The Court of the Gentiles Part 2, Book 2 · Chapter 8

The Court of the Gentiles Part 2 · Book 2 · Chapter 8

p. 171CHAP. VIII. Pythagoras's Theologie traduced from the Jewiſh Church.

Pythagoras's Theologie the center of his Philoſophie: his Tetractie from the Hebrew foreign. His foreign from Exod. 3.14. His Scriptural notions of Gods Unitie, Simplicitie, &c. His Divine Ideas the ſame with the Scripture deſcriptions of Gods Decrees; and founded on that Oriental Maxime, All things are one, and many. Parmenides's opinion of Ideas. Timaeus …oc…us of Ideas. His primarie Idea the ſame with Gods Idea of things poſſible. His exemplar anſwers to God's Decree of things future. Gen. 1.31. With Timaeus's Tradition thence. Of Gods Creation, and Providence. Of Divine Worſhip againſt images, Exod. 20.4. That God is to be worſhipped according to his own Will. Their exactnes in Divine Worſhip, Eccleſ. 5.1. Pythagoras's Damons, their Nature, and Office according to Plato's deſcription. Pythagoras's Aeones. His traditions of the Soul, its Immortalitie, &c. His Metempſychoſis. The Pythagorean Theologie myſtical, &c.

§. 1. HAving finiſhed Pythagoras's Philoſophie, both Natural, and Moral; we now proceed to his Supernatural, or Metaphyſicks, p. 172which is either Theologick, and Divine; or Magick, and Diobolick: We ſhall begin with Pythagoras's Theologie, which indeed comprehended the beſt part of his Philoſophie, and gave foundation to Plato's foreign Natural Theologie, Platoni diſciplinam Pythagoricam diligenti et magnifica opera inſtructam viſam fuiſſe: eumque ab ipſis intellectualem Philoſophiae partem accepiſſe. Apuleius de Philoſ.as alſo to Ariſtotle's foreign Metaphyſicks. That Plato received much of his Natural Theologie from this of Pythagoras is generally granted, and ſhall be hereafter proved: our preſent work is to ſhew, what Pythagoras's Theologie was, and how he traduced it from the Jews, and Scriptures. That Pythagoras received the choiceſt of his Theologick contemplations immediately from the Jews, while he was in Judea, Egypt, and Babylon, I conceive may be groundedly conjectured by what has been before laid down, chap. 5. §. 2. & 6. But ſuppoſing this be denyed, yet I ſuppoſe no one can rationally denie, that he received his Theologie from the Phenicians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, Pherecydes, and Orpheus, who had theirs origionally from the Jews, as before. He is ſaid to have a particular affection for, and inclination unto Orpheus's Theologie, whoſe Philoſophie, if we may believe Iamblichus, he had continually before his eyes.

Pythagoras. made Theologie the Center of his Philoſophie.§. 2. Pythagoras according to Iamblichus's relation (chap. 29) made Theologie, or the Knowledge of God the firſt, moſt univerſal Being, to be the Center of all his Philoſophie; for, ſaies he, Pythagoras, who firſt gave the name to Philoſophie, defined it (foreign, Plato termes it foreign) a friendſhip, or love to Wiſdom. Wiſdom is the knowledge of the truth of things that are foreign. Things that are, he called immaterials, eternals, and Sole Agents. Other things are equivocally called ſuch by participation with theſe; For Corporeals indeed are not further then they depend upon incorporeals,Philoſophie properly only foreign. &c. Hence Pythagoras defined Philoſophie, The knowledge of things that are, as things that are: again, the knowledge of things Divine, and Humane: alſo the meditation of Death, daily endeavouring to free the ſoul from the Priſon of the bodie; Laſtly he defined it the reſemblance of God, &c. Which Definitions are properly applicable to no part of Philoſophie but Metaphyſicks, or Natural Theologie;Auguſt. Steuch. lib. 10. d… Per…n. Philoſ. cap. 10. whence Pythagoras judged the ſupreme end of all Philoſophie to be the contemplation, and knowledge of Ʋnitie: which Architas interprets, of the Principles of all Principles; and Plutarch of the Intelligent, and Eternal Nature: and Simplicius, of the Divine Majestie i. e. God. Hence we ſee the reaſon why Pythagoras was by way p. 173of Eminencie called foreign, and his Philoſophie foreign Theologie, namely becauſe he treated chiefly of God, his Nature, and Worſhip, and delivered foreign, a Science of the worſhip of God; which is properly the office of a Divine. So greatly was the Idea and perſwaſion of Divinitie impreſſed on his minde, as that without it he judged there could be no true Philoſophie. Yea Ariſtotle himſelf. 10 Metaph. cap. 6. and elſewhere ſtiles his Metaphyſicks foreign a Theologick Science. The Rabbins call the ſame foreign the wiſdom of the Deitie. The Author lib. de Mundo ſaith, foreign. which Cicero lib. 1. de Leg. expreſſeth thus: A man by Philoſophie, undertakes the worſhip of the Gods, and pure Religion. By which it appears, the Ancients, eſpecially Pythagoras, made Knowledge, and Worſhip of God the chief part of their Philoſophie. Plato in his Definitions of Philoſophie follows Pythagoras foreign, making its Object to be foreign, that which truely is; alſo foreign Being it ſelf, or the moſt independent Being, &c. Yea Ariſtotle himſelf comes not much behind in making the object of his Metaphyſicks to be foreign, Ens or Being in its univerſal latitude; & its Affections foreign, Ʋnitie, foreign Truth, foreign Bonitie, which Notions, I preſume, he had from Plato, as he received the ſame from Pythagoras, or from the Jews.

§. 3. Pythagoras's Natural Theologie, as to its Object or Matter, comprehended, 1. the Knowledge of God, his Names, Nature, Decrees, Providence, and Worſhip, &c. 2. The knowledge of the Aeones, or Angels. 3. The knowledge of the Daemons. 4. The knowledge of Human Soul, &c. Concerning the knowledge of God, his Names, Attributes, Acts, and Worſhip; we find manifeſt footſteps of ſcriptural, and Jewiſh Traditions in Pythagoras's Theologie. For Firſt, as to the Names of God; that Pythagoras received ſome broken tradition, touching that Eſſentials Name, of God Jehovah, ſeemes manifeſt. For this Name foreign being ſacred amongſt the Jews, they endeavoured, what they could, to concele it from the Gentiles: whence inſtead of pronouncing of it, they called it foreign,Pythagoras's Tetractie from the Jewiſh foreign. the Four Lettered Name of God, and in imitation of the Jews, Pythagoras called it foreign Tetractie. This Godefrid Wendelin in his Epiſtle to Erycius Puteanus Diſſertations of Pythagoras's Tetractie: where he ſhews, That the foreign, or Four Lettered Name of God, foreign was ſignified: Moreover, that Pythagoras traduced this Tetractie from the Jews and particularly from the Prophet Daniel, the p. 174Prince of the Magi, who was then, when Pythagoras viſited Babylon, Haec omnia funt nomin… Naturae Divinae, foreign, Vnitas, ipſum eſſe, ipſa Immobilitas Steuch. E…g. Peren. Philoſ. l. 3. c. 7. Pythagoras's Metaphyſick contemplations about Gods Eſſence from Moſaick Deſcriptions of God. Exod. 3.14. foreign genere tantum d…fferunt. Steuch. Eugub. Paren. Philoſ. Dico …andem rem ab cis (ſcil. Philoſ.) nuncupatam foreign ipſum Ens, ipſam Infinitatem Steuch. Eugub. Peren. Philoſ. lib. 3. c. 7. Jambl. c. 29.Exod 3:14about 70 years aged, as Voſſius Philoſ. ſect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 5. That Pythagoras had clear notices of the Name foreign Jah, which is but the contract of foreign Jehovah, is evident from all his Metaphyſick Contemplations about foreign, Being, truely Being, Self-Being, &c. as in wh…t follows.

§. 4. Neither could Pythagoras content his Curious Inquiſitive Humor with ſome imperfect notices of Gods Name, but makes ſome farther Inquiries into his Eſſence, or Nature, concerning which he gained his beſt notices, and ſatisfaction from the Moſaick Deſcriptions of God. For the beſt diſcoverie, that ever was given of the Divine Eſſence, or Nature, is that, which God himſelf gives, Exod. 3.14. I am, that I am,— and I am hath ſent me. Which the LXX renders foreign.] As if he had ſaid I am He that is. For the Greek foreign is a Participle, which the Latins knew not how to expreſs in one word better than by calling it Ens, Being, which Caeſar derived from Sum, I am, as potens from Poſſum. It here ſignifies, That God alone is the First, Eternal, Infinite, moſt Simple, moſt Neceſſarie, moſt Abſolute, moſt Independent, yea only, truely, properly, and purely Being. For all Beings elſe have much of not-Being, or nothing; yea much more of Nothing than of Something mixed with them: yea all things elſe, if compared with God, they are but meer Metaphors, or Shadows of his Being, or rather pure Nothings, or leſſe than Nothings, as Eſa. phraſeth it, Eſa. 40.17. And Job ſpeaketh in the ſame Dialect frequently. Now that Pythagoras traduced his Contemplations of God hence, is to me, and I think, to any other that ſhall duely conſider it, moſt apparent. For whence could Pythagoras, and his followers Timaeus, Parmenides, and Plato out of them, traduce their Metaphyſick Contemplations of foreign, Being, Self-Being, Very-Being, &c. but from this Scriptural Definition of God. For we muſt remember, that the Pythagoreans, and Platonicks from them, when they diſcourſe foreign, &c. of Being, or that which is truely Being, they underſtand it of God, the moſt Ʋniverſal, Infinite, and only true Being: They accounted all derived, temporal, lower Beings, but as Beings by accident, or to ſpeake in Ariſtotle's phraſe, foreign Beings of, or from Being, they judged nothing foreign, properly, and truely Being, but what was foreign very Being, or ſelf-Being: and firſt-Being. Thus Steuch. Eugubinus de Peren. Philoſ. p. 175l. 4. c. 7. The Ancients called God foreign Being it ſelf, that which only, and principally exiſts, which never was not, never ſhall ceaſe to be. Other things ſometimes have been, and ſometimes have not been. As therefore the Divinitie is ſtiled with an article foreign, Ʋ nitie it ſelf, and foreign, Bonitie it ſelf: ſo by a manner of eminence it is called foreign, Being it ſelf. And becauſe Being is aſcribed principally to God, it ſeems to denote, that he alone is Eſſence, and that he alone is; ſo that in compariſon of Him, other things exiſt not. By Three Teſtimonies it appears, that the Divine Nature is Being it ſelf, by the Teſtimonie of the Ancient Theologie, by the Teſtimonie of Plato, who is as it were the Interpreter thereof, laſtly by the Teſtimonies of the Heavenlie Philoſophie, the miſtreſs and guide of the other. For the Sacred Name Jehova, being as it were, the Third perſon of the Verb Subſtantive future, Jod being turned into Vau, foreign, hence this moſt ancient name of God was tranſlated to the Greeks; (for foreign and foreign differ only in Gender.) Thence in what follows he adds It is true, we may doubt, what Plato meant by his foreign, unleſſe we call to witnes the Superior Divines, and the heavenlie Philoſophie it ſelf, with which Plato differs not, ſave in the variation of the Gender, ſo that he who is ſtiled in the Sacred Scripture foreign (Gen. 3.14.) Who am, is called by Plato foreign, Being. Which variation was duely made, for two cauſes, both becauſe the Hebrews have no Neuter Gender, and alſo becauſe it ſeemes more full to ſay, God is Being it ſelf, as that comprehends the whole plenitude of Exiſtence, than to ſay foreign Exiſting. For Names of the very Natures, or Eſſences, import more than Derivatives from them: As Life ſignifies more than Vital. And God is rightly expreſt by the preſent, who is, becauſe with him there is neither paſt, nor to come, but the very Eternal Preſence alone. Pythagoras, when he defines Philoſophie a Love to the Knowledge foreign of Beings.] By Beings, ſaith Iamblichus, he underſtood (foreign) ſole, and ſelf Agents, Immaterials, and Eternals, other Beings indeed are not Beings, but yet are equivocally called ſuch by participation with theſe Eternals, Iamblichus cap. 29. So Plato in his Parmenides (who was a Pythagorean) treating of foreign, Being, and Unitie, which he makes the Firſt Principle of all things, thereby underſtands God: ſo in his Timaeus, Locrus (who was alſo a Pythagorean, from whom he received much of his knowledge of God, and of the origine of the Univerſe, as hereafter) he ſaies, foreign, Being p. 176is alwaies, neither hath it beginning. So again in his Timaeus (edit. Stephan. fol. 37, 38.) he proves nothing properly is, but God the Eternal Eſſence, to which, ſaies he, we doe very improperly attribute thoſe diſtinctions of time Was, and Shall be; for foreign is, properly, and truely, only belongs to this Eternal Eſſence. Theſe Contemplations, as 'tis ſuppoſed, he received from this Timaeus the Locrian who was a Pythagorean; yet we need not doubt, but that originally they were traduced from Exod. 3.14. for the Greek participle foreign there uſed ſignifies properly the preſent time only, as the Hebrew, excluding from God erat, and erit, was, and ſhall be, paſt, and future; denoting that God only is, according to the deſcription of the Pythagoreans, and Platonicks. Phutarch ſaies, foreign. The true Being is Eternal, Ingenerable, and Incorruptable, unto which no time ever brings mutation. Hence in the Delphick Temple among other Rarities, which might pleaſe the greater wits, there was engraven foreign, which ſignifies▪ Thou art. And indeed of God alone it can be truly ſaid He is, without mutation. That Pythagoras did really traduce theſe Metaphyſick Notions of Gods Eſſence from Moſes, ſee Lud. Vives on Aug. Civit. l. 8. c. 11. where he concludes thus. I doubt not but Pythagoras was taught theſe myſteries in Egypt, and that from the ſacred Volumnes, of which more hereafter.

Pythagoras's Scriptural tradition of the unitie of God. Empedocles autem, et Parmenides, autore Ariſtotele, appellabant Deum nomine Vnitatis: ergo idem eſt apud eos foreign ipſa Vnitas, er unum Principium Steuch. Eugub. Peren. Philoſ. l. 3. c. 7.§. 5. Pythagoras ſeems to have had ſome Scriptural, or Jewiſh tradition touching the Ʋnitie of Divine Eſſence. So Diogenes Laertius informes us, that Pythagoras aſſerted, foreign, Ʋnitie to be the principle of all things, from which proceeded indefinite Dualitie, which was as matter ſubject to Unitie, it's eſſential cauſe. We have a good explication on this myſtical Pythagorean Unitie by Learned Reuehlin in his explication of the Pythagorean Doctrine è Cabala lib. 2. The Divine Eſſence (ſaies he) the preexiſtent Entitie, and Unitie of Exiſtence, Subſtance, Eſſence, Nature, was by Pythagoras called foreign, becauſe it is the Super-Eſſential Unitie and Being, from which, and by which, and in which, and through which, and to which all things are, and are ordered, & perſiſt, and are comprehended, and converted, &c. Thus alſo Parmenides (who followed Pythagoras) herein is brought in by Plato Philoſophizing on that old axiome foreign, One, and many, and Determined thus, That God as he was foreign i. e. One Divine p. 177Eſſence, 1. Was not foreign Many. 2. That he was foreign,Celebre eſt dictum apud Platonicos foreign omninum rerumradix, & principium unitas Steuch. Eugubinus de Peren. Philoſ. l. 3. c. 5. One immutable Being. 3. That he was foreign. One Eternal Being, &c. This alſo Plato in his Philebus fol. 17. diſcourſeth of at large, ſhewing how this foreign was foreign, and how theſe foreign were foreign, i. e. How this one Divine Eſſence was many, as to the Divine Idea's, or Decrees, and how the Divine Ideas were one in the Divine Ʋnitie, and Eſſence, This Doctrine, ſaies he, ſeemes ſtrange, but yet the Gods, as they ſay, have thus delivered it to us, to learne, and to teach it others, though ſome wiſe men now (perhaps he means his Scholar Ariſtotle) teach otherwiſe, &c. By which he ſeemes to confeſs that theſe Contemplations of God's Unitie came originally from the Jews, as hereafter.

§. 6. Pythagoras ſeems alſo to have had ſome Jewiſh, Pythagoras's Jewiſh Tradition of Gods Simplicitie.if not Scriptural tradition of God's Simplicitie. This is apparent from Iamblichus's interpretation of that great Fundamental Symbol of Pythagoras, [Grave not the Image of God in a Ring] i. e. Philoſophize, and above all things, think that the Gods are incorporeal. This Symbol is beyond all others the Seminarie of the Pythagorean Doctrines. Think not, that the Gods uſe formes that are Corporeal, neither that they are received into material ſubſtance fettered to the bodie, as other animals. Thus Iamblichus on Symbol 24. Thus alſo Plutarch in the Life of Numa Pompilius informes us, That the Pythagoreans thought, the God's were Inviſible, Incorruptible, and only Intelligible, wherefore they forbad the Framing Images, or Formes of them. And Diogenes Laertius gives us a prettie Romance of Hieroninus, who, ſaith he, affirmes, that Pythagoras deſcending foreign into Hell, ſaw there Heſiods ſoul bound to a Brazen pillar, foreign making a lamentable noiſe: and Homer's Soul hanging upon a tree, and Serpents about, foreign, for thoſe things they feigned of the Gods, which ſtorie, though but a Fiction, yet it is ſufficient for our preſent purpoſe, to ſhew that Pythagoras was, according to the common Vogue, a profeſſed enemie to all thoſe Mythologick, & Poetick Fictions of the Gods. The ſame diſlike we find in Plato againſt Homer for his monſtrous fictions of God. So alſo Parmenides, (who did much, Pythagorize) is brought in by Plato diſcourſing of his foreign, or one Divine Being. 1. As one that was neither the whole, nor had he parts. 2. Neither had he beginning, nor end, therefore was 3. Infinite, and without termes. 4. Without Figure either round, or p. 178ſtreight. 5. Neither in himſelf, nor in any thing elſe, nor any where, 6. Neither like, nor diſlike; neither equal, nor inequal, becauſe without all termes, or compoſition. So Plato Parmenide, pag. 136, and 140. Edit. Stephan. And Plato in his Repub. ſaies, God continues, foreign, ſimply in the ſame Forme &c. as hereafter. We find the ſimplicitie of the Divine Eſſence thus deſcribed, according to the Pythagorean Doctrine, by Reuchlin, (and Stanly out of him, cap. 3.) The Pythagoreans, ſaies he, aſſert three worlds, the Supreme, Intelligible, and the Senſible. The ſupreme world being that of the Deitie, is one, Divine continual conſtant Eſſence of Sempiternitie, poized as it were with immoveable weight; not unfitly termed foreign, the all governing Throne. It is not confined to genus, Place, Time, or Reaſon; but is the free unlimited Preſident over all theſe; infinitely ſupreme in place, power, poſſeſſion, excellence, above all Eſſence, Nature, Aevum, Age, &c. See Stanly, fol. 138.

Pythagoras's Divine Ideas the ſame with the Scriptural tradition of Gods Decrees.§. 7. That Pythagoras received by tradition from the Jews, if not immediately from the Scriptures, ſome notices, touching the Divine Idea's or Decrees (which were the firſt original Archetype, or Univerſal exemplar of all things made) ſeemes very probable. Thus Auguſt. Stouch. Eugubinus, de Peren. Philoſ. l. 1. c. 12. It is very obſervable, and worthie to be known, what Plutarch mentions, that the Divine mind, and Ideas, (which Philo, and Plotinus taught) are the ſame: and that his Wiſdome, is the Nature and Subſtance of all Ideas: and that the whole ſeries of Ideas is the ſame with the immenſe Sapience of God. It is alſo to be obſerved, that this Mind, was according to the Sentiment of all the Philoſophers, the Creator, becauſe they attribute unto him Ideas as the Origines of things. Whence it is manifeſt, that they thought, and ſpake, what they learned from the Barbarians. The firſt Barbarians were the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and, whom we ought to ſet in the firſt place, the Hebrews, &c. That Pythagoras aſſerted the Doctrine of Ideas before Plato, or Parmenides, is evident, as Reuchlin in his explication of the Pythagorean Doctrine ſhews us, that the Pythagoreans reduce all beings Subſiſtent, or Subſtant immediately to Ideas. And to prove, that Pythagoras, and his followers, Parmenides, Timaeus Locrus, and Plato by their original Ideas underſtood nothing elſe, but that which our Divines call the Divine Ideas, or Decrees of God, it will be neceſſarie to examine a little p. 179their Doctrine of Ideas, its Original, &c. The Foundation of the Pythagorean Ideas, that famous oriental tradition of foreign.The great foundation of all this Doctrine of Ideas was that famous Oriental Tradition, foreign. That all is one, and many. This Axiome Plato expounds at large, out of Parmenides, and Timaeus Locrus the Pythagorean, ſhewing how, foreign was foreign & foreign, One was many, and many one: which ctrine, ſaies he, we received from the Ancient Philoſophers, (i. e. from Timaeus the Locrian, and Parmenides immediately, but from Pythagoras originally) and they originally from the Gods who taught them thus to Philoſophize, and teach others. What Plato's opinion of Ideas was, we ſhall reſerve for its proper place; we are now to treat only of the Pythagorean Doctrine concerning Ideas founded on this great Axiome, That all is one, and many. This Pythagorean Principle Parmenides (who was of the Eleatick ſect, a branch of the Italick, and Pythagorean) much Philoſophized on,Parmenides his opinion of Ideas. as the foundation of his Ideas. Him therefore we ſhall chiefly follow in the explication of this …ythagorean Doctrine, as we find his opinions explained by Steuch. Eugubinus, by Ludovicus Vives, and Serranus. Steuchus Eugebinus, de Peren. Philoſ. l. 3. c. 8. ſaies, That the Vnitie, and Being was ſtiled by the Ancients, with a certain great and deep myſterie, foreign the very Ʋniverſe. Ariſtotle in his firſt Book of the Principles of Philophie, delivers, that the Ancients affirmed, foreign, That one was all. Therefore they ſaid, God was that All. This in what follows he applies to Empedocles, Parmenides, &c. Lud. Vives in Auguſt. civit. Dei l. 8. c. 1. gives us this general account of Parmenides's (and ſo of Pythagoras's) foreign One, &c. There are not wanting ſome (ſaies he) who conceive that Parmenides himſelf in his Poems, in which he comprized his Philoſophie, affirming all things to be One, underſtood that One to be God; of which number is Simplicius. Neither is it likely that Parmenides an acute, and wiſe man could be ignorant of the Diviſion, and Multiplicitie of things, which in plain words he aſſerted in his Poems. For when he had verſifyed much, and enough on that One firſt Being. Hitherto ſaies he of theſe true, and ſupreme Beings; now of Mortals, and confuſed Beings, &c. But Serranus does more fully, and clearly expound unto us this Doctrine of Parmenides touching Ideas (in Plato's Parmenides fol. 124.) This ſaies he, was the opinion of Parmenides concerning Ideas. In the Vniverſe of things there is nothing that happens unadviſedly, or by chance; but all things depend on the force, and efficacie of their Ideal p. 180cauſes. Of theſe Ideas he makes two ſorts. 1. One he makes to be foreign, &c. Infinite, Immovable, Eternal, Simple, and Cauſative of all things. This he calls the foreign, The primarie Idea, which being foreign, gives being and virtue to all things. 2. As for the Secondarie Ideas, they are foreign, Gods works, or ſecond natural cauſes depending on God. He denies therefore that any thing happens foreign of it ſelf, without the Divine mind influencing it. The ſame Serranus (in Plato's Parmenides, fol. 130.) Parmenides, ſaies he, teacheth foreign, that all is One, and that this foreign, One, is foreign, the Archetype Idea, and thence foreign, That one is many, and many again one. Where he notes the power, and force of the One in the Ideas, in which it is foreign, The proper forme, or exemplar, and thence to know the nature of any intelligibles, we muſt reduce them to the Unitie of Idea. Thus Serranus of the original of theſe Ideas. The plain mind of this dark Oriental Tradition is this; That the Divine Eſſence, which in it ſelf is but one; in reſpect of it's Divine Ideas, or Decrees may be looked on as many; and thus one becomes many, and many one. Thus Plato, and Serranus on him (fol. 134.) explain Parmenides his Ideas. Parmenides ſaith foreign, That God has the moſt accurate Knowledge; and that this Knowledge he has by his Ideas; and that theſe Ideas ariſe not from us, (i. e. external objects) but from Himſelf, from his own Infinite Eſſence, (the glaſſe of all thoſe Ideas which repreſent things Poſſible) and from his Sovereign, Abſolute will, (which is the glaſſe wherein he contemplates the Ideas of things Future) for otherwiſe, ſaies Parmenides, foreign, The Gods would not be our Lords, neither would they know Humane affaires, ſhould their Ideas or Knowledge ariſe from us, and not from themſelves. How Divinely does Parmenides here Philoſophize on the Abſolute, Independent, Sovereign Ideas, or Decrees of God, to the confuſion of that great Jeſuitical Idol of Scientia Media, which is the foreign of all Pelagianiſme: of which more when we come to Plato, &c.

§. 8. Beſides Parmenides, there were other Pythagoreans who Philoſophized largely on this Doctrine of Ideas: as Epicarmus, or Cous, p. 181and Timaeus Locrus, both famous Philoſophers of the Pythagorean Sect, from whom Plato, as 'tis conceived, received much of his Philoſophie touching Ideas. So Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ. l. 8. c. 11. Alcimus, ſaith he, in the Books which he writ to Amynthas, teacheth us, that Plato borrowed his Opinion of God being foreign, and foreign, as alſo that of Ideas from the Books of Epicarmus, who was Cous a Philoſopher of the Pythagorean Sect moſt famous: Timaeus alſo the Locrian has writ of Ideas in his Book of the Univerſe. But all theſe things, Plato being of a more accurate Wit, and aſſiſted with a deeper, and more Divine Doctrine, has more largely, and clearly explained. Though I doubt not, but Pythagoras had before learned theſe things from the Sacred Scriptures, &c.Timaeus Locrus his opinion of Ideas. As for Timaeus Locrus the Pythagorean, we have his opinion of Ideas laid down at large by Plato in his Timaeus, or Dialogue of the Origine of the Univerſe, which, I preſume he calls Timaeus, becauſe he received the main Principles, and Materials of it from this Timaeus the Pythagorean. The ſumme of this Diſcourſe in Plato's Timaeus, about Ideas, may be reduced to this Scheme.The primarie Idea of things poſsible ſeated in the Divine Eſſence. God in the Production of the Univerſe acted as a skilful wiſe Artificer, according to the Ideas of his own eternal Wiſdom. Theſe Ideas exiſting in the mind of God, he makes to be foreign, ſelf-ſubſiſting, or independent, eternal, indiviſible, immaterial, and ſimple. Theſe firſt original Ideas ſeem to anſwer to thoſe Divine Ideas, w^ch the Scholes ſuppoſe in the Divine Eſſence, and Power, w^ch is the glaſſe of things poſſible, the object of Gods ſimple Intelligence. Beſides this original ſimple Idea, Plato brings in Timaeus diſcourſing of another kind of Idea, which he calls foreign, and foreign,The ſecondarie Exemplar of things future, the ſame with Gods decrees. an exemplar, or image, which he makes to be the firſt foetus, impreſs, or off-ſpring of the former original Idea. This Exemplar, or Image, as it is conformed, and exactly anſwerable to the firſt original Idea; ſo likewiſe is it a lively delineation or repreſentation of the future work or thing to be made, whence the Divine Agent, having got his Exemplar, proceeds to the production of his work anſwerable thereunto. His words are theſe,The difference 'twixt foreign and foreign. foreign, where he diſtinguiſheth his Idea from his Exemplar, making the former to be firſt, and productive of the latter. Unto this foreign, or foreign, Exemplar, or Image, the Divine Idea's of things future, or the Decrees of God, which the Scholes ſuppoſe to be ſeated in the Will of God, the object of Gods Science of Viſion, ſeem to anſwer. Laertius ſaies, that Plato makes p. 182foreign Idea, and Exemplar Synonymous, I conceive he is miſtaken. This foreign, or foreign, Exemplar, or intelligible Image. Timaeus (Edit. Steph. fol. 30.) calls foreign, &c. the Animal, Living, Intelligible World, which is elſewhere called foreign, the Ideal World, the ſelf Liver, the alwaies Liver; and by the Pythagoreans it is generally ſtiled foreign, intelligible World, which they place in the middle, betwixt the Supreme World or the Divine Eſſence, and the Senſible World, or Univerſe. This Exemplar Serranus (on the fore-cited place of Timaeus, fol. 30.) makes to be that eternal Image, or Exemplar in the mind of God, delineated, or drawn according to the Idea of his eternal Wiſdom, according to which all things are produced. Yea, thus Plato ſeems to expreſs Timaeus's mind, fol. 29. foreign. If the World be beautiful, and it's Maker good, it is evident, that he eyed ſome internal Exemplar, &c. So before (Timaeus fol. 28.The goodneſs of all things conſiſts in their anſwering to their Original Exemplar in Gods Decrees.) Wherefore, ſaies he, if he that undertakes to effect any thing, regards this unvariable Exemplar foreign, &c. it cannot be but that the work ſhould be exactly formed. Thus Timaeus the Pythagorean in Plato's words, which indeed ſeems exactly to anſwer that of Moſes, Gen. 1.31. and God ſaw every thing that he made, and behold it was very good. So ſaies Auguſtin (de Civit. Dei. l. 11. c. 21.) on this place, hereby is underſtood God's approbation of his work made according to Art, which is the wiſdom of God. Yea Timaeus, according to Plato's relation, (fol. 30. edit. Steph.) ſpeakes more fully and openly the ſenſe (almoſt in the very words) of Moſes, Gen. 1.31. Thus foreign, &c. For God willed, that all things ſhould be good, and nothing bad, neither is it lawful, ſaies he, to ſuppoſe that God, who is beſt, ſhould make the World but in the beſt and moſt beautiful manner: then he concludes, fol. 37. Thus, after the Father of the Univerſe had beheld his Workmanſhip, foreign, the framed a viſible Image of the eternal inviſible Gods, he recreated and repoſed himſelf therein, i. e. God was delighted in his own works, becauſe they were exactly conformed to, and ſo ſenſible Ideas, or viſible Images of that eternal Exemplar, and thoſe inviſible Ideas, or Decrees lodged in his own ſovereign Will, and Eſſence. Does not Plato here ſpeak plainly, p. 183not only the mind of Timaeus, but of Moſes alſo? This is not mine own conjecture only, but Philoponus (otherwiſe Johannes Grammaticus) alſo that great Chriſtian Philoſopher has long ſince obſerved the ſame, in his Book of the Worlds Creation, lib. 7. c. 11, 12. Moſes therefore concluding the production of the World, ſaies rightly (Gen. 1.31.) God ſaw, &c. Moreover Plato in this again imitating him, and ſhewing how the Ʋniverſe was made by God, ſaies, That the Father when he beheld this moveable and living Image of the eternal Gods, which he had made, he rejoyced and recreated himſelf, foreign, ſo much the more when he conſidered, that it was made according to that great Exemplar of his own Idea's, or Decrees. Thus Philoponus, who was well skilled in the mind of Plato, as well as of Moſes. But of theſe things more in their place.

§. 9. Pythagoras held Gods production of,Of Gods Creation & Providence. and providence over all things. So Timaeus (in Plato fol. 12.) ſaies, that God foreign, &c. adorned and diſpoſed the World into the moſt perfect Forme and Order; whence it was by Pythagoras called foreign, i. e. Order, and Beauty. Diogenes tells us, Pythagoras aſſerted foreign, &c. that Ʋnity (by which he underſtood God) was the principle of all things. He held alſo God only to be foreign, the animation and viviſick principle of all things; according to Gen. 1.2. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters: whence Pythagoras defined God a mind, which communicateth, and diffuſeth himſelf through every part of the Ʋniverſe, from whom all Animals receive life, &c. which accords with Plato's Anima mundi. He alſo called God one entire Being within himſelf, in a complete Circle, i. e. ſhedding abroad the influential lines of his Providence throughout the Univerſe.See Stanly of Pythagoras's Philoſophie, chap. 3. The Pythagorean Conception (as Iamblichus) touching the Providence of God in general, was this, That we have need of ſuch a Government, as we ought not in any thing to contradict, which alone proceeds from the Deitie, who deſervedly may challenge a ſoveraign Dominion over all. For man being, ſay the Pythagoreans, ſhamefully variable, and fickle in his appetites, affections, and other paſſions, needs ſuch a Government, from which proceeds moderation, and order. But Pythagoras affirmed the Gods to have a peculiar Providence towards Men, ſuch as were at Friendſhip with them. So Diogenes Laertius ſaies, Pythagoras held foreign, That Men are ak… to the Gods, and therefore God has a ſpecial Providence over us, as Gen. 1. p. 18426. ſo ſaies Iamblichus, Pythagoras demonſtrated there is a friendſhip of the Gods towards men, &c. Grotius on Matth. 10.29. tells us, that ſome of the Hebrews held Gods providence about men, but not about beaſts: which Pythagoras ſeems to have learned from them, and to have taught the Grecians.

Pythagoras's Model of Divine Worſhip.§. 10. Hence Pythagoras was a great Devoto, or Advocate for God, his Worſhip, and ſacred Inſtitutes. So Iamblichus tells us, That Pythagoras propoſed, that all things we reſolve to do, ſhould tend to the ſolemne acknowledgement of the Divinitie; that the whole of mans life ſhould conſiſt in the following God, which is the ground of all Philoſophie. For ſince there is a God (ſaies he) we muſt acknowledge it is in his power to do us good. Now all give good things to ſuch as they love, and delight in: therefore it is manifeſt that ſuch things are to be performed, in which God delights, from whom alone good is to be ſought for. The like foundation of Divine Worſhip Plato (who did in this point greatly Pythagorize) aſſerts, of which in it's place. And as to the Mode of Divine Worſhip, Pythagoras and his Adherents, give us many wholeſome Inſtitutes, ſuch as theſe.

1. Againſt all Images or viſible formes in Worſhip.1. That God being an Incorporeal, and Spiritual Being, ſhould not be Worſhipped under any Corporeal Forme, or Viſible Likenes. Thus Plutarch in the Life of Numa Pompilius, tells us, That Numa forbad the Romans to believe, that God had any Forme, or likenes of Beaſt, or Man, which is agreeable to the Pythagoreans, who thought the Gods Inviſible, Incorruptible, and Intelligible Beings only: ſo that in theſe former times there was in Rome no Image of God, either painted, or graven for 170 Years, &c. Some think that Numa had this Inſtitute from Pythagoras; but Ludo. Vives (on Auguſt. Civit. l. 7. c. 35.) refutes this; ſhewing, that Numa dyed many Years before Pythagoras was born. We may therefore more fitly with Clemens Alexandr. foreign. 1. and out of him Selden (de Jure Gent. Hebr. l. 1. c. 2.) affirm, That Numa received this by Tradition originally from the Jews, though perhaps immediately from the Phenicians, who frequented Italy in, and before his time. That Pythagoras had it immediately from the Jews, and particularly from that great Moral Command,Exod. 20.4.Exod 20:4 Thou ſhalt not make any graven Image, &c. is moſt likely. Conformable whereto is that great Pythagorean Symbol [Grave not the Image of God in a Ring] i. e. ſaies Iamblichus, Philoſophize, and above all things conceive that the Gods are incorporeal. This Symbol is (ſaith he) above all other the Seminarie of the Pythagorick Doctrines, &c.

p. 1852. Hence Pythagoras inſtituted,2. That God is to be worſhipped by Rites of his own appointing. that God ſhould be Worſhipped with a pure mind; and ſuch decent Ceremonies, as were by him appointed. So Diogenes Laertius: Pythagoras, ſaies he, held foreign, &c. That honors are to be performed to the Gods according to their own appointment, with a white garment, and chaſte bodie, and ſoul, which purification is acquired by expurgations, waſhings, ſprinklings, and ſeparation from what ever is unclean, &c. I know foreign is rendred by the Latin Verſion cum laudibus, with praiſes; which agrees well enough with our preſent deſigne: but yet that it ſignifies in this place ſuch a Worſhip, as was appointed by the Gods, I gather by the like uſage of the Word in Plato his Alcibiades, fol. 149. where bringing in the Athenians complaining to Ammon their Oracle, that their Enemies the Lacedemonians, who offered few, or no Sacrifices, ſhould prevail againſt them, who offered ſuch coſtly Sacrifices: The Oracle makes anſwer, that the foreign, the plain ſimple instituted worſhip of the Lacedemonians, was more acceptable to the Gods than all their pompous will-worſhip. This we need not doubt, but that Pythagoras learned from the Jews, as Plato alſo, who in his foreign, fol. 6. tells us, that all Divine Worſhip muſt be foreign, i. e. ſaith Serranus, meaſured by the will, and good pleaſure of God. And whereas Pythagoras required his Followers to worſhip in a white Garment, that is apparently a Jewiſh Rite, anſwerable to the Ephod. Such were alſo all thoſe …urifications, Waſhings, Sprinklings, and Separations from all unclean things, which Pythagoras enjoyned. This likewiſe is affirmed of Iamblichus, that Pythagoras ſaid Puritie is acquired by Expiations, Bathings, Sprinklings, Abſtinences from the fleſh of things, that dye of themſelves, and viperous Creatures, &c. which were all Jewiſh Ceremonies. Laertius alſo informs us, that Pythagoras held things dedicated to God were holy, and not to be uſed for common uſe: thence he forbad the eating of Fiſhes foreign, in as much as they were holy: for it was not meet that what was proper to the Gods ſhould be common to Men. Farther Voſsius de Philoſ. ſect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 5. tells us, it appears out of Clemens Alexandrinus, that Pythagoras was circumciſed, &c. which if true, gives us a great demonſtration, that he was initiated in the Jewiſh Ceremonies, which agrees with what was before mentioned out of Diogenes Laertius, that Pythagoras, whilſt he was in Babylon, was cleanſed from the Pollutions of his life paſt, by one Zabratus, who according to Selden (de Gente p. 186Hebr. l. 1. c. 2.) was Ezekiel. See more of this in chap. 6. §. 6, 7, 8. of Pythagoras's ſymbolizing with the Jews in Rites.

The Pythagorean exactnes in Divine Worſhip, from Eccleſ. 5.1.Eccl 5:13. Pythagoras required of his Diſciples a very great exactnes, and ſolemnitie in the Worſhip of God. This is evident by many of his Symbols, and Iamblichus's explication thereof. As Symbol 1. [When you go to the Temple to Worſhip, neither do, nor ſay any thing concerning life] i. e. ſaith Iamblichus, Worſhip the Deity after ſuch a manner as is moſt pure, and immixed. He takes care, that no worldly affairs inſinuate into Divine Worſhip. So Symbol 2. [If a Temple lye in your way, go not in: No, though you paſs by the very doors] i. e. ſaies Iamblichus, the Supreme Being ought to have the Principal Worſhip: but if any Man doth it upon the occaſion of any other thing, he makes that the ſecond, which is the firſt, and chiefeſt of all; and by that means he ſubverts the whole order of Worſhip. The moſt excellent Good ought not to be ranked in the latter place, as inferior to humane Good. Again Symbol 3. [foreign, Sacrifice and Worſhip bare-foot.] i. e. ſaies Iamblichus, ſerve the Gods 1. decently, and orderly. 2. Being free from fetters: this is to be obſerved not in the Bodie only, but in the acts of the Soul alſo. Now that this Pythagorean exactnes in Divine Worſhip had its original from the Jewiſh Church, is obſerved by Mr. Mede (on Eccleſ. 5.1. of the reverence of Gods houſe, pag. 104.) where citing this very Symbol of Pythagoras, [offer Sacrifice and Worſhip with thy ſhoes off.] This, ſaies he, alludes to the Jewiſh Cuſtom of Diſcalceation, which was uſed by the Jews in going to the Place of Worſhip, and from them derived to the Gentiles, when they worſhipped their Gods. We might adde to theſe Pythagoras's ſeventh Symbol, [Above all things, governe your tongues following the Gods.] i. e. ſaith Iamblichus, nothing renders the mind ſo perfect, as when a Man in following the Gods reflects in upon himſelf by ſerious Meditation. The whole of which Symbolick Doctrine, touching the Worſhip of God, ſeems very correſpondent with Scripture Precepts, touching God's Worſhip; eſpecially Eccleſ. 5.1.

Pythagoras's Daemons, their nature, and office.§. 11. Another part of Pythagoras's Theologie conſiſted in the knowledge, and worſhip of the Daemons. For the underſtanding whereof, we are to remember, that as Auguſtin (de Civit. Dei, l. 6. c. 5.) hath long ſince obſerved, out of Varro, and Seneca; the Pagan foreign was three-fold.A three-fold Theologie, Mythick. 1. foreign Mythick. or fabulous, which was that of the Poets. 2. foreign Politick, or Civil, which was (as is ſuppoſed) p. 187taken up, and impoſed by their Law-givers, and Politicians,Politick, Natural. and ſo followed by the Prieſts, and People in their worſhip. 3. foreign Natural Theologie, which the Philoſophers taught, as that, which ſuited beſt with the Light of Nature, and Principles of Reaſon, in diſtinction from the two former. For the wiſer of the Philoſophers, Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. utterly rejected the fabulous Theologie of the Poets: Neither did they generally approve of that Politick Theologie, which States-men had invented, and the Prieſts with the People embraced, in order to the promoting their Politick Intereſts. But theſe Philoſophers, by what Oriental Jewiſh Tradition they had received, together with the Improvements of their own Reaſon thereon, found out a more Natural, & Rational kind of Theologie; which was briefly this. They held only one Supreme, Eternal Being, which they called God: This God the Phenicians called Saturn, or Molech, from the Hebrew foreign King; but the Grecians generally ſtiled him Jupiter, from foreign the Father Jah, which was one of God's names. Now this ſupreme God Jah the Father, Saturn, or Molech, was, as they ſuppoſed, at ſuch an infinite diſtance from poor Mortals, and Sinners, as that there could be no approach to Him, or communications of good things from Him, but by ſome Mediators, or midling Gods. Theſe middle Gods, or Mediators, were no other than their great Heroes, or Perſons, who had been greatly famous in their Age for ſome noble Exploits, or virtuous Acts, and after their Death were by common conſent Deifyed, or made Gods, and called by ſome from their office Medioxumi, from the place of their main reſidence (which was ſuppoſed to be in the Stars) Deaſtri, from their relation to the ſuperior God, the leſſer Gods, the made Gods; from their knowledge of humane Affairs, foreign, Daemons; alſo from their ſovereigntie over Men, foreign, Baalim Lords. Who was the firſt of theſe Daemons, is not determin'd: ſome think 'twas Joſeph, whom the Egyptians worſhipped under the Symbolick names, and Images of Apis, Syrapis, Hermes, &c. Others make Belus a Phenician King, the firſt of them; whence they were by the Phenicians called Baalim: who ever was the firſt, it matters not, ſo long as we have ſuch probable conjectures, yea ſtrong preſumptions, that their original Idea, or Exemplar, was conveighed by ſome imperfect Tradition from the Jewiſh Meſſias. This ſeems evident by that account we find of theſe Daemons in Plato, who diſcourſeth profeſſedly, and at large concerning them, in his Politicus; but more p. 188particularly in his Sympoſium, as alſo de legibus, where 1. Touching their Natures, he terms them to be foreign, &c. made Gods viſible Gods: Idols, and Images of the great God, who was Maker of all things. Plato de Legib. 13. 2. Touching their Office, he ſaies, they were foreign, &c. placed in the middle 'twixt the great God, and man, to be Mediators, or Porters, for the conveighing the Sacrifices, and Prayers of men to the Gods; as alſo for the tranſmitting guifts, and all good things from God to Men; together with an Interpretation of the mind, will, and precepts of God to men: Whence 3^ly, ſays he, by the mediation of theſe Daemons there is a communion, and friendſhip maintained betwixt God, and men, which otherwiſe could not be: ſo Plato, Sympoſ. fol. 202, &c. 4. As to the dignitie of theſe Daemons, he makes them foreign, Co-rulers with the great God: ſo Plato, Politicus fol. 251. By all which I think, it plainly appears, that theſe Daemons had their original from ſome Scriptural Tradition of the Meſſias, unto whom Plato's Characters of them ſeem fully to anſwer. That Pythagoras held theſe Daemons, we are informed by Diogenes Laertius, who tells us, that Next to the ſupreme God, Pythagoras, and his followers placed Daemons, and Heroe's: ſee more of theſe Daemons in Lud. Vives, in Auguſt. Civ. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 14, &c.

Of the Aeones.§. 12. Another piece of the Pythagorean Theologie, is that which treats of their foreign, Aeones, who were diſtinct from their Daemons, and much the ſame with our Scripture Angels, for they looked upon theſe Aeones, as Divine immortal Powers, amongſt whom there were divers degrees; ſome inferior, ſome ſuperior, who had their foreign, their conjunctions, and Genealogies, &c. Theſe Aeones the Gnoſticks (who much imitated the Pythagoreans) tranſmitted into their myſtical Divinitie, applying them to the Angels: of which ſee more in our account of the corruption of the Pythagorean Philoſophie.

Of the Soul.§. 13. Another part of Pythagoras's Metaphyſicks concerned the humane Soul, which (ſaies Stobeus) Pythagoras defined a ſelf-moving number: who held alſo, that foreign was induced into the Soul from without,Pythag.'s Metempſychoſis a corrupt tradition of the Reſurrection. foreign, i. e. by a Divine efficacie (ſo Plato underſtands this foreign) delibated of the univerſal mind, whence alſo ſhe became immortal. Diogenes Laertius likewiſe acquaints us, that Pythagoras held foreign, &c. that the Soul was immortal, becauſe p. 189that, whence it was derived, was immortal. And this ſome give as the genuine import of Pythagoras's foreign, Metempſychoſis, which by ſome was called foreign, by others foreign, by Laertius foreign. This Metempſychoſis, That Pythagoras's Metempſychoſis was Symbolical, ſee c. 9. paragr. 8.or Tranſmigration of the Soul from one Bodie to another, was alſo aſſerted by Plato, and, as it is ſuppoſed, taken up both by him and Pythagoras from ſome broken Tradition they had received from the Jews, touching the Reſurrection. This is obſerved by Serranus in Plato, Repub. lib. 10. Plato, ſaies he, teacheth us, that the Bodies of the Pious, ſhould foreign be raiſed again to life. And the Comment, or Invention of the [foreign, and foreign] Tranſmigration of Souls, was but a corrupt derivation from this Truth of the Reſurrection. That the Jews had the like perſwaſion touching the Tranſmigration of Souls, appears from that of Herod, who thought that John Baptiſt's Soul revived in Chriſt. That the Phariſees held this Opinion, is affirmed by Joſephus, l. 18. Antiq. c. 2. and 'tis poſſible the more ancient Jews held the ſame, and Pythagoras from them, though Voſſius denies it. That Pythagoras's, and Plato's Metempſychoſis, or Tranſmigration of the humane Soul after death, was by them taken up, to ſignifie the Souls firſt infuſion into,See more of this, Stanly cap. 7. fol. 145. and thence by death ſeparation from, and at the Reſurrection re-union with the Bodie, is aſſerted by John Reuchlin, Art. Cabal. l. 2. This is (ſaies he) the meaning of Pythagoras concerning his Metempſychoſis, or Tranſmigration of Souls after death, and their deſcenſion into life. Others thought the Soul educed out of Matter: Pythagoras thought it infuſed by God into the Bodie, and therefore before it, not in time, but in dignitie, and puritie: This infuſion he termed the deſcent of the Soul, &c. or if he meant hiſtorically, foreign, the Soul ſeparate from the Bodie, may by the power of God be brought the ſame, into the ſame bodie; whence he acknowledgeth God only to be foreign, the animation of all things. God infuſeth the ſoul into every man, and being infuſed taketh it away, and being taken away reſtoreth it, when, and as oft as he pleaſeth. Thus he; ſome underſtand this Pythagorean Metempſychoſis, Symbolically, with relation to the ſeveral paſſions, diſpoſitions, and morals of men, as hereafter.

§. 14. Laſtly, To give a general Idea of Pythagoras's Theologie;A general Idea of Pythagoras's Theologie. we muſt know, that it was Myſtical; much the ſame with that of Pherecydes his Maſter; as alſo with that of Orpheus, from whom he p. 190borrowed much of it: who all affected a myſtical mode of Theologizing, partly from their own Ignorance, being unacquainted with the true import, or meaning of thoſe Jewiſh Traditions, which were very imperfectly delivered to them; and partly from an affected Singularitie, they being unwilling that any ſhould be acquainted with their Myſteries, but ſuch as were of their own Tribe, and Sect. This is the meaning of many of Pythagoras's Symbols, whereby he ſtrictly enjoyned his Diſciples not to communicate his Myſteries to Strangers, and thoſe without; as before from Grot. Matth. 7.6, &c. That Pythagoras, and his Adherents, were generally ſenſible of their great Ignorance of Divine Myſteries,Pythagoreans acknowledge their Ignorance. appears by ſeveral of his Symbols, as that [Look not in a Glaſse by Candle-light.] i. e. ſaies Iamblichu…, Philoſophize, purſuing not the fantaſies of ſenſe, which gives a kind of light to comprehenſions, like a Candle, neither natural, nor true, &c. This anſwers to Prov. 13.9. Thence another of his Symbols runs thus, [Diſcourſe not of Pythagorean things without light.] i. e. (ſaies Iamblichu…) becauſe it is impoſſible to understand Pythagorean Doctrines without light. But that which was the foundation of all the Pythagorean myſtical Theologie, and a great argument of their ſenſe of Ignorance in Divine things, was their credulous inquiſitive humor, which inclined them to receive ev'ry Tradition, though never ſo broken, or corrupt, touching Divine things. This is fully expreſſed by that great Symbol of Pythagoras, viz. [Concerning the Gods diſ-believe nothing wonderful, nor yet concerning Divine things] This (ſaies Iamblichus) declareth the ſuperlative Excellence of God's inſtructing us, and puts us in mind, that we ought not to eſtimate the Divine power by our own Judgement: which Comment of Iamblichus, if applyed to Divine Revelation, is excellent, and excellently uſeful; the ſame with what the Scripture univerſally teacheth us; viz. that concerning God, and Divine things, we ſhould diſ-believe nothing though never ſo wonderful, if we have a Divine word for it. But the Pythagoreans ſtretched this excellent Scriptural Rule beyond the line of Divine Revelation, even to the belief of every corrupt Oriental Tradition, as hereafter.

Of Divinati….§. 15. We ſhould now proceed to the black, and Satanick part of Pythagoras's Metaphyſicks, or Supernatural Philoſophie, namely his Magick, or Art of Divination: But this we ſhall refer to Chap. 10. Touching the Vanitie, or corruptions of the Pythagorean Philoſophie. p. 191Only in general: that this black Art of Divination, wherein the Pythagoreans were greatly verſed, had its original from Satanick imitation of God's ſacred Oracles, and the various ways of his revealing himſelf in the Jewiſh Church, I think will be very evident, when the parallel is drawn betwixt the one, and the other: For as God revealed his Oracles by Dreams, and Viſious; ſo the Devil's were frequently delivered in the ſame manner. Of which more in its place.