84 Of the Advancement of Learning, L i b.IIL 



reception of other Rivers that fall into them. Wherefore n>c reill divide 

 Sciences, into Theology^^ afidrhilojophy^ by T/jeo^/ we underftandi»- 

 fpred or Sacred Divinity 5 not Natural, of which we are to fpeak anon. 

 But this Infpired Theology, we referve for the laft place, that we may 

 clofe up this work with it 3 feeing it is the Port and Sabbath of all Hu- 

 mane Contemplations. 



II. The object of rbilofophy is of three Jortti, God'j Nature^ Man i, Co 

 likewife there is a Triple Beam of things, for Nature darts upon the ««- 

 derjianding with a direB Beam j God becaufe of the inequality of the me" 

 dium, which is the Creature^ with a refra£f Beam 5 and ntan reprefented 

 and exhibited to himfelf with a beam reflext. Wherefore Philofbphy 

 may fitly be divided into three knowledges 5 the knowledge of God 5 

 the knowledge of Nature , and the l{nowledgc of Man, 



III. And becaufe the Partition of Sciences are not like (everal lines 

 that meet in one angle ; but rather like branches of trees that meet in 

 one ftemm, which ftemra for (bme drmenfion and fpace is entire and 

 continued, before it break, and part it felf into arms and boughs,; 

 therefore the nature of the fubj eft requires, before we purfue the parts 

 of the former diftribution, to eredi and conftitute one univerfal Science^ 

 which maybe the mother of the reft ; and that in the progrefs of Sci- 

 ences, a Portion, as it were, of the common high- way may be kept, 

 before we come where the ways part and divide them(elves. This Sci- 

 ence wcjiile Primitive Philojophy or Sapience, which by the Ancients was 

 defin'd to be, The Science of things divine and humane. To itixs Science 

 none of the reft is oppofed, being it is differenced from other Know- 

 ledges, rather in the limits of latitude 5 than in the things and fubjeft 5 

 that is, handling only the tops of things. Whether I (hould report this 

 as Deficient, I ftand doubtful, yet I think I very well may. For I find 

 a certain kind of Rhapfbdy, and confufed malTe of knowledge, namely 

 of Natural Theology ; of Logic^, : of particular parts of Natural Philofophy 

 ^asof the Principles of Nature, and of the foul^ compofited and com- 

 piled: and by the height of terms, from men who love to admire them- 

 felves advanced, and exalted, as it were, to the vertical point of Sci- 

 ences. But we, without any fuch ftately loftineis, would only have thus 

 much. That there might be dejign'd a certain Science, thatfijould be the re- 

 ceptacle ofal/Juch Axioms, as fall not within the compafi of anyjpecial part 

 of Philojophy ^ but are more common to them all, or moji of them. 



§ That there are many of this kind,needs not to be doubted. For 

 Euclid. example, Si in^qualibus aqualia addat ^ omnia erunt in£qualia 5 is a rule 

 lUib.i. in the Mathematicks : and the fame holds in the Ethicks concerning 

 Attributive Jujiicej for in 'jujiicc Expletivc,the reafon of equity requires, 

 Eclid. El. ^'^''«' equal Portion be given to unequal Perfons 5 hut in Attributive^ unlef 

 Anil. unequal be dijiributed unto unequal, it is a great injujlice. ^£ ineo- 

 demtertio conveniunt, & inter fe conueninnt '-y is likewife a rule taken 

 Arift.de from the Mathematicks ; but fo potent in L^t^/V^ alio, as all Syllogifms 

 Part. Ani- are built upon it. Naturafe potijfimum prodit in minimis, \s ^ rule in 

 Natural Philofophy fo prevalent, ^hat it hath produced Democriuis his 

 P.)lit.t; Atomes^yethath Arijiotkmzde good uleof-t tn hisPclit/ck/, where he 

 rai(eth his contemplations of a City or State, from the Principles of a 

 Family. Omnia mutantur ml intcrit 5 is alio a maxime in Natural Phi- 

 lofophy thus expreflcd, that the ^antum of Nature is neither dimi- 



ni(ht 



