us what the servant said; but what the Master answered, thereof he saith just nothing. Nay doth he truly relate what the Servant said? Nothing less, but shapes it, as he thinks good, that making his own bed, he may lye thereon more softly. If we may believe Diogenes Laertius who reports the story, the Servants answer was not Fato coactus sum peccare, but Fatale mihi erat furari. For he took his ser•••• laying the thief, & though the servant took advantage from his Masters do•••• of Fate, to frame an Apology for himself, yet would not Zeno permit him to […] thereby any privilege from stripes. For, servum in furto deprehensum verberavit. A manifest evidence that even in his opinion, the destiny he maintained was no just excuse for sin. And to meet him in his own plea, when he said. Fatale mihi erat furari, & caedi inquit: this was the answer he made to his servant, which answer of his this Author either conceals, or was not privy to his own ignorance. And indeed Chrysippus the Stoic, though an eager maintainer of Fate Stoical, yet denied not the liberty of mens wills, as appears in Cicero de Fato, though in his opinion this doctrine of theirs did cohere. And Plutarch likewise in his book De Fato professeth as much. Fatum omnia continet, sicut etiam videtur, neque tamen proptereà omnia necessariò eveniunt, sed unumquodque suo naturae modo. Neither did Zeno conceive hereby all place to be taken away for persuasion, as appears by his answer to Crates, when he took him by the cloak to draw him away from Stilpo, saying, O Crates, commodissimè auribus Philosophum teneas. Cum igitur ⟨p. 32⟩persuaseris, tum illum trahe. Nam si per vim egeris, corpus quidem apud te, sed animus apud Stilponem erit. Neither were any Philosophers more studious of Morality then the Stoics, They wrote De Bonis & Malis, de Affectibus, de Virtute, de Fine, deque primâ aestimatione, & de Actibus ac de Officiis, de Adhortationibus & dehortationibus, as Diogenes writes in the life of Zeno.
Well, Zeno's servant, he saith, when he was punished by his Master for a fault that he had done, told his Master out of his own grounds, that he was unjustly beaten, because he was, Fato coactus peccare: and hereupon making his reckoning without his hoste, concludes that, Certainly if Malefactors could not chuse but play their rude prankes, they could not be justly punished for them: Wherein he tells us what the servant said; but what the Master answered, thereof he saith just nothing. Nay doth he truly relate what the Servant said? Nothing lesse, but shapes it, as he thinks good, that making his own bed, he may lye thereon more softly. If we may believe Diogenes Laertius who reports the story, the Servants answer was not Fato coactus sum peccare, but Fatale mihi erat furari. For he took his ser•••• laying the theefe, & though the servant took advantage from his Masters do•••• of Fate, to frame an Apology for himselfe, yet would not Zeno permit him to 〈…〉 thereby any priviledge from stripes. For, servum in furto deprehensum verberavit. A manifest evidence that even in his opinion, the destiny he maintained was no just excuse for sinne. And to meet him in his own plea, when he said. Fatale mihi erat furari, & caedi inquit: this was the answer he made to his servant, which answer of his this Author either conceales, or was not privy to his own ignorance. And indeed Chrysippus the Stoick, though an eager maintainer of Fate Stoicall, yet denyed not the liberty of mens wills, as appears in Cicero de Fato, though in his opinion this doctrine of theirs did cohere. And Plutarch likewise in his book De Fato professeth as much. Fatum omnia continet, sicut etiam videtur, neque tamen proptereà omnia necessariò eveniunt, sed unumquodque suo naturae modo. Neither did Zeno conceive hereby all place to be taken away for perswasion, as appears by his answer to Crates, when he took him by the cloake to draw him away from Stilpo, saying, O Crates, commodissimè auribus Philosophum teneas. Cum igitur ⟨p. 32⟩persuaseris, tum illum trahe. Nam si per vim egeris, corpus quidem apud te, sed animus apud Stilponem erit. Neither were any Philosophers more studious of Morality then the Stoicks, They wrote De Bonis & Malis, de Affectibus, de Virtute, de Fine, deque primâ aestimatione, & de Actibus ac de Officiis, de Adhortationibus & dehortationibus, as Diogenes writes in the life of Zeno.
