Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ...

CHAP. XV. A REVIEW and CONCLVSION. (Book 15)

A. I Have read over your Discourse of Idolatry, and if you please I will spend a few Animadversions upon it.

B. With all my heart. I take such liberty sometimes, and therefore I have reason to give it. The truth is, I am not wondrously pleased, my self, with what I have done. And I believe the performance of few men does answer to the Idea which they had form'd in their heads.

A. I neither frame Models, nor work by them; but I make bold to animadvert on those that do. And if they will talk to the world, they must expect that the world will talk again. As to your Performance, my Remarks in the general are but Two; But the particu∣lar ones are enough to weary you, though you were a second Fabius.

B. Pray try what stock of Patience I am Master of: Though that is usually very small when men are to hear of their own faults.

A. They may be mine; for no body offends oftner than he who censures. At least he runs the hazard of offending; this being as true as most Proverbs, That he who kicks at others is himself half way to a fall. But let us come to the Points.

I observe, first, That you have chosen a very beaten Argument, and never more beaten than at this time. And next, that you will nauseate the nice Readers of this Age with your numerous Citations, which are in

truth so many that they make the Book seem the less your own.

B. 'Tis true, the Argument is a beaten one; a sub∣ject handled by Maimonides, Viretus, Vossius, Reinolds, Selden, and many others of great Learning. But I can∣not say that it was wholly of my own chusing; nor can I tell you all the occasions of it, unless I break open the seal of Confession. But be the Argument as beaten as it will; I hope there may be something said in it, not said before; as in a Mine which hath been wrought in for many years, some mean Labourer may find a new vein of Oar. However, there must be new Books for them whose curiosity will not incline them to look back upon the old ones. And there must be many upon every useful subject, that the differing Genius of each Reader may be gratified by an innocent compliance with it. And the very concurrence of many at this time in this one subject, does shew that they judged it highly useful for this age; though it may be some would have spared their pains had they had a window into the Studies of others, and seen what they were a doing. And further, I assure you upon the ob∣servation of others as well as upon my own, that the very newness of the fashion in any Book upon a weighty subject, is some way instrumental in carrying on the Trade of Learning.

For the Citations, an Historical and Philological Argument cannot be managed without them. Ancient customs and matters of Fact are not to be invented but remembred. And though I fetch many Materials from the Ancients, I lose no more my property in this wri∣ting (were that worth the contending for) than a Hol∣lander does in any of his Vessels, whose Timber was imported from Norweigh, and grew not at home.

A. I agree with you, adding this to what you have

said, that the Margent is as often left clear out of Ig∣norance and laziness, as it is garnished out of Pedantry.

I have done with my general Remarks. Now for those which are more particular.

In Chap. 2. p. 15. you seem to commit a little mistake about Zaradsas, or Zaratas, said by Plutarch to be the Disciple of Pythagoras. He was not therefore what you would make him the same with Zoroaster, who was at least as much before him as Socrates before Plato and Zenophon.

B. Plutarch himself does not say it. The Translator (rather sure out of misattention than ignorance) ren∣ders him thus a 1.1, Zaratas Pythagorae Discipulus. Whereas this is the Original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Zaratas the Master of Pythagoras.

A. In the same Page, in page 76, as likewise in ma∣ny others, you mention the two Principles of Pytha∣goras; but you do not any-where tell us distinctly what he meaneth by them.

A. 'Tis not an easie matter to do it. The ancient Philosophers (especially those whose Heads were tou∣ched with Magick and Enthusiasm) understood divers things by the same names. But these two Principles are most literally expounded of the Demiourgus, or Soul of the World; and Hyle, or matter, his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or fatal original of Evil b 1.2, which he and his follow∣ers ascribed to the untameable nature of it.

A. I go on. In Chap. 5. p. 55, &c. you are very brief in your proof of the acknowledgment of one Supreme God amongst the Gentiles; and well it is you are so. That Argument has been considered at large by others with great Learning. And of these some have appear'd since your Papers were under the Press. So that in your brevity you are either discreet or lucky.

B. What you please. I could wifh that I had been more brief than I am; and then I had been guilty of fewer mistakes. I find that I have cited some words of Plato's as acknowledgments of one supreme God, which he spake not of him but of the Soul of the World. Such are those cited by me in pag. 57. where he is said to call God the Maker and Father of every thing. That's the proper Platonick Title of the Soul of the World a 1.3, to which the frame of the visible Universe, and its ge∣neration is ascribed. And the context so plainly infor∣ceth that sense that I wonder it needed my second thoughts. He speaks of that third principle in many other places which are frequently misapplied to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] one Supreme God.

A. You have company in your mistake, though perhaps you will be singular in your Retractation. But to proceed. In Chap. 3. pag. 35. you insinuate that the Platonists judged the Soul of the World to be rather a Form assisting than Informing. Whereas they held this World to be one mighty Animal.

B. Nothing can be more absurd than that which some Platonists held. But Plato himself, though he said the World was b 1.4 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] a living Creature endued with a Soul; yet he meant not by the Anima∣tion of this World, either the vital union of the high∣est Psyche to all matter; or (as some have conceived, whilst they have pleased to measure him by the doubt∣ful phrases of Plotinus) of a secondary Soul of the World to the formed Subcoelestial Hyle which the Chaldee Oracles c 1.5 call the Throne of Matter, [to which (as they speak) there is a descent by the seven steps of the Planets] and the Fund of it. But by this Plato under∣stood d 1.6 the vital union of Souls to some part of it, the Presential union of inferior Daemons to certain Sta∣tues in it e 1.7; and the Order, or (as he calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉)

the Temperament of all the parts adjusted by Psyche.

A. In Chap. 5. pag. 57, 59. You seem to make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Jehovah, and Jove the same; which was not always your opinion.

B. I do but seem so; I think as I did. For Jupiter, I believe as Varro believed, and do think it comes à Ju∣vando. For Jupiter (or, as the English often pronounce it Jubiter) or Juviter are the same; p. b. v. being fre∣quently used for one another. Nor can I approve of the Etymology of Juvans Pater; for ter in Jupiter is a meer termination; and Jupiter is no more Juvans pater, than Accipiter is accipiens pater.

Concerning Jehovah I still think that the word is the same in effect with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though not the pronunciation of it: a sound (some believe) so very modern that it is said to have been first heard from the mouth of Ga∣latinus. The ancient 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 now pronounced Jehovah, was in all likelihood sounded, Jahveh. So the Samari∣tans pronounced it, of whose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (or Jave, the Vau by the Greeks being as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, turned into Beta) we read in Theodoret's Questions on Exodus. And from them (who changed not their ancient Letters, nor received the Judaic Oral Cabala) we are more likely to under∣stand the Pronunciation, than from the Jews misled by the Pharisees, who in and after the Maccabean times, began or promoted very many Superstitions about the words of the Bible. They did so particularly about the Tetragrammaton, whose Original sound being soft∣ly pronounced, and as is related by Rabbi Tarphon a 1.8, supped up as it were by the mumbling Priest, was by degrees perfectly lost amongst most Jews and their Schollars: Insomuch that Origen in the Fragment of his Hexapla mentioned by St. Chrysostome, as also many others read it, Adonai. So doth the vulgar Latin in Exod. 6. 3. though in all other places it renders it by

Dominus. The Seventy turn it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, St. Hierom by Dominus; though somewhere (as Mercer a 1.9 noteth) he calleth it Jaho. That it ended in Omega, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was a corruption apt to happen to all names which are taken out of one Language into another. The occasi∣on of it might be this: The power of the Samaritan Heth answered by the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b 1.10 which by negli∣gence was perhaps sometimes written, and thence in process of time pronounced as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is as I may so say, but a kind of Epsilon laid on its back.

A. It may be so for ought that comes now into my mind. I pass on to another Note. In Chap. 5. pag. 62. you tell us that the Heathens used the Form of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but you give us no greater Authority for it than your bare word.

B. You may if you please take it upon the word of Arrian in his second Book on Epictetus c 1.11.

A. In Chap. 5. pag. 77. you seem to approve of the opinion of Petavius, who maketh Arius a genuine Pla∣tonist: whereas it is manifest (and the Learned have taken notice of it) that Plato made his second Principle eternal; whilst Arius said, There was a time when he was not at all.

B. I only cite his words, I do not justifie them. The Logos of Arius is not so like to the Nous, as to the Psyche of Plato; to the Demiourgus who framed (as he fancieth) the visible World. Yet thus far Petavius is in the right. He asserteth upon good grounds that Arius was infected with Platonism, and that with Plato he made the Principle that framed this World to be a di∣stinct substance, which was not very God; though he did not affirm with that Philosopher, that it was coe∣ternal with the self-originated Deity; and for that it was not a priviledg in Plato's judgment very extraor∣dinary, for he alloweth it to Matter it self; I mean the unformed Hyle.

A. We'l examine these things anon. In the mean time I would ask you, why, in this 77th page, you observe it as a thing worthy an Asterisc, that the Pla∣tonists call the Nous, unbegotten, and, Parent to it self? For they mean no more than that the Nous was from the T' Agathon by eternal emanation, and not, as this World from Psyehe, by temporal Generation or formation.

B. They mean no more. Neither did I think it a deep remark, but I the rather observ'd it, because holy Writers have declined such terms; not adhering to them so very much as some Imagine they do. And when they use them, they do it not so much to coun∣tenance the Platonick notions, as to oppose them. So when S. John saith, In the beginning was the Logos, &c. he meaneth it not either of the Logos or Demiourgus of Plato, but, rather, in opposition to them: as if he had said; Christ, not your fictitious, but the true Logos, was ever with God, and God also; and the maker of all things.

A. I perceive by this, and by that which I find in many other Places, that you have not forgotten the old saying; Plato is my friend, but Truth is more. Nay, you seem to have a kind of Pique at Platonism, and will, I fear, provoke the Ficinus's of this age.

B. I do not with design oppose, or challenge any of them: And I think they are men of better temper then to make every light notion so much their Mistress, as to Duel me for it. And I heartily wish that the in∣decent and irrational way, used by some Writers, of hitting one another, fiercely, in the Teeth, with their little barren speculations, were as much laid aside, as is the custom of fighting with Sandbags. But, what are the particulars (I beseech you) in which I may seem to offend the Platonists?

A. They are many. And (not to hover in gene∣rals only) I tell you particularly, that you are irre∣verend towards their Triad; a notion as dear to a Pla∣tonist, as Diana to an Ephesian. It is true in Chap. 5. p. 79. You take notice of the three Platonick Principles, as distinct substances; and they themselves do so like∣wise: but, then, you say not a word of that Union, whereby those Three substances, of the same species, though numerically differing, become but one God.

B. Suppose that to have been Plato's mind: How would it have agreed to the one God of the Christi∣ans, whom S. Paul opposeth to Gods many, or many superior Spirits, and Lords many, or many inferior Spirits, though of the same species in each order? But I see not, any-where in Plato, that this was his opinion, though Plotinus, who lived where Christia∣nity was planted, doth, sometimes, express himself in that manner. At other times, the same Plotin, (who is a kind of Platonick Familist) doth no otherwise u∣nite his three Principles then by the union of a Cen∣ter a 1.12, a lesser, and a greater circumference, which no man can conceive, exactly in one another. When he saith that the T' Agathon, Nous and Psyche, are joyned, he meaneth rather that there is nothing be∣twixt them, than that, by mutual penetration, and vital union, they are one. He interprets himself, in that Chapter, by saying of the three Principles, that there is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] nothing that interve∣neth. No more doth any Planet come betwixt Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and yet they are three Planets, not one. And this seems to be the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or] the Indistant Distance of which notion he dark∣neth the sense by his obscure Phraseology. If he meant much more; Plato did not; nor could he, with consistence.

That the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or T' Agathon of Plato was the su∣preme God, I have already owned. To him agreeth that description of God, that he is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] without Cause, and the Cause of every thing else: Though I find also that Nature, or the indefinite Power of matter and motion, the Venus of the Lucre∣tians, is said to be without Cause, and, in Phurnutus, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Cause of all things; that is, of all the modifications of matter, and the Phaenomena of the visible Universe.

But that Plato's Nous or Demiourgus contain in them the Idea of a God, or a Being absolutely perfect, is most contrary to the general Air of Platonism, what∣soever little independent sayings may be, that way, misapplied. Wherefore, in Chap. 5. p. 79. I have called Nous and Psyche, eminent Daemons, a 1.13 and not Divine Persons, though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is often used to sig∣nifie the supreme God b 1.14, as in that place where the Philosopher affirmeth, that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or the Di∣vinity, is not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] an envious Being. In the Oracles of Zoroaster c 1.15 it is affirmed, that the su∣preme God withdrew himself from the world: By which is not meant that he sequestred himself wholly from all the affairs of it, but (as Pletho noteth) that he did not communicate his Divinity, either to the Nous, or to the second God, by which is understood, in those Chaldee Oracles, not the Logos, but the Demiourgus or Psyche. For the Nous, It is not one single princi∣ple, but a kind of Pantheon, a Collection of many Ide∣as or Spirits, as Aristotle, who lay nigh to the bosom of Plato, doth truly construe him. It is such a thing as Christophorus Sandius (in whose brain Paradoxes naturally flutter) doth fancy the Spirit of God to be. For, in a distinct Treatise d 1.16 he endeavoureth to prove, that it is the Body of the Good Angels. Hence,

sometimes, the three Principles are called T' Agathon, Ideai, and Psyche. Hence he find it called the Exem∣plar, or rather that which afforded an Exemplar (they distinguishing nicely betwixt the form, and the thing formed); that is, the Intellectual World, according to whose pattern this sensible World is said to be made. They who wholly blame the later Platonists for such Ideas, excusing Plato; are very unjust: For they drub the feet when the Head was first in Fault. The Ex∣emplar, saith Plato a 1.17 is all the Intelligible Animals in it self, as this World is the circle of such as are sen∣sible. In another Book b 1.18 he saith, that the Intel∣lectual World containeth in it all Intelligent Animals; as this sensible world containeth us, and all living creatures. The same Philosopher, in the Conclusion of his Timaeus c 1.19, asserteth that this sensible world is the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or] second Image of the Intellectual God. Also, in the conclusion of the Book of the soul of the world d 1.20 he thus discourseth. The Ruler of all (he speaks of Psyche) hath committed the Inspection and Government of the world to Daemons. He made this world full of Daemons, and Men, and other Ani∣mals, after the pattern of the best Image, of the unge∣nerated eternal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Form; meaning that of the Nous. And he had said before that e 1.21 this world was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the generated Image of the eternal Gods; of which, therefore, the Collection made up the Nous or Intellectual world.

Plato thus expressing himself, it is no wonder that it is said in the Chaldee Oracles f 1.22, that the supreme God delivered to the second God (or Psyche) all the Intelligible Ideas. Nor need we think it strange to hear Philo speak of an Intellectual Sun and Stars.

A. If it be thus, That the Nous is an Intellectual world, and that this world is a kind of second Tem∣ple

made after the fashion of that first, though inferi∣or to it in Glory, why do you (in Chap. 5. pag. 79.) call the Nous, one Thing, Being, or Person?

B. A Thing, it may be called, as this world is, be∣ing one Collection of things: And a Person (a pub∣lick Person) being a Collection of Intelligent Beings, of which the principal Nous or spirit, seemeth to an∣swer to the visible Sun; Plotin mentioning it by it self, and then speaking of the beauty of the Ideas which he there a 1.23 calls [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] All the Intelli∣gible Gods. Thus we call the Collection of evil Spi∣rits, and the Prince of them, by the name of Devil: And, in the Evangelical History, the Principal spirit in a man possessed, answered in the singular, though he said, his name was Legion.

Plato himself calls this visible world b 1.24 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a sensible god, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a generated god, though it be a Collection of innumerable Things and Persons: and, by the same reason, he may call the In∣tellectual world (as indeed he doth) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Intelligent god or Nous, though it be not a single principle. The like may be said of Logos, which Phi∣lo so understood, or else he would not, sometimes, have called this world, Logon, as I have shewed him to have done c 1.25.

The Chaldee Oracles call the Demiourgus, the second God; and he is more properly so than the Nous: yet neither hath that principle in it, the true Idea of God.

A. How doth that appear?

B. Two ways; for, First, it containeth not, in it, Infinite Wisdom, but standeth in need of a Pat∣tern to work by, an external Exemplar: for Psyche is represented as an under-Artist, not having the Idea or Model in its own mind, but following one exhibited

by his superior Master. He made the world (saith Timaeus a 1.26) after the eternal form. Secondly, It containeth not in it Omnipotence. For though it framed the world very excellently, yet it is said to have been, in part, resisted by the stubbornness of Hyle, and not to have done all it desired, but all it could. Plato saith, in his Timaeus b 1.27, that God (or Psyche) designed all things to be good, and no∣thing to be evil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as far as nature would suffer him; and again, as far as it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a pos∣sible thing. It seems the matter was not such pliable wax as would receive the impression in such manner as Psyche would have been pleased with. To this effect there is a remarkable place in Hierocles who thus re∣peateth the opinion of certain followers of Plato c 1.28 who question'd both the Infinite Wisdom and Power of Psyche. They think not that there is

[In the Demiourgus] sufficient power, whereby, through its own wisdom (by which it maketh things, out of eternal matter) [for so I construe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not, with the Translator,

Qua ab omni eternitate Res ef∣ficit, which contradicteth the scope of the place,] the world may perfectly be ordered; but that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the mutual aid of unbegotten Hyle, and by using extrinsick nature exhibited before it, it may accomplish its work.

It is true, the com∣mon Copy Reads it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and (which surprizeth me) Grotius translateth it d 1.29 generatae materiae ministerio. But it is directly contrary to the tenor of the Platonists there cited, and to the follow∣ing Discourse: which is such, that Hierocles believ'd e 1.30 they held matter to be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ungenera∣ted, not only [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as being before time, which they say, began with the sensible world; but, like∣wise, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as being without all Cause; in

which sense the T' Agathon only is to be called unbe∣gotten. By this, it should seem, that the Demiourgus is but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the servant of matter, as the Egyptians in Herodotus do stile him. And this Plu∣tarch a 1.31 also teacheth, saying,

The essence of Mat∣ter out of which this World was made, was not ge∣nerated, but laid always (as far as it could) before the Workman, to be disposed and ordered by him according to his Exemplar or likeness [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as much as possible might be.

A. This puts me in mind of what you affirmed be∣fore, that Matter was by Plato made to be eternal. So did Theodoret before you b 1.32, as well as Plutarch. But is this manifest from Plato himself?

B. It is. Insomuch that by some Platonists Hyle is called the Sister of Psyche c 1.33. Plato in Timaeus d 1.34, of the Soul of the World, does expressly call [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] Matter [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] eternal, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] unbegotten. And again he saith in the same Page, that before the Heaven was made (by which in that place he means this World) there existed in the Logos, (or Intellectual World) Idea, and matter; to which he adds also in that Discourse, the Demiourgus.

A. What then is the meaning of the making of the World, and the novity of its essence, so often menti∣oned in the School of Plato?

B. There is meant by it not any Temporal Creati∣on of the very substance of Matter, but the production of this form * 1.35 out of formless Hyle, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 e 1.36, or shapelesness. God (saith Plato * 1.37, mean∣ing Psyche) made this World [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] of all the Praeexistent Matter. He made it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] out of the things not seen f 1.38, (out of simple Matter void of Phaenomena), but not (say they) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 g 1.39] out of very nothing.

Matter, therefore (the most simple Hyle) is with them eternal; and makes up a fourth thing in the first Quaternio of the Pythagorick Tetractys; the three first being T' Agathon or Aitia, Nous or Logos, Psyche or Demiourgus.

A. I had thought with some in Drusius on the name Jehovah, that the Tetractys was the Tetragramma∣ton, that secret and mysterious name of God most high, which Pythagoras revealed to the Gentiles.

B. By no means. Had it been in his time so supersti∣tiously reverenced, and a name above all other names, a Jew would never have cast such a Pearl before a Gen∣tile (and especially before such a one, a kind of Ma∣gical Gentile) whom he had in abhorrence as much as a swine. This name was no mystery among the Greeks, as is evident from the mention of Jerombalus [or Je∣rombaal] a Priest of the God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Sanchuniathon: of Jaho in St. Hierom, and the Sibylline Oracles: of Jaoth, or Jaoh in Irenaeus: of the Hebrew-God called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Gnosticks, in a Manuscript of Origen a 1.40, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Clemens Alexandrinus: of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Principle of the first Gnostick Heaven in Epi∣phanius: the God of Moses in Diodorus Siculus: the God Bacchus in the Oracle of Apollo Clarius; and last∣ly (as was said) of the Samaritan God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Theodo∣ret. And certainly the Jews before the Captivity knew well enough how to pronounce this name; nor doth it appear in all the Bible that they feared to reveal it.

A. What meaneth that place in Exod. 6. 3. But by my name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was I not known unto them?

B. It meaneth that Go•…•… having actually given de∣fence and plenty to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was al∣ready known to them by the names of El, Almighty; and Schadai, Alsufficient. But that having not fulfilled

to them his Promise * 1.41 of giving to them or their seed, the Land of Canaan; was not yet known to them by his name Jehovah or Jahveh, which comes from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Hajah, which signifies to Be and Exist; and imports a God constant to his word, and the same to day, yesterday, and for ever.

A. If the Tetractys of Pythagoras be not the Tetra∣grammaton of Moses; what other thing is it?

B. I can judg it no other thing than that which Plutarch thought it b 1.42, The Pythagorean World. This World (as the same Plutarch * 1.43 observeth) consisteth of a double Quaternary. The Quaternary of the Intellectu∣al World is T' Agathon, Nous, Psyche, Hyle. The Qua∣ternary of the sensible World (which is most properly the Pythagorean 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is Fire, Air, Water, and Earth; The four Elements c 1.44 called by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (the Roots or Principles of all mixed Bodies) in these ancient Greek Verses:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 d 1.45 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That is, Jupiter the Fire, Juno the Air, Pluto the Earth, and Nestis, or the womb, the Water, are the four Roots of all Things.

The like we find in the Form of the Pythagorick Oath, in these words a 1.46:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 b 1.47 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

A. This to me is a Pythagorick Riddle. How do you expound it?

B. I construe the Dystich thus:

No [or yea], By Him from whom we learned the Tetractys (for they swore by their Master * 1.48) a fountain containing in it

the Roots (or Elements) of everflowing Matter

For so I interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, * 1.49 not as some of eternal Mat∣ter, of which the Elements are not the Roots, and which is not here spoken of; but of the second Matter which perpetually changeth its shapes; the first being neither this or that, but ingenerable and incorruptible Hyle.

Now if I am mistaken in this notion of the Tetractys, I err with company. For Hierocles in a place little ob∣served, does seem to say the same thing. The Tetrad (said he * 1.50) is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the framer of all things; and

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the cause, [or the T' Agathon, frequently so called by the modern Platonists;] and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Idea or Intellectual World; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The cause of the Heavenly [that is of the ethereal first) Matter, and of that which is sensible.

A. This Interpretation of the Tetractys seems not wide of the scope of Pythagoras and Plato. But for the Triad, methinks you are more severe than you need to be in explaining, or (to express your humour more properly) in exposing of it. There must surely be somewhat more Divine in that Notion than you allow, seeing it hath spread it self very widely among the Gentiles, and thereby seems the dictate of that reason which is common to them all.

B. You argue upon an usual mistake. Many such Doctrines are spread very far, but often they come from one only root; and that is not true reason, but the authority of some one fam'd Master in Learning. The Bellweather goes first, and a numerous flock fol∣low him upon no other motive often-times, but be∣cause they see him go before them. Orpheus is follow∣ed by Pythagoras, and he by Plato and thousands of others in successive Ages.

A. There is no effect without its cause. What (I

pray you) did move Orpheus, or Pythagoras, or Plato, or him whoever he was that was the Beginner to take up at first this Doctrine of the Triad?

B. The other extream opinion of those Philosophers who were meer Atomists.

A. How could that be? they were the followers of Moschus or Mochus, that is Moses, whom Orpheus and Pythagoras, and Plato, rather follow than contradict.

B. That Moschus was Moses, Mr. Selden, Arcerius in his Notes on Jamblicus, and divers others seem to be∣lieve, for no other reason that I know of than because the names are a little like one another. But Mochus or Moschus was plainly a Phaenician of later times, and one who opened a School at Sidon a 1.51. He is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Laertius and Suidas. Laertius b 1.52 maketh him a Phaenician, and one of those Barbarians as he calls them, from whom Philosophy had its birth, e're it was propagated in Greece. And he numbers him with Za∣molxis the Thracian, Atlas the Libyan, and Vulcan the Egyptian.

But it is not of any moment, here to inquire any further about him. I know not whether he were such an Atomist as I am here speaking of; to wit, a perfect Materialist, denying the Existence and the very notion of Incorporeal substance. In opposition to such the Pneumatists framed the Platonick Triad after this man∣ner: The Swmatists or Materialists supposed nothing to be in the world but Body, and all body to exist eter∣nally of it self, in its essence though not in its modes, without all cause. The Pneumatists opposed this Dogma by asserting one supreme Incorporeal substance, the Aitia or cause of all Beings besides its own: the T' Agathon, or fountain-good whence all Essence flowed. The Ma∣terialists supposed that this visible World was the only World, and that all Ideas and all pretences of Incor∣poreal

Beings, were but so many impressions of moti∣on on the brain. This Dogma the Pneumatists opposed by asserting separate Ideas and an Intellectual World; a Nous or Logos.

The Materialists supposed the frame of the visible World to have been made at adventure, and by a for∣tuitous concourse of Atoms. The Pneumatists opposed this Dogma, by affirming two things: First, that there was not only Matter and Motion, but a Demiourgus, an Incorporeal workman, governing the disorderly motion of the Chaos, and disposing of the rude Mate∣rials in it into a Regular System. Secondly, That this Artificer did not work at adventure, but accorrding to an excellent Exemplar, laid before him.

A. I perceive you still so explain this Triad, that you will not allow Plato to Christianize. Nay I find elsewhere c 1.53 that you do not think him so much as to Mosaize; which is very hard measure, and such as others have not meted to him.

B. I do not say that he did not Mosaize, but that to me it was not manifest that he did.

A. When he saith in his Timaeus, a 1.54 That the Fa∣ther having made the World was exceedingly transpor∣ted at the work of his hands; doth he not borrow from Moses, who said b 1.55, That God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good.

B. It is not manifest that he did. It is natural for any man to say after the description of an excellent and an agreeable performance, that the Artist was pleased with what he had done. Further, it is here to be observed, that Plato in that place speaketh not as Moses of God, the supreme self-originated Father, but of the third Principle, or Demiourgus, whom he stileth emphatically the Father and Genitor of the visible World. For to the T' Agathon Plato ascribes not such

Fatherhood and Generation; but says, of all things flowing from him, that they were unbegotten; that is, not formed, as he says this World was, out of praeex∣istent Matter by Psyche.

A. Though the Demiourgus of Plato may not be the Mosaic maker of the World, yet he may seem at least to be the Spirit of God, which (as Moses teacheth * 1.56) moved upon the face of the waters. For Plato maketh his Third principle to agitate the Chaos.

B. Neither is that evident; for the Text may be in∣terpreted of a Wind of God, that is, according to the Jewish Idiom, of a mighty wind so moving. The Winds of God (saith the Arabick Version) blew upon the face of the waters.

A. Though you evade this, yet I hope you will grant something in favour of Orpheus, Pythagoras and Plato. You will grant sure that they received the Do∣ctrine of the Immortality of the Soul from the Cabala of Moyses, and were thereby great Benefactors to the Gentile-world, and predisposed it for the reception of the Christian Faith.

B. That kind of Immortality which they held was not agreeable to Christian Doctrine. They asserted in∣deed the Incorporeal and indissoluble nature of the substance of mans soul; but by the Dogma of its Cir∣culation through several Bodies, they taught a false and uncomfortable Faith which our Lord never justi∣fied. He taught not only that the Soul was not a con∣cretion of separable Atoms, and that it was a substance not to be killed, a substance subsisting after death; but that it was, if righteous, immortal in unchangeable bles∣sedness. He did not dishearten the virtuous by saying (as did Pythagoras) that the Soul after having attained the height of the Heavenly state, might come down again from the top of the Circle, and be happy and

unhappy in eternal Rotations and Vicissitudes. For this reason St. Austin in the first Book c 1.57 of his Retractati∣ons, speaking of the Souls ascent into Heaven, thinketh it had been safer to have expressed himself by the word Going, than that of Returning; lest any should believe he favoured the Platonick notion of its being thrust down from its seat in Heaven.

A. Of Platonism, enough. I will trouble you again, as I did at the beginning, with a few Remarks of an∣other kind; and then I will suffer you to be quiet.

B. Pray let us hear them.

A. In Chap. 5. pag. 52. you make Pagods to be the Statues, whereas they are only the Temples of Idols.

B. I use not my own words, but Vincent le Blanc's, and with him many others agree; though I do not re∣member that either in Sir Thomas Roe's Voyage to the East-Indies a 1.58, or in Monsieur Tavernier's Travels b 1.59, Pagod is otherwise used than for a Temple. But why may it not signifie both the Statue and the Temple? At Rome they do not think it absurd to call, the Saint, the Church, the Image, Sancta Maria.

A. It may be so. I pass to another Note. In Chap. 6. pag. 97, 98. you expound the second Commandment, or prohibition of a Vow forbidden to be made to an Idol or Vanity, in the name of El, Elohim, Jehovah, or (if you will have it so) Jahveh; or in any other name of the God of Israel. So far the Novelty, perhaps, is pas∣sable. But then to obviate an Objection which may be made from our Lords Interpretation, [Thou shalt not forswear thy self,] you add this,

That he who vow∣eth by an Idol, seeing he cannot be enabled by it to perform his Vow, is therefore in effect forsworn.

And this looks more like an Evasion than an Answer.

B. It doth so. Nor will I go about either to defend that, or the Exposition which occasioned it. Thus

much only I chuse to subjoin: That a Jew or a Chri∣stian vowing by an Idol though coloured with some Name of the true God, is actually forsworn; because he breaketh either the Mosaical, or Evangelical Cove∣nant, an especial part of which is the renunciation of the worship of all Daemons * 1.60.

In speaking to the first Commandment, in p. 97. I am guilty of a fault of omission which you take no notice of.

A. What may that be?

B. I ought to have observed that the Jews did ge∣nerally interpret that Prohibition, against the worship, not so much of any other supreme god, as of the mid∣dle powers, or supposed Mediators, betwixt God and Man.

A. There needs no command against the worship of many supreme gods; that being a contradiction to the sense of mankind.

B. True; when you use the words, many supremes. But the common people think not of the World, as one Body necessarily placed under one Governour; but they may be brought to think of the Kingdom of Heaven, as they do of the kingdoms in this world, where there is no Universal Monarch. They may think there are several coequal gods, in their several Precincts. Nay, generally the Barbarous in several Countries, may be apt to think their Topical god su∣perior to all others. The ignorant Frier thought the French King his Master, the greatest on earth, when he irreverently compared him to God the Father, and called our Holy Lord the Dauphine of Heaven. And some poor Peasants believe there is scarce one higher on earth than the Lord of the Mannor.

A. I have met with such in my time. But, I go on. In Chap. 6. p. 122, and in other places, you

much disparage the Ancient Histories of Greece.

B. Plato himself a 1.61 speaking of the first Phorone∣us, Deucalion, and others, suggesteth that their stories are fabulous. And that which he there remembers of the Discourse of the Priests of Sais to Solon, about the Antiquities of Egypt and Greece, and of Athens as an Egyptian Colony, is, at first hearing, so Idle a Tale, that I wonder the Philosopher, or any discreet Read∣er of him, hath had any reverence for it.

A. I confess, I have not. Give me leave to trouble you with one objection more. In Chap. 7. p. 146. You say Two things concerning the Idolatry of the Maho∣metans which will not pass. First, You affirm that they pray to Mahomet: whereas they are forbidden to do any such thing by their great Article, of Faith in one God. Secondly, You say, it is most notorious that they do so; whereas some judicious Persons who have lived amongst them, and such who are of better credit than the Author you cite, do profess they could never observe them doing it.

B. To your first exception, I thus answer. Their Article, of Faith in one God, was not so much design∣ed against the worship of subordinate powers, as a∣gainst the acknowledgment of three coequal Subsisten∣ces in the God of the Christians. It is one of the Dogmata of the Moslemans (saith Gabriel Sionita b 1.62), That God is One; and that there is no other equal to Him. And this last Clause Mahomet added with direct design against the Christian Trinity. And he would not have been so vehement, in his charge of Idolatry against the Christians, if they had worshipped Christ and the Holy Ghost with subordinate honour, and not as very God.

For your second Exception, I must confess that the words [most notonious] may seem a little too bold;

they relating to a matter which is under dispute: as likewise that, on your side, there are Authors a 1.63 of better credit then Monsieur de la Guilliotiere whom I have produced. I have not much relyed upon his word since I was taught by a person of great integrity b 1.64, that his Book of Athens to his knowledg was wide of the truth.

But Monsieur de la Guilliotiere is not my only Author. I am told by others that the worship of Heroes, and trust in their Aids as Patrons under God, is to be char∣ged on Mahometans, if not on the constitution of Ma∣homet who taught expresly c 1.65 the Intercession of Saints.

Busbequius relateth d 1.66 that the Turks believe their Hero Chederle (a kind of Mahometan St. George) to be propitious in War, to all who implore his Aid. He fur∣ther telleth that the Dervi, or Turkish Monks, shewed him the Sepulchres of the Relations of Chederle; and would have gladly perswaded him that many benefits were daily conferred from Heaven on those who at those chres petitioned them for assistance.

Francis Barton a learned English man, and no stran∣ger in Turkey, discoursing of the manners of that peo∣ple, giveth this as an instance of their Veneration of Saints.

The Admiral (saith he) of the Imperial Fleet, during fourteen days before he set sail, was obliged to go once a day to the Sepulchre of Isuppus, an emi∣nent and fortunate Warrier, and there to pray for success.

Septem-Castrenses was detained many years among the Mahometans. And he (in the fifteenth Chapter of his Book, de Turcarum Moribus) is large in mentioning their Guardian-Heroes, in whom they put subordinate trust.

One (it seems) is called Sedichast, which they inter∣teth,

Holy Conquerour, or Victorious among the Saints. And of him (he saith) it is the common opinion, that no man was ever sent away unanswered, who in any necessity prayed to him for succour, especially in any emergency of War. He is (as he proceeds) as famous among the Turks, as St. Anthony among [some] Christi∣ans. Another is called Harschi Pettesch, which they in∣terpret, The help of Travel. He is (he saith) much in∣voked and reverenced by strangers and pilgrims, and (as they report) not in vain. A third is called Ascick passa, as much as to say, Patron of love, and he is invoked in Matrimonial cases. A fourth is called Gotvel mirtschin, and is a kind of Patron of Cattel. To him (saith Septem∣castrensis) my Mistress prayed, and vowed to make him a yearly present of Butter for the Custody of her Kine, which also she performed. And (as he goes on) she would have perswaded me to have invoked him, that the Sheep I kept might by him have been protected from the Wolves that infested us.

If all this be true, and the Mahometans invoke so many other Heroes; methinks they should not forget for ever to call on Mahomet himself, the Prince of their Saints, and their chief Intercessor a 1.67 with God.

For the honour they do to the Relick of his San∣dal preserved at Mecha b 1.68: For their worshipping of the place where they supposed Abraham to have dwelt c 1.69: For their embracing and kissing the stone Brach∣than, on which they say Abraham accompanied with Hagar d 1.70: Lastly, for their moving round about a statue of stone, erected in the midst of the Temple at Mecha, with stooping shoulders, one hand lifted up, and another on one of the ears, till a Vertigo lays them on the floor (a thing it seems told Zigabemus * 1.71 by a Turk turned Christian) I forbear to enlarge •…•…pon them, and leave the whole to the Perusers of such Authors as

Tavernier, Benjamin, Zigabenus, Busbequius, Barton.

A. I must needs be satisfied with the authorities you have brought. There remain divers Animadversions yet behind; but I will neither tire you or my self any further: I see 'tis easier to raise Cavils than to write any thing that is not liable to them. I beg your pardon for the rude Interruption I have given you, and think my self obliged in common civility to bid you Adieu.

B. You have not offended, unless you have done so by your Complement. And because I perceive you are falling into a vein of Ceremoniousness, which is so idle a thing in private conversation, and amongst old Friends, I will be contented for this time to part with you. So, Fare you well.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Plutarch. de Procreat. Anim. p. 1012. Ed, Franc.
• b 1.2

  See Plutare. de Placit. Philos. l. 1. c. 3. p. 876. & Plo∣tin▪ l. 8. Enn. 1. & Chalcid. in Tim. p. 396. juxta Platone•…•… bona sua Dei, tanquam patris liberalitate, collata sunt: mala vero ma∣tris sylvae viti•…•… cohaeserunt.
• a 1.3

  Plat. Tim. p. 33. Min. in Octav. Platoni, in Timaeo, Deus est ipso nomine mundi Parens.
• b 1.4

  Plato in Ti∣maeo. p. 30.
• c 1.5

  Chald. Or. p. 70. under the seven Planets is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Psell. Sum∣mar. Dogm. Chald. p. 111.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.6

  See Timaeum de An. Mundi, p. 95. Ed. Serr.
• e 1.7

  See Jamblic. de vit â Pythag. c. 28. p. 138, 139.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There stop, if you will read that place right, & then for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not with Ar∣cerius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.8

  R. Tar. ap. Capell. in Orat: de Nom. Jeb∣ad calc. Crit. p. 698.
• a 1.9

  Mercer in Gen. 11. 4.
• b 1.10

  See Bochart. in Can. l. 1. c. 20. p. 491.
• c 1.11

  Arr. in Epict. l. 2. c. 7. p. 186.
• a 1.12

  Plotin. Enne∣ad, 5. l. 1. c. 6.
• a 1.13

  See M. Thorn∣dike's Epil. part 3. p. 291.
• b 1.14

  See Arrian: in Epict. l. 4. c. 4. p. 387.
• c 1.15

  Pletho in O∣rac. Mag. p. 49. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.16

  C. C. S. Tract. de Sp. Sancto. p. 4. Sp. S.—tota col∣lectio spirituum Sanctorum.
• a 1.17

  Plato in Ti∣m•…•…o de An. Mundi. p 95.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.18

  Plato in Ti∣maeo. p. 30.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• c 1.19

  Plato in Ti∣maeo. p. 92. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.20

  De An. Mun∣di. p. 105.
• e 1.21

  Plato in Ti∣maeo. p. 33.
• f 1.22

  Orac. Mag. Zor. p. 46—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.23

  Plotin. Enn. 5. l. 1. c. 7.
• b 1.24

  Plato in Ti∣maeo. p. 92. & de Animâ mun∣di. p. 94.
• c 1.25

  In Chap. 14. of Shech.
• a 1.26

  De Animâ mundi p. 105. See Plut. de An. Procr. p. 1014.
• b 1.27

  Plato in Ti∣maeo. p. 30. & p. 53.
• c 1.28

  Hierocles de Providentiâ. p. 6.
• d 1.29

  Grotius in Sent. Philos. de Fato. p. 20.
• e 1.30

  Hierocl. de Prov. p. 8.
• a 1.31

  Plut. de Procr. An. p. 1014.
• b 1.32

  Theodo•…•…. l. 2: de Cur. Graec. Affect.
• c 1.33

  See Hierocli•…•… l. de Provid. p. 8.
• d 1.34

  Plato in Ti∣maeo de An. Mundi, p. 94▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.35

  Plato in Ti∣maeo, p. 30. of the Demiour∣gus, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.36

  Plut. de Procr. An. p. 1014. B.
• * 1.37

  Plato in Tim: de An. Mundi, p. 94.
• f 1.38

  Heb. 11. 3. Wisd. 11. 17.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.39

  2 Mac. 7. 28.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. LXX. The saying of the Hebrew Mother of the seven Sons to the youngest of them ready to suffer by Antiochus.
• a 1.40

  Cited by Fuller in Misc. 1. 4. c. 13.
• * 1.41

  Exod. 6. 3, to v. 9.
• b 1.42

  Plut. de Iside. p. 381, 382. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.43

  Plutarch. de Animae procr. p. 1027. F.
• c 1.44

  H•…•…sych. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.45

  Plut. de Plac: Phil. c. 3. p. 878 Sext. Empir. cont. Math. p. 367.
• a 1.46

  See Jambl. de vitâ Pythag. c. 28. p. 138. Macr. de Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 6.
• b 1.47

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Hier. A•…•…r. Carm.
• * 1.48

  See Hier. in Carm. Pyth. p. 231. & Sext. Empir. adv. Mathem. c. 20.
• * 1.49

  See Not. in Hier. Carm. Pyth. p. 377.
• * 1.50

  Hier. in Carm. Pyth. p. 229, 230.
• a 1.51

  See Strab. l. 16. Geograp. p. 757. Athen. Delpn. 1. 2. p. 44. l. 7. c. 5. p. 278. Jambl. de vitâ Pythag. c. 3. p. 32, 33. Sext. Empir. adv. Mathem. p. 367.
• b 1.52

  Laert. in Proaem. p. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• c 1.53

  Ch 9. p. 165.
• a 1.54

  Plat•…•… in Ti∣maeo, p. 37.
• b 1.55

  Gen. 1. 31.
• * 1.56

  Gen. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.57

  S. Aug. Re∣tract. l. 1. c. 1. p. 4. Ed. Par. 1677. Iturus, autem, quam Rediturus, dix∣issem securiùs, propter eos qui putant Animos humanos pro meritis pecca∣torum suorum de coelo lapsos sive dejectos, in corpora ista detrudi.
• a 1.58

  Sir T. Roe's Voyage, p. 440.
• b 1.59

  Tavernier's Voy. part. 2. p. 166.
• * 1.60

  See Mr. Thorndike's Weights and Meas. Chap. 23. p. 168.
• a 1.61

  Plato in Ti∣maeo. p. 22.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
• b 1.62

  Gabr. Sion. de Urb. & Mor. Orient. c. 14. p. 76, 77. Hanc ult. partic. directè contra Christia∣nos protulit, &c.
• a 1.63

  See T. S. of the Relig. of the Turks, p. 53.
• b 1.64

  Mr. Vernon in his Letter from Smyrna, in Oldenburg's Transact. N. 124. p. 579.
• c 1.65

  Gabr. Sion. ubi supra.
• d 1.66

  Busbequius, Epist. 1. p. 53.
• a 1.67

  Patricides ap. Hott. Hist. Orient. p. 254.
• b 1.68

  Tavern. Rel. of the Seragl. c. 12. p. 64.
• c 1.69

  Benj. Itiner. p. 60.—re∣ligiosè colen∣tes.—
• d 1.70

  Euthym. Zi∣gab. p. 14.
• * 1.71

  Zigab. ibid.