A collection of several philosophical writings

...especially in matters of great complexity and importance, without which a man is, as it were, in a thick wood. He may make infinite promising attempts but can find no exit into the open plain original: "Champain", where one may freely look about in every direction (the plain of truth original: "πεδίον τῆς ἀληθείας") without the safe guidance of this good genius In this context, "genius" refers to a guiding spirit or an innate intellectual power.

All who claim to be philosophers will indeed be ready to magnify Reason to the skies, to make it the light of Heaven and the very Oracle of God. But they do not consider that the Oracle of God is not to be heard except in his Holy Temple—that is to say, in a good and holy man, thoroughly sanctified in spirit, soul, and body. For there is a sanctity even of the body and temperament original: "Complexion" which the sensually-minded do not even dream of. Did not Aaron's "Rationale"—his Oracle of Reason original: "Λόγιον"; referring to the ceremonial breastplate worn by the High Priest—include the Urim and Thummim, which signify the purity and integrity of the will and affections, as well as the light of the understanding? Was not that breastplate square, not only in reference to the firmness of reasoning (as Philo Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who sought to harmonize the Torah with Greek philosophy suggests), but also to denote the evenness and uprightness of his spirit? One who takes it upon himself to pronounce great truths must be, as Aristotle somewhere says, "a good man, and four-square without blame" original: "ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ τετράγωνος ἄνευ ψόγου". This is true not only according to the standard of the city, but of the sanctuary; not only to a political degree of virtue, but a purifying original: "Cathartical" virtue, or rather that which Enneads*, book 1, chapter 2. Plotinus places "in having been purified" original: "ἐν τῷ κεκαθάρθαι", implying a soul already purged of its lower impulses.

Let a man adorn himself as well as he can with the history of universal nature (represented by the long priestly robe), but if this breastplate with the Urim and Thummim is lacking to him who would act the part of the priest, he must necessarily fail to prove himself a sound philosopher. He will be unable to utter any oracles himself and will be in a poor position to receive them when they are uttered by another. For if this divine sagacity is missing due to the impurity of a man's spirit, he can neither find the right scent original: "sent" of things himself, nor easily follow it when he is put on the trail by someone else. This odd position of mine may make those people fret and storm who have made the contempt of morality a part of their philosophy; they may think themselves insulted to be pronounced incompetent judges of things they took for granted were within their own reach. Yet I could not conceal such an important truth, especially since it is not at all unphilosophical.

The above-mentioned principle further illustrated and confirmed from Aristotle. On Subtlety, exercise 307, section 25. 7. For is it not the saying of that so universally-applauded Aristotle: "For the divine within us moves all things in a way; and the beginning of reason is not reason, but something better" original: "Κινεῖ γὰρ πῶς πάντα τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῖον, λόγου δ᾿ ἀρχὴ οὐ λόγος, ἀλλά τι κρεῖττον"? What Plato—nay, what Chrysostom or Augustine—could have spoken more heavenly language? Scaliger Julius Caesar Scaliger, a leading Renaissance scholar, transported by the sight of this text, breaks out into this admiring question: "What do you say, divine man? Is there something divine in us that is more excellent than reason itself? Were even the rays of the Holy Spirit known to you?" original: "Quid ais, divine vir? Estne in nobis aliquid divinum quod sit præstantius ipsâ ratione? An tibi quoque noti fuerunt ipsi radii Spiritûs Sancti?" And so that we may not think that this "divine thing within us" is merely a part of ourselves, it appears both from what comes before and what follows after that it is the Deity itself. For having asked the question, "What is the beginning of motion in the soul?" original: "τίς ἡ τῆς κινήσεως ἀρχὴ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ;" the full answer follows: Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, book 7, chapter 14. "It is clear that as God is in the universe, so everything is in him; for the divine within us moves all things in a way; and the beginning of reason is not reason, but something better. What then could be better than even knowledge except [God]?" original: "Δῆλον δὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ θεός, καὶ πᾶν ἐκείνῳ· κινεῖ γὰρ πῶς πάντα τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῖον· λόγου δ᾿ ἀρχὴ οὐ λόγος, ἀλλά τι κρεῖττον. τί οὖν ἂν εἴη κρεῖττον καὶ ἐπιστήμης πλὴν"