fancies, they admit the wildest dreams of a feverish brain as sacred truths, and obtrude them upon the world with insufferable arrogance, as oracular decisions not to be controverted.

or

B

These enthusiasts seem to be agreed in acknowledging, that all things flow from God, and will return to him, and particularly, that this is the case with the human soul, which must derive its chief felicity from the contemplation of God; and that Divine illumination is only to be expect ed in that submissive state of the soul, in which it is deprived of all activity, and remains the silent subject of Divine impressions. They have, moreover, fancied, that God has not only enstamped his image upon man, but upon all visible objects; and that this image of God being discovered by certain signs, the hidden nature of things may be understood, the influence of the superior world upon the inferior may be known, and great and wonderful effects may be produced. They have imagined, that, by the help of the arts of astrology and chemistry, the mysteries of nature may be so far laid open, that a universal remedy for diseases, and a method of converting inferior metals into gold, To vuogi the philosopher's stone, might be discovered. Taved Little need be said to prove, that the system of Theoso phism is founded in delusion, and that it is productive of mischief both to philosophy and religion. These supposed illuminations are to be ascribed either to fanaticism or to imposture. The fastidious contempt, with which these pretenders to Divine wisdom have treated those, who are contented to follow the plain dictates of common sense, the simple doctrine of the Scriptures, has unquestionably imposed upon the credulous vulgar, and produced an indifference to rational inquiry, which has obstructed the progress of knowledge. And their example has encouraged others to traduce philosophy and theology in general, by representing them as resting upon no better foundation, than enthusiasm and absurdity. It is to be charitably presumed, that these deluded visionaries have not been themselves aware of tho injury which they have been doing to the interests of science and religion. Neverthe less, it must be regretted, both on their own account, on account of the multitudes they have misled, that whilst

and

they have thought themselves following a bright and steady luminary, they have been led astray by wandering meteots.13)

OF THE ENEMIES OF PHILOSOPHYJIH

IN enumerating the deviations from the true method of philosophizing, which a dislike of Sectarian philosophy has produced, we must not omit to mention a class of men, who, though they are not themselves philosophers, have had some effect upon the state of philosophy-those who have appeared as its professed adversaries. Every period in the history of philosophy has produced men of this description. The wise men of Greece were ridiculed by Damon, a Cyrenian. Sócrates was persecuted by the Athenians. Philosophy itself was proscribed in the Roman republic, and by several of the Roman emperors; and its records have more than once fallén a sacrifice to the bigotry of Mahometan, and even of Christian princes. Wits have ridiculed philosophers, and priests have condemned them. It is no wonder, then, that philosophy has experienced a similar fate in modern times.

10

"The attacks which have been made upon philosophy since the revival of letters have been of different kinds some open and direct, some oblique and concealed. Among its indirect opponents may be reckoned those advocates for revelation, who have maintained that its doctrines cannot be reconciled with the dictates of human reason, and those enthusiasts, who have relinquished the use of reason, and

Vidend, Erastus contra Paracelsum. Crollii Basilica Chymica. Oporini Ep. ad Wier. de Moribus Præceptoris, Clerici Hist. Med. p. 794. 802. Borrich. de Chemia. c. 6. Budd. Isag. p. i. p. 265, Arnold. Hist. Ecc. p. i. 1. 17. Morhoff. Polyh: t. ii. 1. ii. p. i. c. 10. 15. Wersen-1 dorf. Disp. de Fanaticis Silesiorum. Rapin Reflexions sur la Philoso

phie, p. 54 Flinckelman, Detect. fundam. Boehm. De Visch. Bib. Ord. Cest. p. 187. Stolkopvii Animadv. in Poiret. Felleri Monum inedit. Fluddi Tract. Apolog. pro Soc. de Rosea Cruce, 1617. Thomas Præf. ad Poiret de Erudit, triplici. Conring. de Hermet. Egypt. et Paraeels, Le Compte de Gabalis. Croll. Amphitheatrom Sapientiæ Eterne, Magd. 1608/raleim øved our a bustinm sit to M20935

abandoned themselves to the extravagances of fanaticism. Of a direct attack upon philosophy we shall give one example, in the controversy which happened in the Univer sity of Helmstadt, towards the close of the sixteenth century.

Daniel Hoffman,1 born in 1538, at Hall, in Saxony, and professor, first of logic and ethics, and afterwards of theology, in the University of Helmstadt, had long distinguished himself as a keen and angry disputant. In his time disputes ran high concerning the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ, which was admitted by the more orthodox theologians, but denied by the Brunswick divines, who contented themselves with maintaining, that the man Jesus Christ could be present wherever he pleased. The aid of the Scholastic philosophy being called in by both parties, to decide this controversy, Hoffman, whether through pique or vanity it is not easy to determine, took this occasion to erect his standard against philosophy itself. In an academical disputation, he maintained, that the light of reason, even as it appears in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, is adverse to religion; and that the more the human understanding is cultivated by philosophical study, the more perfectly is the enemy supplied with the weapons of defence. The partiality which at this time universally prevailed in favour of the Aristotelian philosophy, was such, that an opinion of this kind could not be advanced publicly without exciting general dissatisfaction and alarm. A numerous band of professors, though they differed in opinion among themselves, united to take up arms against the common enemy. At the head of this body was John Cassel; whence the advocates for philosophy were called the Casselian Party. They at first challenged Hoffman to a private conference, in expectation of leading him to a sounder judgment concerning philosophy; but their hopes were frustrated. Hoffman, persuaded that interest and envy had armed the philosophers against him, in his reply to his opponents, inveighed with great bitterness against philosophers, and acknowledged, that he meant to oppose not only the abuse of philosophy, but the most prudent and

Elswich. de Fortun. Arist. in Acad. Prot. §. 27, Arnold. Hist. Eccl p. ii. iii. Bayle. Reimann. Hist. Lit. Germ. p. iv. p. 96.

legitimate use of it, as necessarily destructive of theblogy. This extravagant assertion, accompanied with many contu melious censtres of philosophers, produced reciprocal ve hemence; and Albert Graver published a book De Unica Veritate, which maintained "the Simplicity of Truth;" a doctrine from which the Casselian party were called Simplicists, whilst the followers of Hoffman (for he found means to engage several persons, particularly among the Theosophists, in his interest) opposing this doctrine, were called, on the other hand, Duplicists. John Angel Wer denhagen, a Boehmenite, who possessed some poetical talents, wrote several poems against the philosophers. In short, the disputes ran so high, and produced so much personal abuse, that the court thought it necessary to interpose its authority, and appointed arbitrators to examine the merits of the controversy. The decision was against Hoffman, and he was obliged to make a public recantation of his errors, acknowledging the utility and excellence of philosophy, and declaring that his invectives had been only directed against its abuses. After this defeat, Hoff man retired into a neighbouring monastery; but he was permitted to return to Helmstadt, and open a private school. He died in the year 1611.

Werdenhagen, who had been Hoffman's coadjutor, would not suffer the contest to sleep after the death of its author. His zeal for Boehmean Theosophism impelled him to per sist in his invectives against philosophers; and he pressed! into his service a hot-headed youth, Weneslaw Schilling, a Thuringian, who inflamed the quarrel by several virulent publications, one of which was entitled Visitatio Ecclesiæ Metaphysicæ, “A Visitation of the Metaphysical Church.” For his scurrilities he was banished from Wittemburg.} Werdenhagen withdrew to Holland, and the dispute ended. A dispute which originated in disappointed vanity, and was supported by enthusiasm and malevolence, only de serves to be recorded as a proof of the necessity of philo sophizing soberly, and of following reason, rather than imagination or passion, in the search after truth linq n, in the bas 149bing Mont his ina „vigo olaq to or '6 9° ¿lco 300 15 Vidend. Weisman. Hist. Ecc. t. ii. p. 1170. Michael Syn. Hist. Ecc. 1. in. 2. Hutteri Concordia Concors, c. 52. Meicri Monum, c. 3.

Hosil bola BOOK X. thegion issin

to OF MODERN ECLECTIC PHILOSOPHY.

OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF MODERN ECLECTIC PHILOSOPHY.

UPON the revival of letters, many attempts were made to restore and to improve philosophy; but from the preceding narrative it is sufficiently evident, that little was accomplished. The human understanding has at length, however, through the favour of Divine Providence, asserted its native freedom and dignity, and shaken off the yoke of authority, Many independent and exalted geniuses have arisen, who, despising the servile prejudice of yielding im-. plicit deference to the decisions of the ancients, have determined, by the vigorous exertions of their own faculties, to investigate certain and universal principles for themselves, and upon this foundation to frame a system of opinions, which should be truly and properly their own. They have not; indeed, disdained to consult the records of ancient wisdom, but they have admitted nothing as true which their reason and judgment have not approved.

et

From these laudable attempts a species of philosophy has arisen, more pure and excellent than that of any former period, which we shall distinguish by the name of the Modern Eclectic Philosophy: understanding by the term, however, something very different from that specious kind of philosophy which arose in the school of Alexandria, and from that confusion of opinions which some modern writers, by attempting to reconcile Platonism with. Stoicism or Peripateticism, and all these with Christianity, have produced. The true Eclectic philosopher, renounc