Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	life_n	separation_n	4,198	5	9.8832	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41659	The court of the gentiles, or, A discourse touching the original of human literature, both philologie and philosophie, from the Scriptures and Jewish church. Part 2, Of philosophie in order to a demonstration of 1. The perfection of Gods word and church light, 2. The imperfection of natures light and mischief of vain philosophie, 3. The right use of human learning and especially sound philosophie / by Theoph. Gale ...; Court of the gentiles. Part 2	Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.	1670 (1670)	Wing G138; ESTC R11588	456,763	496

Plato saies he teacheth us that the Bodies of the Pious should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be raised again to life And the Comment or Invention of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 borrowed 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 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 § 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 Only 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 CHAP. IX Of Pythagoras's Symbols and their Jewish Original c. Pythagoras's Symbols from the Jews 1. Give thy right hand to none but Pythagoreans as Gal. 2.9 Abstain from the dead Matth. 8.22 Set down Salt Lev. 2.13 Ethick Symbols Jewish Pythagoras's Metempsychosis Symbolical from Dan. 4.32 33. Pythagorean Abstinences from Jewish Symbols Pythagorean Numbers Symbolical Pythagoras's Symbols of Divine Worship of Jewish extract particularly that Worship bare-foot from Exod. 3.5 Eccles 5.1 Of Pythagoras's Works that he left nothing in Writing The Pythagorean Sect their ruines Pythagoras's Followers and their Writings Pythagorizing Philosophers ●lato c. The pride of the Pythagoreans and all other Sects §. 1 HAving finished our Discourse touching the matter of the Pythagorean Philosophie we now proceed to its Forme or Mode together with its Traduction from the Jewish Church Porphyrie in the Life of Pythagoras informes us that he used a two-fold Forme or manner of Philosophizing the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was more open and easie the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was mystick and obscure The choicest parts of Pythagoras's Philosophie especially his Theologie was wrapped up and expressed in a Symbolick Forme or Mode Thus Iamblichus in the Life of Pythagoras l. 1. c. 29. Pythagoras saies he used by short sentences to express various significations to his Disciples after a Symbolick Mode as Apollo by short enigmatick Oracles vaticinated many abstruse things and Nature by little seeds exhibits difficult effects the same Iamblichus lib. 1. cap. 5. Thus also Clemens Alexandrinus 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributes to Pythagoras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Symbolick Mode of teaching So Justin Martyr in his cohortation to the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus who delivered the Dogmes of his Philosophie Mystically by Symbols as the Historiographers of his Life manifest § 2. That Pythagoras traduced this his Symbolick Forme or Mode of Philosophizing originally from the Scriptures or Jewish Church is not without good grounds affirmed by the Learned and will farther appear

Conversation he divided his Philosophie into Metaphysick or Contemplative and Moral or Active 1. As to his Metaphysicks or Divine Contemplations he took it for granted whilest man was subject to and under the impression of corporeal Images sensible Formes and terrene Affections he was not rightly disposed for Divine Contemplation which required a mind defecated and separated from corporeal Phantasmes and Passions This some give as the reason why in his Philosophick Institutes he so much addicted himself to moralitie because he found his Scholars not capable of those more sublime Metaphysick Contemplations therefore he endeavoured to prepare them for the same by Moral Institutes This he made the chief subject of his last Philosophick Lecture to his Scholars after he had taken his Poyson immediately before his Death as we find it related at large by Plato in his Phaedo where he gives us Socrates's Dying Philosophizings touching the souls immortalitie and separate state and particularly that none could rightly Philosophize of these Divine Mysteries but such as had their souls stripped of abstracted from all Corporeal images impresses and affections for 'till the soul was loose from the prison of the bodie it could not be free for the Contemplation of God c. Whence he defines Philosophie a mediation of death i. e. of the separation of the soul and bodie in which state the soul being purged from those corporeal dregs by which it was contaminated whilest confined to the bodie it is rendred capable of contemplating God and Divine things For saies he it is great impietie to suppose that the Most Pure Divine Truth and Being will be touched by an impure mind Thence he judged that the Friends of God knew more of him and his Divine Mysteries than impure souls who followed not God And Plato in his Cratylus brings him in affirming that only Good men were Wise and skilful in Divine Mysteries c. So August de civit Dei l. 8. c. 3. giving a reason why Socrates Philosophized so much on Moralitie he saies Socrates would not that minds clogged with terrene passions should extend themselves to contemplate Divine things which he conceived could not be comprehended but by a refined judgment and therefore he thought men should be very intent on getting a reformed Life that the minde being exonerated of its depressing Lusts might by a natural vigor lift up it self to Eternals and by that puritie of Intelligence contemplate the Nature of that Eternal Incommutable Light where the causes of all created Natures live in stabilitie c. Thus August Whereby we are informed why Socrates was so sparing in communicating his Divine Contemplations to his Scholars though it seems to me very evident by what I find ascribed to him by Plato that of all the Grecian Philosophers Pythagoras not excepted Scocrates had as if not more clear Notions as any touching God his Nature Vnitie and other sacred Mysteries which he could never have attained unto but by some borrowed Tradition originally Jewish or Scriptural Particularly Socrates asserted 1. The Spiritual Infinite Eternal Nature of God and his Vnitie which was the great Article for which he suffered a kind of Martyrdome 2. The cor●uption of Humane Nature or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 3. A Native blindnes in which all men were inveloped c. 4. That Virtue was not teachable and acquitable by Nature or Art but the product of Divine inspiration Thus Plato in Meno fol. 89. brings in Socrates thus discoursing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Having therefore often sought if there were any Praeceptors of Virtue after all my endeavours I could find none so fol. 99. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Virtue is neither teachable neither gained by science Then he brings in Socrates concluding more positively thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Virtue then is neither from Nature nor Teachable but it comes by a divine inspiration without the concurrence of humane understanding in those to whom it is communicated c. Thus Plato Yea he adds in the same fol. 99. That God useth the most unskilful instruments in communicating this Grace to men c. 5. When also Socrates asserted That all true knowledge of God came by Divine Infusion So Plato in his Alcibiad fol. 124. brings in Socrates thus bespeaking Alcibiades We have need of a Common Council by what means we may become best Neither doe I affirm this only of thee Alcibiades that thou wantest Discipline but that I my self mostly need it Neither doe I at all differ from thee this one thing being excepted ●hat my Tutor namely God is better and Wiser than thine viz. Pericles So again Plato Alcibiad fol. 135. brings in Socrates thus Dialogizing with Alcibiades Socrates Dost thou know by wh●● me●ns thou mayst avoid this inordinate motion of thy mind Alcibiades Yes Soc. How Alcib If thou wilt Socrates Socrat. Thou speakest not rightly Alcibiades Alcib How then must I speak Socrat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If God will c. Again Plato in his Theaet fol. 151. brings in Socrates alluring Theaetetus a young man of an happie ingenie to his Philosophie in order whereto he affirms that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. endowed with a Midwifes facultie to draw forth the conceptions of mens minds But withall he adds that God alone was the Efficient and he only a Midwife employed by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God has compelled me to play the Midwife but forbad me to generate and fol. 210. he expresly saies I and my Mother received this Midwifes facultie from God c. 6. Hence Socrates pretended to have a familiar Daemon alwaies attending and inspiring of him So Plato Theagnes 128. brings in Socrates thus discoursing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There is by Divine Grace a Daemon which has follo●ed me from my Childhood This Daemon is a voice which signifies to me what I must doe yet it does not compel me to do every thing But if any of my friends communicate somewhat to me and that voice d●hort me me from the same it also suffers me not to doe it c. So it 's said of Socrates that when one of his Scholars offered him Money for instructing him he refused it saying his Daemon would not permit it And Plato in his Symposion brings in Socrates discoursing at large of this Daemon his Office c. And Serranus in Plato's Apologie for Socrates tells us That Socrates called his Divine Inspiration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Daemon a Voice and a Signe And by the assistance of this tutelar Daemon Socrates affirmed that he instituted his whole life even from his childhood Wh●t this Daemon was whether a good or bad Angel whereof the latter is most probable it concerns us not to debate only this is evident from the whole that Socrates acknowledged a necessitie of a supernatural Divine assistance for instruction and direction c. 7. Socrates acknowledgeth a necessitie of some

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by Interrogations unto which they required an extemporary answer so it follows and to provoke him to speak of many things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word saies Grotius was taken from the Scholes where the Masters were wont to set the riper Scholars to pose the younger by Interrogations whence in the New Testament the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usually signifie to dispute i. e. by Dialogues or questions and answers which was the mode of disputing in the Jewish Scholes and thence traduced unto the Grecian and continued amongst them till Aristotle reduced this natural Logick to an Artificial way of Syllogizirg in Mode and Figure of which more hereafter in Plato's mode of Philosophizing In these disputations of Socrates he intends more the drawing forth ●nd revincing the opinion of his Opponent than the delivering and establishing of his own For he conceived it not his concern who affirmed he knew nothing to assert any thing as he himself declareth in Plato's Theaetetus And this his modest suspension or conceling his own opinion laid the Foundation of those differing Sects which sprang from him especially of the Academical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suspension of which hereafter Howbeit Socrates's modestie would not permit him to assert and confirme his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hypotheses yet was he very bold and Ironical in refuting the proud assumings of such as pretended they knew all things So August de Civit. l. 8. c. 3. It is apparent saies he that Socrates did in his very Moral questions whereto he seems wholly to addict himself either by his confessed ignorance or dissembled knowledge with an admirable pleasantnes and most acute urbanitie agitate and overturne the follie of unlearned persons who thought they knew somewhat c. All these Philosophick Contemplations of Socrates laid together sufficiently argue their original to be Divine and Sacred Yea Justin Martyr and other of the Fathers conceived that he lived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in part acknowledge Christ So Justin Martyr Apol. ad Senat. Anton. Hornius Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 13. 'T is possible that Socrates's Daemon might be no other than the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spirit of God § 7. This fervor of Socrates mixed with an Ironical facetiousnes in overturning the proud conceited ignorance of some who fancyed they knew all things is supposed to give the occasion of his condemnation and death So August de Civit. l. 8. c. 3. in what follows saies that from these endeavours of Socrates to discover the follie of these ignorant Sophists enmities being stirred up he was by a calumnious crimination condemned and punished with death c. Plato in his Apologie for Socrates affirmes that these odiums and feudes befel Socrates by reason of his disputations against these proud Sophists The same Laertius There were three that accused Socrates Anytus Melitus and Lycon the Orator who was the Actor whereas Anytus defended the rout of Artificers and the rest of the Athenians whom Socrates often derided and Melitus defended the Poets when Socrates had condemned and judged to be expelled the Citie The main crime they accuse him of was his denying a multiplicitie of Gods c. for which he was condemned by 281 suffrages Immediately before his death after he had taken the poyson he makes a learned and undaunted discourse about the immortalitie of the Soul and its state in separation from the bodie c. and when he felt the paines of Death growing upon him he takes his leave of his Scholars enjoyning them to go and Sacrifice a Cock to Esculapius the Daemon-god of Medicine as a thankful acknowledgement for so sweet and noble a death of which see Plato's Phaedo about the end also his and Xenophon's Apologies for Socrates with Diogenes Laertius where we find Socrates pleading that his Enemies overwhelmed him not with Crimes but envie only c. And the Athenians were so greatly affected with the injurie done to Socrates that a little after they caused all their Scholes to be shut and punished Melitus with death Anytus with banishment erecting a brazen Statue to Socrates as Austin and Ludov. Vives in Aug. Civit. l. 8. c. 2. gives him this great Character This is that Socrates of whom nothing can be sufficiently said for his Dignitie who as it 's manifest was the wisest of all the Gentiles and came nearest of all to the Christian Wisdom He was borne at Athens Sophroniscus being his Father c. He was a Man temperate chast just modest patient of injuries not greedie of riches pleasures no nor yet of glorie for it 's certain he writ nothing He was the first who whilst others professed to know all things professed himself to know nothing Thus Lud. Vives To which may be added that of Hornius Socrates erat vir acutus festivus laborem tolerans non tam praeceptis quàm exemplo docens quem Lactantius caeteris non paulo cordatiorem fuisse concedit Socrates was eminent for his Acumen Eloquence Diligence Instructing as well by his Example as Precepts and such as Lactantius also acknowledgeth to have far surpast others Heathen Philosophers for Wisdom Horn. Hist Phil. lib. 3. cap. 13. Yet some say Socrates was not exempted from that great Gentile uncleannes which the wisest and best of those Gentile Philosophers were guiltie of mentioned Rom. 1.21 27. as elsewhere § 8. Though Socrates writ nothing himself yet his Disputes were committed to Writing by his Scholars amongst whom Xenophon was the first and most punctual for Plato useth a great libertie in interlining his own Sentiments with his Masters Dogmes And albeit Socrates confined himself to Morals and in his Philosophizings thereon used a plain method yet after his death his Scholars fell into several Factions and Sects which sprang from their differing Apprehensions about the chiefest Good and the chiefest Evil. So Austin Civit. l. 8. c. 3. Therefore Socrates by reason of his so great Fame both living and dead left behind him many Sectator● of his Philosophie whose Eristick studie was to be versed in the Controversies of Moral Questions wherein the chiefest Good consisted which not evidently appearing in Socrates's Disputes whil'st he started and asserted and destroyed every thing every one formed such a chief Good as seemed most pleasing to him Thus had these Socraticks differing perswasions about this last end some placing the chiefest Good in Pleasures as Aristippus some in Virtue as Antisthenes c. Indeed all the Sects of the Ionick Philosophie seem to owe their Original to Socrates's Schole especially the Cyreniack Cynick Eleatick Megarick Academick Platonick Stoick 1. Of Socrates's Scholars Xenophon and Aeschinus the Socratick clave fast to their Master without founding a new Sect. 2. Aristippus the Cyrenian another of Socrates's Scholars founded the Cyreniack Sect whose main Principle was

Artis Cabalist lib. 2. where he tells us That Pythagoras in affirming that the Soul of a Timerous person went into a woman and of a Cruel man into a Lyon and of a Libidinous man into a Sow and of a Vaine Light person into a Bird as of a Sloathful person into a Fish from their resemblance in manners he did not speak thus as if he thought so but only to affrighten the vulgar sort by such kind of Fables from Vice as we were wont to affright Children by Bugbears That the Egyptians from whom Pythagoras is said to have received this Symbol understood their Metempsychosis in a Symbolick Hieroglyphick sense seems very probable and that they traduced it originally from the Jewish Church appears as likely For that the Pharisees asserted this Metempsychosis is affirmed by Josephus de Bello Jud. lib. 2. cap 8. And we may presume the Jews before them held the same Yea some and that not without probable conjectures make the whole storie of Nebuchadnezzar's being Transformed into a Peast c. Dan. 4.32 33. to be Symbolical of his Brutish life separate from humane societie For that he was not really transformed into a Beast is most likely And hence it is supposed this Egyptian Pythagorean Metempsychosis had its original even from Nebuchadnezzar's Symbolical Transformation into a Beast and that which gives this conjecture the more likelyhood is that this Transformation of Nebuchadnezzar into a Brutish condition was but just before if not at the very same time that Pythagoras lived at Babylon For whether it were in Ezechiel's time as Selden or in Daniel's time as Wendelin of Pythagoras's Tetractie that Pythagoras was in Babylon yet it could not be long after this Metamorphosis or as we may truely stile it Metempsychosis of Nebuchadnezzars Neither can we imagine that Pythagoras who was so curious an Inquisitor into all the works of Divine Providence should let passe this stupendious and amazing Providence of God on Nebuchadnezzar which made all the Empire ring of it without observation Why therefore may we not conclude that both Pythagoras and the Egyptians derived their Symbolical Metempsychosis from this Metempsychosis or Transmigration of Nebuchadnezzar into the Symbolick Forme of a Beast Or if we had rather we may suppose Pythagoras's Metempsychosis to be a Symbolick image of the Souls Divine Original and Infusion into the bodie by God as also of it's Separation by death Reunion at the Resurrection and immortal estate so Plato Serr●nus and Reuchlin seem to encline as before chap. 8. parag 13. § 9. We have also good conjectures to perswade us that Pythagoras's precepts touching Abstinence from Flesh were muchly Symbolical and that his followers did not abstein from all kinds or all parts of Flesh but only from such as were of Sacred use or of Symbolical signification answerable to the Jewish Abstinences For first That Pythagoras himself absteined not wholly from Flesh we have for it the Testimonie of Aristoxenus the Musician Disciple of Aristotle quoted by Gellius lib. 4. cap. 11. That Pythagoras saies he did eat of young Pigges and tender Goates is affirmed by Aristoxenus which he seems to have learnt from Xenophilus the Pythagorean his familiar and from some others more ancient who lived not much distant from Pythagoras And that Pythagoras ate of Animals Alexis the Poet teacheth in the Comedie of Pythagoras's Life Thus Gellius who in what followes relates that Aristotle affirmes the Pythagoreans absteined not from all Flesh but only from some parts namely the Heart Brain c. which were of Symbolick use And Porphyrie in his first Book of Abstinence from Animals saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They say that the Pythagoreans themselves absteined not from all Flesh when they sacrificed So Athenaeus lib. 7. saies That the Pythagoreans eat but moderately of some flesh and some they sacrifice but of Fishes they taste not c. and he gives a Symbolick reason why they eat not of Fishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For silence which they esteem as Divine Diogenes Laertius gives the like Symbolick account of their absteining from Fishes And we need not doubt but that the main of their Symbolick Abstinences from Flesh and Fish had it's original from the Jewish Symbolick Abstinences from things unclean c. Though we may not denie but that Pythagoras and his Followers were very abstemious as to Flesh upon a Medicinal and Natural account thereby to keep their mind bodie in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good Habitude and disposition of Health as before § 10. The like Symbolick account some give of Pythagoras's precept for Abstinence from Beans the which we find mentioned in Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an equal crime to eat a Bean as to eat the heads of Parents This Lucian brings in Pythagoras asserting in Hell and Chrysostome in his 1. Homil. on the Gospel of St. John attributes the same to Pythagoras Gellius lib. 4. chap. 11. cites a Verse which is supposed to be one of Empedocles's who was a Pythagorean and Auditor of Pythagoras to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O ye miserable wretches touch not Beanes with your hand Yet some think this Pythagorean prohibition against eating Beans ought to be understood Symbollically and Enigmatically only in as much as some of great authoritie affirme that Pythagoras himself absteined not from Beans Thus Aristoxenus the Musician in his Book of Pythagoras as Gellius lib. 4. cap. 11. and Voss de Philos l. 2. c. 6. § 39. Others by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand the Testicles and so by Pythagoras's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conceive the illicite use of Venerie to be forbid as Hornius Hist Philos l. 7. c. 12. 'T is possible it was both Physical and Symbolical as the former of these § 11. As Pythagoras had many Ethick Symbols to express his moral Precepts by so also his Theologick Mysteries were in a more particular manner couched under and expressed by Enigmatick Symbolick Images especially by Numbers and Figures which as he conceited had an Analogie and consent with all things Whence he expressed Apollo by Unitie Diana by the number Two Minerva by the number Seven and Plato in his Timaeus seems to imitate him That Pythagoras expressed God by Unitie appears by that of Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Unitie is the Principle of all things Whence the Pythagoreans accounted the number of Two accursed because it was the first departure from Unitie And the reason why Pythagoras expressed God by Unitie is given us by Reuchlin Art Cabal lib. 2. thus The Divine mind the receptacle of Principles Pythagoras Symbollically calls Number saying Number is the principle of all things So Plutarch de Philosoph Placit By Number Pythagoras understands the mind a very proper Symbol for in Incorporeals nothing more Divine than the mind in Abstractions