be added to the stores of wisdom which they had transmitted to posterity. Among the Greek philosophers Aristotle was almost universally allowed the first place, for* depth of erudition, solidity of judgment, and accuracy of reasoning. His empire had now been so long established, that even those who gave the preference to Plato were afraid wholly to reject the Stagyrite, and were willing that these two princes of philosophy should possess united authority. Nor could it possibly be otherwise, so long as the name of Aristotle was held forth to young persons as an object of reverence, by parents, preceptors, and heads of colleges, and his writings continued to be zealously recommended by the general body of the learned. The authority of Aristotle was further confirmed, by the intimate alliance which had, long before this time, been formed between the dogmas of the Peripatetic philosophy and the religious creed of the church. From the metaphysical parts of this philosophy several tenets had been blended with the Christian system, and the whole course of sacred instruction had been formed upon the model of Aristotle's dialectics; whence this philosophy was now so interwoven with the ecclesiastical establishment, that to attempt a separation would be to hazard the whole fabric on, which its benefits, powers, honours, and emoluments depended. To these may be added a third cause, immediately arising from the revival of letters. This happy event was, as we have seen, chiefly owing to the arrival of learned Greeks in Italy, at the time of the dissolution of the eastern empire. By means of their instruction and example, a general taste for ancient learning was introduced, and the Greek writers of every class were read and admired. Among the rest, the philosophers, who were held up by the Grecians as oracles of wisdom, were eagerly studied; particularly Plato, on account of the supposed Divine origin of his theological doctrine; and Aristotle, on account of his strict method of reasoning, and the scientific accuracy of his writings.

The general prepossession in favour of the Aristotelian system, which, from these and other causes prevailed for several centuries after the revival of letters, was attended with much inconvenience and mischief. The reformers of philosophy, observing that the Scholastics, in order to har

monize the Aristotelian system with the doctrines of Christianity, had represented the Stagyrite under fictitious colours, determined to embrace his real tenets as they are found in his writings; whence they imbibed opinions from the Peripatetic philosophy, wholly inconsistent with the principles of true religion; such as, for example, that God, X the first mover, wholly intent upon the contemplation of his own intellect, disregards the affairs of the world; that the Intelligence, which presides over the lower sphere, is the Universal Soul of the world, of which all men partake; and, consequently, that the soul of man has no distinct existence, and will no longer subsist as such, than whilst the body continues to live. These, and other similar tenets, were commonly embraced by the modern Peripatetics, especially in Italy, who thought that they paid sufficient respect to religion, if they pretended, as Christians, to embrace a different creed, though they were not able to reconcile it with the dogmas which they were taught by reason and philosophy. In this manner, Pomponatius, Cæsalpinus, Cremoninus, and others, cast the thin veil of religious profession over real infidelity. This mischief proceeded to such an extreme, that the minds of the multitude, both ecclesiastics and laity, were at this time deeply tinctured with atheism; and this fatal relaxation of principle produced an uncommon depravity of manners. A regard to the providence and authority of God, and the fear of future punishment, having almost wholly lost their influence upon the minds of those who still called themselves, not only philosophers, but Christians, sobriety and decency were abandoned in their conversation, and the grossest impiety and obscenity disgraced their writings.

This swelling torrent of profaneness the fathers of the Lateran council in vain endeavoured to stem by a bull which, in the year 1510, was issued against the Aristotelian corruptions. The Peripatetics ridiculed this idle fulmination; for they were not ignorant, that the pontiff himself, Leo X. and the cardinal, Peter Bembo, by whom the bull was issued, lay under a strong suspicion of being themselves infidels. Subsequent ecclesiastical decrees lopped off some of the branches of this spreading impiety, but no one saw the necessity, or had the courage to root up the

tree. The public guardians of religion were, or seemed to be, ignorant that the errors of the Aristotelian philosophy lay at the foundation of this corruption. Themselves infected with the disease which they undertook to cure, if the Christian faith was professed in words, they thought it of little consequence what tenets were in reality believed. In order to throw dust into the eyes of the people, the ecclesiastics professed to yield such implicit submission to the authority of the church, as to embrace its decrees, though they were wholly irreconcileable with the invincible reasonings of the Peripatetic schools. Under this mask they did not scruple publicly to defend any kind of impiety, only adding this caution, that they proposed positions of this kind merely in the way of speculation, and though they might be true according to Aristotle, they were false according to the decisions of the church, to which they humbly submitted, though they were not able to discover the reasons upon which they were founded. Such pitiful evasions, though they might suffice to secure the credit of the church among an ignorant populace, proved highly injurious to good morals, by encouraging fraud and hypocrisy. The motto of Cremoninus seems to have expressed the general sense of the Peripatetic clergy of this period, Intus ut libet, foris ut moris est : " Abroad, with the people; at home, as you please."

The Stagyrite having, for many centuries, possessed authority in the schools little inferior to that of Jesus Christ in the church, and his dogmas being intimately interwoven with those of religion, it was thought exceedingly hazardous to whisper any thing to the discredit of his philosophy. The learned Berigard, who was sensible of many errors in this system, declares,33 "that in lecturing upon Aristotle he did not think himself at liberty to give his own opinion, lest he' should be thought to treat his master with contempt, and to trample upon the ashes of the ancients." This reverence for Aristotle was still supported, in popish universities, by statutes, which required the professors to promise upon oath, that in their public lectures on philosophy they would follow no other guide. It is easy to perceive, that, if free

33 Præf. Circul. Pisan.

24 Ne in magistrum despuere, et apolactizare, ut ait Plautus, velle videar.

dom of speech, even at the very fountain head of instruction, was thus restricted, there could be little scope for freedom of inquiry, and little probability of the advancement of knowledge.

Among Protestants, the errors and corruptions of the Peripatetic philosophy met with opposition; but it was attended with little success. Luther, whose independent spirit rose superior to all human authority in matters of opinion, and who was fully sensible of the mischiefs which an injudicious respect for philosophy had introduced into religion, was for the entire rejection of Aristotle. But the general prejudice in favour of the Stagyrite retained such firm possession of the mind of Melancthon, that he judged it the wiser and safer way to adhere to his system, except in those particulars in which it directly militated against revelation, and thought, that the best service he could render to the learned world, was to give a perspicuous explanation of the Peripatetic philosophy. His Philippics, which, as we have seen, were founded upon Peripatetic principles, obtained an extensive and lasting authority in the schools. And when this ceased, the preceptors of philosophy returned to their ancient guide, and Scholastic barbarism was in some measure revived. The freedom of inquiry which at this period prevailed among Protestants, would not, it is true, suffer the defects and errors of ancient philosophy to remain unnoticed. Several eminent men even ventured to inveigh against Aristotle himself, as the author of many pernicious errors. But still, his system, for the most part, retained its authority, and even those who forsook this master, thought it necessary to make choice of some other ancient guide; so that, after all, the question was, what Aristotle, Plato, or Pythagoras had taught, rather than what was truth.*

Vidend. Adami Vit. Theol. Reimann. Hist. Lit. Germ. p. iv. v. Apini Vit. Prof. Phil. Altdorf. Zeltner. Vit. Theol. Altdorf. Matthesii Vit. Luther. Budd. Isag. l. i. c. 4. Philosophia Altdorfina, Norimb. 1614. Crenii Animadv. Phil. p. 13. Mayer Diss. de nimia lenitate, 1707. Arnold Hist. Eccl. p. ii. I. xvi. c. 10. Vogtii Catal. Lib. rar. p. 539. 562, &c. Sandii Bibl. Antitrinit. Boecler. Bibl. Crit. c. 40. Morhoff. Polyhist. t. ii. Li. Bayle.

SECT. II.

Of the Revival of the Platonic Philosophy, mixed with the Pythagorean and Cabbalistic.

THE doctrines of the later Platonists having been revived, as we have already related, by the Greek exiles in Italy, their further spread is chiefly to be imputed to the aversion which many good men entertained against the Peripatetic philosophy, on account of the shameful impieties to which it had given birth. Perceiving that they could not commit themselves to the direction of Aristotle, without hazarding their religious principles, and not having strength of mind sufficient to form a system of opinions for themselves, they adopted the philosophy of Plato, in the corrupted state in which it had been transmitted, through the Alexandrian and Christian schools, to modern times. This philosophy was the more readily embraced, because it was believed, that the mysteries of Pythagoras, than which none appeared to approach nearer to those of true religion, had been long since united with the wisdom of Plato. Men hoped to find in this school much Divine instruction; and they were confirmed in this expectation by the persuasion, that its doctrines had been, immediately or remotely, derived from Divine revelation. And, as one error naturally produces another, these learned men united with this system the sccret or Cabbalistic philosophy of the Jews, which, for want of a thorough examination, they conceived to have been the pure doctrine of the ancient Hebrews. Hence a new compound of tenets arose, sufficiently mysterious and parodoxical, which was received by this class of philosophers as the sum of ancient wisdom.

After Pletho, who, as we have related, made use of the Jewish Cabbala as a key to unlock the Pythagorean mysteries, flourished John Reuchlin,35 a native of Pforzheim, in Suabia, born in the year 1455. In his youth, when he was a student at Paris, and afterwards when he was a preceptor of languages, first at Basil, and afterwards at Or

35 Melancthon Vit. Reuch. Declam. t. iii. p. 280. Reuchl. Dedic. libr. de Accentibus. Maii Vit. Reuch. Fr. 1687. 8vo. Reuch. Epist. Ed. Tigur. 1558. 8vo. Trithem. c. 920.