Stoicis

Chryfippus writ no less than Three hundred Volumes upon this Art: But Seneca has obferv'd, Chryfippus that his Refinements ferv'd only to break and enervavit enervate its mafculine Spirit. He, and his Suc- virilem ceffors, were they that firft brought up the Ufephiam fuis philofoof formal and virtual Diftin&tions. Their Viva-argutiis. city of Genius, indulg'd too largely to the Imagi- Senec. nation, which always reprefents Things beyond their natural Proportions, by giving too much verba reForce and Power to Words. Names, and the perienda Significations of Names, were the great and on-funt, impoly Subject of their Debates. And thus they be- nendaque came the first Founders and Authors of that nova novis rebus noPhilosophy which was reviv'd by the Nomina- mina.Cic. lifts, fo many Ages after: At least, there was a de Fin. near Refemblance between these two Sects, Zeno eoin their Way of overstraining the Niceties of rum prinTerms. But this Logick, which was fcarce any tam rerum better than merely verbal, rendred the Stoicks inventor extremely flight and fuperficial, and made their fuit, quam Philofophy hang upon their Lips. However, novorum verborum Ariftotle's Logick, together with the rest of his Works, being conceal'd from the Publick, the Logick of Zeno was chiefly in Vogue with the following Ages, and one of the first that was taught at Rome; the Subtilties of which Plau- In Afinar. tus expos'd with fo much Humour in his Comedies; as Cicero afterwards did in many Places of in Pfeuhis Works: The Stoicks having by this Affectation, made themselves ridiculous to the Wisdom of the Romans.

VI.

ceps non

Ibid.

in Rud.

dol.

Epicurus took up a Method of Reasoning, lefs diale&ica. arificial than that of Zeno, but more fine and contemnit delicate. The Cenfure which Tully has pafs'd Epicurus. upon him, of his defpifing Logick, will hold Fin. In eâ philofophia parte, quæ Logica dicitur, Epicurus planè inermis pudus eft; nibil de dividendo ac partiendo docet. Idem. Ibid.

true

Cic. de

true only with regard to the Logick of the Stoicks, which indeed he could not approve of, as being too full of Nicety and Quirk. Epicurus fet about this Work with greater Simplicity. The analytical Method of Divifion and of Argumentation, was unknown to him; and this Defect rendred him weak and little in Difputes. His Search of Truth proceeded only by the Senfes, which he term'd the first and natural Ex Diog. Light of Mankind. This was his first and fundamental Rule, as the Reflection upon the Judg tarch. & ment of Senfe was his fecond. As he acknowGaffend, ledg'd Two Sorts of Truth, the one Natural,

Laer.Lu

cret. Plu.

6

the other Moral, fo his Principle was, that we fhould diftinguish by the Senfes what is real in Nature, and by the Appetite, (or the Way of the Heart) what is good and convenient for our Eftate, which latter he term'd moral Truth. This was the Sum of his Doctrine: The three leading Maxims of it were as follow:

I. That the Senfes cannot be deceiv'd, because the Impreffion which they take from the Object must always be true, as confifting in a Senfible Species; but that the Reasonings of the Soul upon this Impreffion are capable of Falfehood.

II. That the Opinion which we form of any Senfation, may indifferently be either true or falfe.

III. That 'tis true when the Judgment of Senfe proceeds upon the reprefented Species, without Obstacle, and with fuch an Evidence, as Reafon cannot controul or refift; but that it may be falfe when defective in this Evidence.

These are the main Axioms of Epicurus's Logick, upon which he founds the different Reasonings

of

of the Soul, fram'd by Vertue of the Sympathy that there is between the Understanding and the Senfe. He fays, 'tis in Strength of these Notices which the Soul receives from the Senfes, that it forms its Doubt or Opinion, its Obfcurity or Evidence, the refpective Character of which is in this manner ftamp'd upon it. To proceed; that Way of anticipated Knowledge, which he ftiles Prefumption, is according to him Ex Diog. Πρόληψις, but the Idea of fingular Things, reunited in Laert. their univerfal and common Notion: And hence he draws the Rule of Definition, which he looks upon as the only Method of Science. By the Help of these several Principles, he eftablish'd a more natural Way of Reasoning than the other Philofophers. The Simplicity of his Logick was in a good Measure owing to the Clearness of the Terms; he being of Opinion, that the common Source of all Difputes was the Ambiguity of Propofitions. Thus he refolv'd all Fallacies and Sophifms by the bare Explication of the Words; concluding, that when once Men understand one another, and are not merely ftupid, they must of neceffity be agreed. That Over-ballance of Authority which he allow'd to the Senfes, may indeed feem a very uncertain Way of coming to any perfect Knowledge of Truth. But he labours to rectify the Eò rem diDefault of this Principle, by ufing the utmost mittit EPrecaution in all his Reafonings: And Lucre- picurus, fi tius, who explains his Doctrine in Verfe, has, unusfenfus in his fourth Book, propos'd no lefs than four Jemel in vitâ menteen Objections against the Judgment of Senfe, titus fit, and given a fatisfactory Anfwer to them all. In nulli una word, a Soundness and Simplicity of Senfe, quam effe affifted with fome natural Reflection, was all credendum the Art of Epicurus: He was not fo curious in Doleo ftoicos noftros Epicureis irridendi fui dediffe facultatem. Id.de Fin.

Modes

Cic. Acad

Qu.

Modes and Formalities as the Stoicks, who by that Nicety laid themselves open to the Contempt of him and his Tribe.

VII.

When the Writings of Ariftotle, which had lain hid for fo many Ages, were once discovered, and the World was made acquainted with his Method, it was this alone that was generally follow'd in After-times, as the most folid and certain; because the Art of Thinking and of Difcourfing appear'd there in its highest Perfection, by the Invention of Syllogifm, and was incapable of the leaft Improvement by all the Study and Meditation of his Succeffors. Galen, who had entertain'd fome different Notions of the Art of Logick, at length acquiefc'd in that of Ariftotle, and contributed, largely to its Fame; while that additional Figure of Syllogifm which he before had invented, was ever look'd on as an indirect Method of Argumentation. Alexander Aphrodifaus, Simplicius, Ammonius, and Philoponus, among the Greeks, Apuleius, S. Auftin, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, and many others of the Latins, together with the Arabians, ftudied Ariftotle's Logick, as the great Pattern and Original. Nay, we may affirm, that there was never any Thing rationally advanc'd upon this Art, but what Ariftotle had first thought of; and that there has been scarce one new Difcovery made in the univerfal Oeconomy of the Operations of the Mind, fince the time that he wrote. It was, likewife, upon this excellent Model that the Schoolmen form'd their Character, who reign'd with fo long and fo abfolute a Sway. It is true, they fell into a Division of Nominalifts and Realifts, but both these Parties proceeded in their Debates upon the Principles of Ariftotle. I fhall fay nothing of the Syftem of Raimundus

Raimundus Lullius, which is but a cabbalistick Jargon, a Ranging of Words without Things wholly groundlefs and precarious; an Art to pronounce at all Adventures, upon all Subjects, and to discourse very plentifully in the Air: In fhort, 'tis an Imitation of that extravagant Scheme which Peter Montuus pretended to have De unius copied exactly from Abezebron, an Arabian Phi- legis verklofopher, fit, as he conceiv'd, to demolish Anti- tate. C,5 5• chrift at his appearing. From this fine Original Raimundus Lullius took the Draught of his Logick, which is only capable of making Fools or Madmen. About two hundred Years fince, Laurentius Valla undertook to reform the Ariftotelian Logick, by reducing the ten Prædicaments to Three, and by cutting off the third Figure of Syllogifm. But this bold Enterprize did not fucceed, nor found any to fecond it. Ludovicus Vives attempted another fort of Reformation, not fo much in refpect of Aristotle, as of the Schoolmen, but with no better Succefs. Nor did Peter Ramus nieet with greater Encouragement in his Design of Ruining the Credit of Ariftotle, by Help of the Memoirs of Valla and Vives. For the Plan which he form'd of a new Logick, has nothing rational in it, but what he borrow'd from that of Ariftotle, which he spoilt in prefuming to mend it. Cardan compos'd a Logick upon the joynt Stock of Ariftotle, Hippocrates, Euclid, Ptolomy, and Galen; but this Work had nothing valuable in it, befides the geometrical Method of Ariftotle, which the Compiler was fo wife as to transcribe.

VIII.

As for the Judgment that may be pafs'd on the modern Logicians: Bacon's Organum is by no means a regular Piece; it confifts of a Number of particular Remarks, and thofe very curi

ous,