skip to primary navigation skip to content

The Philosophick Cabbala.


1. The strength of the Philosophick Cabbala argued from the nature of the Truths therein contain'd. 2. The dignity of Pythagoras. 3.That he was acquainted with the Mosaick Philosophy. 4. Pythagoras his Miracles. 5. Of Plato, that he was acquainted with the Jewish Learning; and what miraculous of him. 6. Of Plotinus, his retorting of Olympius his Magical practice against him upon himself; his great esteem of Origen. 7. The folly of men in their adhering to some private judgment more then to Fathers, Churches, Workers of Miracles, and to Reason it self. 8. The Cartesian Philosophy a restauration of the Physical part of the Mosaick, and of Des-Cartes his being inspired.

1. LET us now take a general view of this whole Cabbala, and more summarily consider the strength thereof: which we may refer to these three heads, viz. The nature of the Truths contained in it; The dignity of those Persons that have owned them in foregoing Ages; and lastly, The invalidity of the most considerable Objections that can be made against it. As for the Truths themselves, First, They are such as may well become so holy and worthy a person as Moses, if he would Philosophize; they being very precious and choice Truths, and very highly removed above the conceit of the vulgar, and so the more likely to have been delivered to him, or to Adam first, by God for a special mysterie.

Secondly, They are such, that the more they are examined, the more irrefutable they will be found; no Hypothesis that was ever yet propounded to men, so exquisitely well agreeing with the Phænomena of Nature, the Attributes of God, the Passages of Providence, and the rational Faculties of our own Minds.

Thirdly, There is a continued sutableness and applicability to the Text of Moses all along, without any force or violence done to Grammar or Criticisme.


Fourthly and lastly, There is a great usefulnesse, if not necessity, at least of some of them, they being such substantial Props of Religion, and so great encouragements to a sedulous purification of our Mindes, and study of true Piety.

2. Now for the dignity of the Persons, such as were Pythagoras, Plato, and Plotinus, it will be argued from the constant fame of that high degree of Vertue and Righteousnesse, and devout Love of the Deity that is every where acknowledged in them, besides whatsoever miraculous has happened to them, or been performed by them.

And as for Pythagoras, if you consult his Life in Iamblichus,[1] he was held in so great admiration by those in his time, that he was thought by some to be the son of Apollo, whom he begot of Parthenis his known mother: and of this opinion was Epimenides, Eudoxus, and Xenocrates. Which conceit Iamblichus does soberly and earnestly reject; but afterwards acknowledges, that his looks and speeches did so wonderfully carry away the minds of all that conversed with him, that they could not withhold from affirming that he was θεοῦ παῖς, the off-spring of God. Which is not to be take in our strict Theological sense, but according to the mode of the ancient Greeks, who looked upon men heroically and eminently good and vertuous, to be divine Souls and of a celestial extract. And Aristotle takes notice particularly of the Lacedemonians,[2] that they termed such as were σφόδρα ἀγαθοὶ, very good, σείους ἄνδρας, i.e. θείους ανδρας, divine men. According to which sense he interprets that verse in Homer concerning Hector, ----------ουδὲ ἐῴκει Ἀνδρός γε θνητοῦ παῖς ἔμμεναι, ἀλλὰ θεοῖο.

But to return to him of whom we were speaking before. This eminency of his acknowledged amongst the Heathen, will seem more credible, if we but consider the advantage of his conversation with the wisest men then upon Earth; to wit the Jewish Priests and Prophets, who had their knowledge from God, as Pythagoras had from them. From whence I conceive that of Iamblichus to be true which he writes concerning Pythagoras his Philosophy; That it is Φιλοσοφία ἐκ θεῶν παραδοθεῖσα τὸ κατ' ἀρχὰς, a Philosophy that at first was delivered by God or his holy Angels.

3. But that Pythagoras was acquainted with the Mosaical or Jewish Philosophy, there is ample Testimony of it in Writers; as of Aristobulus an Ægyptian Jew in Clemens Alexandrinus, and Josephus against Appion. S. Ambrose addes, that he was a Jew himself. Clemens calls him τὴν ἐξ Ἑβραίων Φιλόσοφον, the Hebrew Philosopher. I might cast hither the suffrages of Justin Martyr, Johannes Philoponus, Theodoret, Hermippus in Origen against Celsus, Porphyrius, and Clemens again, who writes, that it was a common fame that Pythagoras was a disciple of the Prophet Ezekiel. And though he gives no belief to the report, yet that Learned Antiquary Mr. Selden seems inclinable enough to think it true, in his first Book De Jure Naturali juxta Hebræos; where you may peruse more fully the citations of the forenamed Authors. Besides all these, Iamblichus[3] also affirms that he lived at Sidon, his native Countrey, where he <101> fell acquainted with the Prophets, and Successors of one Mochus the Physiologer or Natural Philosopher. Συνέβαλε τοῖς Μωσέως τοῦ φυσιολόγου προφήταις ἀπογόνοις, Which, as Mr. Selden judiciously conjectures, is to be read , with the Prophets that succeeded Moses the Philosopher. See also Minucius Felix in his Octavius.

Wherefore it is very plain that Pythagoras had his Philosophy from Moses. And that Philosophy which to this very day is acknowledged to be his, we seeing that it is so fitly applicable to the Text all the way, what greater argument can there be desired to prove that it is the true Philosophick Cabbala thereof?

4. But there is yet another Argument to prove further the likelihood of his conversing with the Prophets, which will also further set out the dignity of his person; and that is the Miracles that are recorded of him. For it should seem Pythagoras was not only initiated into the Mosaical Theory, but had arrived also to the power of working Miracles, as Moses and the succeeding Prophets did; and very strange Facts are recorded both in Porphyrius and Iamblichus:[4] As that Pythagoras, when he was going over a River with several of his companions (Iamblichus calls the River Nessus, Porphyrius Caucasus) that he speaking to the River, the River answered him again with an audible and clear voice, Χαῖρε, Πυθαγόρα, Salve, Pythagora: That he shewed his thigh to Abaris the Priest, and that he affirmed that it glistered like Gold, and thence pronounced that he was Apollo: That he was known to converse with his friends at Metapontium and Tauromenium, (the one a Town in Italy, the other in Sicily, and many days journey distant) in one and the same day. To these, and many others which I willingly omit, I shall only adde his predictions of Earthquakes; or rather (because that may seem more natural) his present slaking of Plagues in Cities, his silencing of violent Windes and Tempests, his calming the rage of Seas and Rivers, and the like. Which skill Empedocles, Epimenides, and Abaris having got from him, they grew so famous, that Empedocles was surnamed Alexanemus; Epimenides, Cathartes; and Abaris, Æthrobates; from the power they had in suppressing of storms and winds, in freeing of Cities from the plague, and in walking aloft in the Air. Which skill enabled Pythagoras to visit his friends after that manner at Metapontium and Tauromenium in one and the same day.

5. And now I have said thus much of Pythagoras, (and might say a great deal more) there will be lesse need to insist upon Plato and Plotinus, their Philosophy being the same that Pythagoras's was, and so alike applicable to Moses his Text. Plato's exemplarity of life and vertue, together with his high knowledge in the more sacred mysteries of God, and the state of the Soul of man in this world and that other, deservedly got to himself the title of Divine, ὁ θεῖος Πλάτων.

But as for Miracles, I know none he did; though something highlyl miraculous happened, if that fame at Athens was true, that Speusippus, Clearchus and Anaxilides report to have been, concerning his birth;[5] which is, that Aristo his reputed father, when he would forcibly have <102> had to doe with Perictione, she being indeed exceeding fair and beautiful, fell short of his purpose, and surceasing from his attempt, that he saw Apollo in a Vision, and so abstained from medling with his wife till she brought forth her son Aristocles, who after was called Plato. But that is far more credible which is reported concerning the commending of him to his Tutor Socrates, who the day before he came, dreamed that he had a young Swan in his lap, which putting forth feathers apace, of a sudden flew up into the Air, and sung very sweetly. Wherefore the next day when Plato was brought to him by his father, τοῦτον, εἰπειν, εἰναι τὸν ὄρνιν, he presently said, this is the bird, and so willingly received him for his Pupil.

But for his acquaintance with the Mosaical Learning, as it is more credible in itself, so I have also better proof;[6] as Aristobulus the Jew in Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Ambrose, Hermippus in Josephus against Appion, and lastly, Numenius the Platonist, who ingenuously confesses, Τί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωσῆς Ἀττικίζων; what is Plato but Moses in Greek? as I have elsewhere alledged. See also Origen against Celsus.[7]

6. As for Plotinus, that which Porphyrius records of him falls little short of a Miracle, as being able by the Majesty of his own Minde, as his enemy Olympius confessed, to retort that Magick upon him which he practised against Plotinus; and that sedately sitting amongst his friends, he would tell them, Now Olympius his body is gathered like a purse, and his limmes beat one against another. And though he was not instructed by the Jewish Priests and Prophets, yet he was a familiar friend of that hearty and devout Christian and Learned Father of the Church, Origen; whose authority I would also cast in, together with the whole consent of the Learned amongst the Jewes. For there is nothing strange in the Metaphysical part of this Cabbala, but what they have constantly affirmed to be true.

7. But the unmannerly Superstition of many is such, that they will give more to an accustomed Opinion, which they have either taken up of themselves, or has been conveyed unto them by the confidence of some private Theologer, then to the Authority of either Fathers, Churches, Workers of Miracles, or, what is best of all, the most solid Reasons that can be propounded; which if they were capable of, they could not take any offence at my admittance of the Cartesian Philosophy into this present Cabbala. The Principles and the more notorious Conclusions thereof offering themselves so freely and unaffectedly, and so aptly and fittingly taking their place in the Text, that I knew not how with Judgment and Conscience to keep them out.

8. For I cannot but surmise, That he has happily and unexpectedly light upon that which will prove a true Restauration of that part of the Mosaical Philosophy which is ordinarily called Natural, and in which Pythagoras may be justly deemed to have had no small insight. Which in all probability he attained unto by his converse with the successours of that Sidonian Mochus above mentioned: which Casaubon conceives rather to be Μοσχος (for how easily σ is lost out of σχ any one may see) and suspects it to be a Tyrian Name, and that in his own tongue he was called <103> Mosche, which is ordinarily Moses: which falls in again with Mr. Selden's opinion, and is a further confirmation of his conjecture. And what a kinde of natural Philosophy this Moschus imparted to his followers, *[8] Vossius has expressly noted out of Strabo, who makes mention of one Moschus a Sidonian, who lived in the Ages before the Trojan Warre, and was the first Authour of the Atomick Philosophy, or of that Philosophy that gives an account of the phænomena from the figure and motion of Particles. Whence there must be no small affinity betwixt this ancient Moschical or rather Mosaical Physiologie and the Cartesian Philosophy, which has so often and so naturally born a part in this Philosophick Cabbala.

And that the Natural Philosophy of Pythagoras was Atomical, is further to be evinced from what we finde in Diogenes Laertius concerning Democritus. For what a noise his Atoms have made in the World cannot be unknown to any. But as Diogenes writes out of Thrasyllus, Democritus was so great an Admirer and Imitatour of Pythagoras, and seems so to have taken all that he has from him, that a man would think he had been his Scholar or Auditour, but that Chronologie will not admit thereof. But though he was not a Disciple of Pythagoras himself, yet, as Glaucus Rheginus writes, he was a Hearer of one of the Pythagoreans; and Apollodorus Cyzicenus reports that he had a very intimate familiarity with Philolaus. In the Catalogue of his Books also which he wrote, one was styled Pythagoras, and another Tritogenia, a mysticall terme amongst the Pythagoreans. And when Plato would have burnt Democritus his Writings, they were two Pythagoreans, Amyclas and Clinias, that diswaded him from executing what he had designed, certainly out of an honest, though mistaken, zeal. Which things I think are a ground of an invincible suspicion that the Physical part of Pythagoras his Philosophy is Atomicall. And that he held the motion of the Earth is already famous. The rest let us consider out of the Dogmata of Democritus, and see how all together sute with those of Cartesius.

Pythagoras must also have held, if Democritus had all his Philosophy from his Writings or Traditions, That there are infinite Worlds, and that they are generable and corruptible, but that the Matter is unperishable. That there are infinite numbers of Atomes or Particles, different in magnitude and figure; φέρεσθαι δὲ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δινέμεναι, and that they are moved in the Universe after the manner of Vortices. For that is the proper signification of Δίνη, namely Vortex. Καὶ οὕτω πάντα συγκρίματα γεννᾷν πῦρ, ὕδωρ, ἀέρα, γῆν. And that by the rotation of these Vortices of Particles is generated Fire, πῦρ, (which is the peculiar expression of the Sun with the Pythagoreans, as I have noted in its due place) and then afterwards Earth, Water, Aire: As is said more expressly, τόν τε ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοιέτων δινῶν καὶ περιφερων ὄγκων συγκεκριοσθαι, That the Coalition and Composition of the Sun and Moon was the result of these Δίναι or Ὄγκοι περιφερεῖς, these immense and vastly-rowling Vortices. And lastly, πάντα τε κατ' ἀνάγκην γενέσθαι, τῆς δίνης αἰτίας οὔσης τῆς γενέσεως πάντων, ἣν ἀνάγκην λέγει. that is to say, That all things are made not without a Mechanical Necessity, this Vorticall Motion being the cause of the <104> generation of all things. Which Democritus calles Ἀνάγκη. And it may be for this cause also the Pythagoreans called the Decad, that is, the World, Ἀνάγκη.

Which last Assertions of Democritus, as they are very easy and natural in such a sense as Cartesius has declared the nature of the Vortices and the consequences thereof; so are they very false, idle and insignificant according to any other meaning.

Wherefore the Cartesian Philosophy being in a manner the same with that of Democritus, and that of Democritus the same with the Physiological part of Pythagoras his Philosophy, and Pythagoras his Philosophy the same with the Sidonian, as also the Sidonian with the Mosaical; it will necessarily follow that the Mosaical Philosophy in the Physiological part thereof is the same with the Cartesian. And how fitly the Cartesian Philosophy sutes with Moses his text I have again and again taken notice.

9. And that Des-Cartes may bear up in some likely Equipage with the forenamed noble and divine Spirits; though the unskilfulnesse in men commonly acknowledge more of Supernatural assistance in hot unsettled Fancies and perplexed Melancholy then in the calm and distinct use of Reason; yet for mine own part, (but not without submission to better Judgements) I should look upon Des-Cartes as a man more truly inspired in the knowledge of Nature then any that have professed themselves so this sixteen hundred years; and being even ravished with admiration of his transcendent Mechanical inventions, for the salving the Phænomena in the world, I should not stick to compare him with Bezaliel and Aholiab, those skilful and cunning workers of the Tabernacle, who, as Moses testifies,[9] were filled with the Spirit of God, and they were of an excellent understanding to find out all manner of curious works.

Nor is it any more argument that Des-Cartes was not inspired, because he did not say he was, then that others are inspired, because they say they are; which to me is no argument at all. But the suppression of what so happened would argue much more sobriety and modesty; whenas the profession of it with sober men would be suspected of some spice of melancholy and distraction, especially in Natural Philosophy, where the grand pleasure is the evidence and exercise of Reason, not a bare belief, or, as in other cases, an ineffable sense of life, in respect whereof there is no true Christian but he is inspired.


1. An Enumeraton of Objections against the Philosophick Cabbala. 2. The Objection from the Inadequatenesse of the Pythagorick Numbers to the Six days Creation, answered. 3. That Tetractys in the Pythagorick Oath is neither the four Elements, nor Mens, Anima, Opinio, Corpus, nor yet the Tetragrammaton. 4. That the exquisite fitnesse of the Pythagorick Numbers to the Days of the Creation argue his Philosophy the same with the Mosaical. That the Mystical use of Num <105> bers through the whole Denary is Judaical as well as Pythagorical. 6. And that neither the Jews nor Pythagoreans confine themselves to Ten: Whence this Objection from Inadequatenesse is found very invalid.

1. AND thus we have briefly considered the nature of the Truths comprised in the Philosophick Cabbala, as also the quality of those Persons that have owned them in foregoing Ages. Now for the Objections: These seven certainly are the most considerable, if not the only, Allegations that can be made against it: namely,

First, That as well the Pythagorick Numbers as Names are inadequate to the Six daies Creation.

Secondly, That the Pythagorick Philosophy does not answer justly to the Judaick Cabbala in the chief strokes thereof, the Jewish Writers making no mention of the Motion of the Earth.

Thirdly, That the Interpretation of the First day's Creation is Heterogeneous to all the rest, it alone being Symbolical. Where three additional Queries are also proposed concerning the Metaphysical Hyle created on the First Day.

Fourthly, That the Order of the Cabbala is preposterous in placing the Earth before the Sun.

Fifthly, That the works of the Fifth and Sixth Day are too vulgar and trivial to be the Matter of a Philosophick Cabbala.

Sixthly, That there is an unwarrantable ὑστερολογία committed in our Interpretation of Paradise, we supposing it planted before Adam was made out of the Earth.

Seventhly and lastly, That our Interpretation of the Cherubim and flaming Sword is harsh, in that we make that a means of Adam's regaining Paradise that seems to keep him out.

2. But to these I shall fully answer in order. And first to the first part of the First, which would insinuate that, because the Pythagoreans continued their Numeral Mysteries through the whole Denarius, whenas yet notwithstanding the Dayes of the Creation are but Six, therefore the Six dayes Creation is not at all concerned in the Mystery of their Numbers: To this I answer, That their continuing their Mysteries of Numbers through the whole Denarius is no prejudice to our Cause. For whether we suppose the Hieroglyphicks of Numbers to have been in use before the Cabbala of Moses, and that the first Authour thereof took so many of them as were for his turn; (as he that writes a sentence, takes no more letters of the Alphabet then serves his purpose) or whether the first Authour of the Cabbala began these Numeral Hieroglyphicks, and thereupon the Mysteries of Numbers were afterward enlarged to smaller designs: neither Hypothesis makes any thing against our Interpretation. For will it follow, because Moses made Hieroglyphical Notes of Six Numbers only, to be the remembrances of the natures of such and such Phænomena of the World, that therefore they that partake of that Cabbala shall never make use of their Phansy to enlarge these Numeral Mysteries and Resemblances to other matters; no not when in process of time they had lost the first end and scope of these <106> Hieroglyphicks, and through ignorance and oblivion knew not what was the primitive occasion of them?

Wherefore that these Numeral Mysteries were stretch'd further then the Six dayes Creation, can be no argument against the Philosophick Cabbala: especially if you consider that these Six Numbers are so exquisitely significative of every day's work, and that there can be no tolerable sense of the Pythagorick Tetractys but by supposing it the Hieroglyphick of the Fourth Day's Creation, which is intended a compendious comprehension of, or engagement into, the whole Philosophick Cabbala. Whose Conclusions are so exceeding weighty and venerable, that they may seem worthy of that Religion of an Oath above mentioned; where, (as *[10] Meursius plainly proves) Pythagoras is sworn by, or at least he that first imparted the Tradition of the Tetractys.

3. Which if it were but the knowledge of the number of the Four Elements, Fire, Water, Earth, and Aire; or of the similitude that Mens, Anima, Opinio, Corpus, bear to the Four first numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4. (which yet is inept or dilute enough in all but the last, if we would severely examine things; and if it were exact, were but a trifle: as also the things themselves ranged together to make up the Tetractys are but forcedly produced, as not being all of one nature, but some Substances, other Accidents) I say, these pretended Mysteries are of so petty consideration, that it is impossible that they should have conciliated so great veneration to the first Imparter of them, as that the Mystæ should religiously swear by him in their serious Converse.

Nor yet can it be the swearing by the Tetragrammaton or the name of Jehova. For Tetractys, as well as Tetras (which is promiscuously put for it, and likely had been the onely Appellation but for the verse sake) does not signifie a Name of four letters, but simply the Number Four. And that it is a Number, not a Name, all the rest of the Numbers of the Pythagorick Denary will bear witness, as also the constant Interpretation of Writers, as you may see in Meursius. *[11] Besides that, Οὐ μὰ τὴν τετρακτὺν is false Greek, and Οὐ μὰ τ ἡμετέρᾳ ψυχῇ παραδοῦσαν τετρακτὺν false verse. So little reason is there to dream of any other Interpretation then what we have given, namely, that it is the swearing by him that imparted by way of Tradition (for so παραδόντα implies) so excellent a piece of Knowledge as is comprised in the interpretation of the Fourth day's Creation, of which the Tetractys was the Symbol, and necessary Remembrancer; it not being applicable to that Day in the most notorious property thereof, but as that day is conceiv'd to comprehend the Creation of all as to the more general strikes of the Universe, whereby is necessarily imply'd that the Planets must be so many Earths, with the rest of those noble Conclusions of Philosophy that depend thereon. Which was the sense of Pythagoras his School, as plainly appears out of *[12] Aristotle in his De Cœlo; where he sayes the Pythagoreans assert that the Fire, that is the Sun, is in the midst of the World, τ δὲ γᾶν ἓν τῶν ἄστρων εἶναι, and that the Earth is one of the Starres: he means Planets. And that they made the Planets also Earths, appears from what he addes, Ἔτι δὲ ἐναντίαν ἄλλην τάυτῃ κατασκευάζουσι γῆν, ἣν ἀντίχθονα ὄνομα καλοῦσιν, <107> Moreover they make another Earth, which they call Antichthon, opposite to this of ours. Which questionlesse was nothing else but our overthwart neighbour-Planet or Earth, the Moon. For so she is called by the Ancients, *[13] Terra Ætherea, as in *[14] Plutarch γῆ ὀλυμπία, and this hither part of her Ἀντίχθων and Περσεφόνη, as the other Ηλύσιον πεδίον. tract of time having sophisticated this most solid Philosophy with superstitious conceits. But this is enough to discover Pythagoras his opinion concerning the Planets, that he looked upon them as so many Earths.

The Tetractys therefore is put for the Cabbala of this Fourth Day's work, which being fully and methodically explained, and the Mystæ finding their natures so perfected and their mindes so illuminated thereby, might well extort from them such a veneration as would religiously induce them to swear by the first Authour thereof. As it is said that Pythagoras himself did use the forme: and I could charitably believe of all the Primitive Pythagoreans that they swore in the same sense that Pythagoras did,[15] namely, by the First Communicatour of so high and stupendious a piece of Wisdome; which (as I have noted out of Iamblichus) is said to be θεοπαράδοτος, delivered first from God himself: Which will make this Swearing of theirs irreprehensible and blamelesse.

4. There being therefore this exquisite fitness and appositenesse in the application of these Pythagorick Numbers, (though we make not use of them all) to the Six days work of the Creation, it is a Demonstration that Pythagoras his Philosophy was the same in a manner with the ancient Cabbala of the Jewes touching the frame of the World.

5. Besides, there are not so few Numbers of the Pythagorick Denary employed in the present Mystery as is pretended. For the number Seven I have demonstrated to be very significant of the Seventh Day's Rest. And the Number Ten emerges out of the Tetractys, as has been above noted. So that Eight Numbers of the Denary are plainly demonstrated to belong naturally to the Judaick Cabbala. And that the ancient wisedome of the Jewes made a mysterious use of the number Eight in their Religion, to me seems very plain, in that Circumcision was appointed on the eighth day. Which number being the first Cube, is a fit Hieroglyphick of the Stability of that Covenant made with the Jews in Circumcision; and the Pythagoreans call the Octonary ἀσψάλεια, which signifies that Security which is by Covenant. And but that I might seem over-solicitous in a matter not so considerable, I think it would not be hard to produce places of Holy Writ whence the number *[16] Nine may be justly thought not to be devoid of a Mysticall meaning. So little pretense is there to pronounce that the Symbolical use of the first Ten Numbers is onely Pythagorical, and does not concern the Judaick Cabbala.

6. To all which you may adde, That neither the Pythagoreans themselves, nor the holy Pen-men, confine the Mystical use of Numbers to the first Ten, but expatiate both of them into other more compound Numbers. From whence is further evidence how causeless and invalid that Allegation is against the truth of the Philosophick Cabbala, concluded from that admirable fitness and congruity of the Numbers that are the Symbols of each Day's Creation; namely, That there are more mystical <108> Numbers then those that are applied thereunto: As if, whenas there are severall Mysticall Numbers that far exceed the number of Seven dayes, they should all be applied to these Seven; or that, because they are unapplicable, therefore those that are so manifestly applicable were not rightly applied.

And thus I hope I have fully satisfied the first part of this first Objection concerning the Numbers themselves. Which, I think, if duly considered, are alone (by reason of their fitnesse, and the significancy of their natures and properties) sufficient to assure us of that part of the Philosophick Cabbala which is comprised in the first chapter of Genesis: And in which there is also a Prelibation of those illustrious Truths which are more fully and circumstantially delivered in the second and third. Which shews that the whole Philosophy of Pythagoras is of one piece, and from one fountain, the ancient Cabbala of Moses.


1. The Invalidity of the Objection from the Inadequateness of the Pythagorick Names of Numbers, the reason of the accumulation of them being so easily discoverable. 2. That the genuine Pythagorick Names are discernible from the spurious, as the sincere Doctrines of Christianity are from after-Corruptions. 3. Ten more Names added that are significative of the nature of Mundus vitæ in the First Day's Creation. 4. Ten others significative of the Metaphysical Hyle created on that day. 5. Ἀμιξία and Στιφρὰ παρθένος how accurately significant of what is in this First Day's Creation. 6. A plain account of those Pythagorick Names of an Unite that make nothing to the First Day's work. 7. Six more names of the Binary significative of the Second Day's work, with an account of such as are impertinent thereto. 8. An account of the impertinent Names of the Ternary. 9. Of Θέτις, Αγυιόπεζα and Κραταιϊσ. The fit significancy of Λοξίας in reference to the Third Day's work. 10. The Notations of , how Philosophical they are, and how significant of the grand Physical Truths of the Pythagorick or Judaick Cabbala.

1. NOW as for Answer to the second part of this First Objection, concerning the Names of the Numbers I make use of, viz. That though those I have produced be fit enough for my purpose, yet those I have concealed may be either impertinent and insignificant, or indeed inconsistent with those I have produced; for mine own part, I am not at all affraid to be called to so strict an account, and do not doubt but that I shall be gainer upon the whole Compute. For I foresee that the issue will be this, That I shall have occasion to bring a rgeater number of Names to confirm the truth I aime at then I have yet made use of; and find my self not unprepared to give a reason of their forging of those that make nothing to our Cabbala. For what I said of the finding of <109> Mysteries in new Numbers upon the occasion of having those that appertain to the Creation communicated unto them, the same I here repeat concerning the giving of new Names to those First Numbers, by phancying they will set out this or that in either Morality, Nature, or Metaphysicks.

Which Impertinencies certainly would grow the fastest, as I said before, when the first scope and use of these Names were hid in Oblivion. For then having no Cynosura to guide them, they would be blown upon every small and trivial Resemblance that this or that Number might have with this or that Object, according as the aire of their lightly-working Phansy carried them, and their desire of making the sapless Mysteries of Numbers to arise to some bulk of superstitious Knowledge. Τοῦ γαρ ἅπαξ πὲρ τὸ μέτρον ὃρος οὐδείς ἐστιν. For they having once lost the measure of their trading thus in the names of Numbers, their Accumulations would be infinite.

2. But it has fared much-what in this matter as it has with the sober Truths of Christian Religion, to which though there have been added innumerable humane Inventions, yet amongst these there have been conserved the grand Truths of Cristianity it self discoverable by the Testimony of Holy Writ: so though there have been many Impertinent Names of the first Seven Numbers invented by ignorant and superstitious Pythagorists, yet they have also retained the true and useful, which is likewise discoverable by the application of them to the Text of Moses, according either to the Philosophick sense or external phrase thereof. As is eminently plain in the First Day's work. Where truly I think I shall finde more Names pertinent to the work of that Day then impertinent, notwithstanding that their Ignorance has accumulated so many.

3. For whereas there are near Fifty Names of a Monad or Unite, above half of them are not unsignificant of the nature of those things that are comprized in the First Day's work. For to the Names pertinent to what we call there Mundus vitæ (which comprehends all the Immaterial Creation) besides Ζωὴ, Εἶδος, Ζανὸς πύργος, Λόγος σπερματίτης, which we have noted already, you may adde also Νους, Μορφὼ, Γωνὴ, Οὐσία, Ἄιτιον ἀληθείας, Ἁπλοῦν παράδειγμα, Νῦν, Μνημοσύνη, Προμηθεὺς, Αῤῥενόθηλις.

Νοῦς, because all Immaterial Beings are Intelligible, not Sensible. Μορφὼ, because they are such as give Forme to the Matter. Γονὴ, because all Generation is chiefly from this Principle, and Matter can gender nothing of it self, (they are the words of *[17] Plotinus. Μόνον γὰρ τὸ εἶδος γόνιμον, ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα φύσις ἄγονος. Which was the reason, says he, why the Ancients brought in Mercury τὸ τῆς γενέσεως ὄργανον ἀεὶ ἔχοντα πρὸς ἐργασίαν, τὴν γεννῶντα δὲ ἐν αἰσθήσει δηλοῦντες εἶναι τὴν νοντὸν λόγον.) Οὐσία, because Immaterial Beings are the truest Substance, according as the Platonists do rightly contend: And so Αιτιον ἀληθείας, for the same reason. Ἁπλοῦν παράδειγμα. Παράδειγμα, to the same purpose that εἰδος and μορφώ. Ἁπλοῦν, because Immaterial Beings are devoid of Composition. Νῦν, because Intellectual life is at once, vices temporum nesciens, in uno semper quod adest consistens ævo,*[18] as Macrobius speaks. Μνημοσύνη, if it be not <110> pedantickly popp't in as the name of the mother of the Muses, whose names are also scattered through the Pythagorick Denary, I should suspect the reason of that appellation to be, because the highest and deepest seat of Memory is in that in us which is Immaterial. Προμηθεὺς, because the Soul invested with her igneous Spirits, Prometheus-like, enlivens this statue of clay the Body. And lastly, Ἀῤῥενόθηλυς, because all the Immaterial Orders have radically in them that division of Faculties into Masculine and Feminine, as is expressed more at large concerning Adam.

4. And to that which is that fluid undeterminate Capacity of things, that dark Abysse which compendiously we may call the Metaphysical Hyle, or the Possibility of Creatures in the Outward World, besides what Names we have produced already, as Ὕλη, Ἀλαμπία, Σκοτωδία, you may adde also Χάος, Σύγχυσις, Συγκρασις, Πρωτεὺς, Πανδοχεύς. All which denote the Confusion, Undeterminatenesse and promiscuous Capacity of this Metaphysical Hyle, or mere Potentiality of the external Creature. But then for that dark Abysse mentioned in that First Day's Creation, what is more significant thereof then these terms of Χάσμα, Τάρταρυς, Στὺξ, Βάραθρον; which are so apposite to the Text that nothing can be more, and utterly unlikely to have been the Appellations of an Unite unless in reference thereunto. Adde to Στὺξ also Λήθη, because when things are resolved into this First Day's state, they are overwhelmed with Oblivion; the Souls of Men and Angels being then in silence, and so throughly drenched in the Lake of Lethe, that they can never remember any more what is past.

5. There are yet two very significant Terms behind, Ἀμιξία and Στιφρὰ παρθένος, which exactly set out the condition of the First day's Creation. For those Immaterial Beings thus considered, that is to say, as not united with Matter, what is more significative of their state then Στιφρὰ παρθένος, arid and rigid Virginity; or then Ἀμιξία, according to that phrase in Hesiod, φιλότητι μιγῆναι; And besides, the Unmixednesse of the Active and Passive Principle proper to this Day is notoriously signify'd by the Name Ἀμιξία, as you may see in the *[19] Cabbala it self. So that to those seven apposite Names we contented our selves with before, we have gained at least twenty as apposite by this Examination.

6. But for those that make not for our turn, the account of them is very easy. For after the Pythagoreans had lost the knowledge of the true scope of giving Names to those Numbers, which was for remembrances of the nature of those things which are said to be created in those several Daies; they then excogitated Appellations without any aime, from any similitude whatsoever betwixt the Number and the things it might represent. As for example, Because there is but one God, therefore they called an Unite Θεὸς, Ζεὺς, Ἐυσέβεια, and it may be Εὐδαιμονία. And then in Natural things, because there is but one Sun, therefore they called a Monad Ἥλιος, Γυράλιος, and Ἀπόλλων, therefore Λόγος. And in Morals, because Love and Good-will consists in a kind of Unity of affections, they call an Unite Φίλος, Φιλία, Ἔρως, <111> Ὁμόνοια. And because there is Unity in Artificial Order, they call it Τάξις συμφωνίας, Ναῦς, Ἅρμα. And why they should call it Ἄτλας and Ἄξων, I cannot better imagine then because the Poles that are said to bear up the world, on which it hangs and turns, are two Points, that is, two fixt Unites. But why they call it Ἴσον, Μέσον, Μέτριον, is very plain. Ἴσον, because those things that are equal have one quantity: Μέσον and Μέτριον, because that which is exactly in the middle, or exquisitely moderate, is but One. But what an insipid and unsatisfactory Arguteness there is in such Conceptions as these, and how unworthy of so profound a Philosopher as Pythagoras, to whom the *[20] Senate of Rome erected a Statue as to the wisest man of all Greece, let any one judge.

7. As for the Names of the Binarie, I have already reckoned up above a dozen that are very significant of the nature of the work of the Second Day. To those whereof that signifie most dismally you may adde further Τόλμα, Τλημοσύνη, Δύη, Διχοστασία, Ἔρις, Ἄγνοια. To Ῥέα also would be referred (saving that it seems but a rash and superstitious heaping up Synonyma's by the latter unskilful Pythagorists) Δινδυμήνη, Φρυγία, Ἑστώ. By all which tearms is meant nothing else but Cybele or Vesta, but how *[21] Unpythagorically, any one may discern that has but taken notice that Vesta is the Sun in true Pythagorisme.

The rest of the Appellations are such sapless fooleries, that it is tedious to recite them; but yet I will give you more then a tast of them, that you may see with what pitiful trifles the Pseudo-Pythagorists entertained themselves when they had lost the true meaning of their Cabbala. For as before it was a fine thing with them to call the Monad by the name of Ἀπόλλων, or the Sun; so now for no better reason, I think, then that they did so, they will call the Binary Ἄρτεμις, Ἴσις, Δήμητρα, Ἐλευσινία, Δικτύννα, Ἥρα, all which may signify no more then the Moon, which is the Second great light in Heaven. So because any Agreement or kinde Affection supposes two parties, they call the Binary Πηγὴ τῆς συμφωνίας, Ἐρατὼ, Ἁρμονία, Ἀφροδίτη, Διώνη, Κυθέρεια, Κοινωνία, and Γάμος. where Γάμος, and as many words else as sound that way, is very forcedly and unskilfuly thrust in. Because the conjunction of the two Unites in the Binary is either the conjunction of two Masculines, as some would have the Unite to be, (and then certainly no Pythagoreans, unless the successours of that *[22] Pythagoras that Nero was married to, will call the Binary Γάμος) or else it is the conjunction of two Hermaphrodites, which is as ridiculous. For *[23] Macrobius declares, according to the sense of the Ancients, that an Unite is Viro-fœmina. Unum autem, quod μονὰς, id est, Unitas, dicitur, & Mas idem & Fœmina est, par idem atque impar, ipse non numerus, sed fons & origo numerorum. Of which *[24] Aristotle also affirms the like, Τὸ δὲ ἓν δὴ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων εἶναι καὶ πριττόν. τὴν δ' ἀριθμὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός. Which discovers their folly in calling the Ternary also Γάμος. For it is the marriage of a Female with an Hermaphrodite, and of a number with what is not a number. Jungentur jam gryphes equis. So plain is it that the Appellation of Αφροδίτη and Γάμος are the peculiar Titles of the Quinary and Senary, as they have a <112> special congruity also to the Fifth and Sixth day's work. But let us not be so strict, but admit an Unite to be rather Masculine; the Binary will be still excluded from the Title of Γάμος, and the Ternary's Title admitted but with difficulty, as Male and Female amongst Plants, which more exquisitely fits the nature of the Third day's work.

Furthermore, Because the Binary is made by adding an Unite to an Unite, it is called Αὔξησις, Σύνθεσις, Ἐπίθεσις. And because Dijudication implies a Duality in the Object, it is called Διάκρισις. And for that Opinion has a vergency two ways at once, it is styled Δόξα. and Demonstration two main parts, the Premisses and Conclusion, it is term'd Ἐπιστήμη. And lastly, because two is divided into two equal parts, it is named Δίκη. Such petty speculations did the pretended Pythagorists fall into when they once had lost the sight of that Mark that the Mystery of Numbers aimed at in the Binary.

8. Let us dip also a little further into the Ternary, where we shall bring up the like slight stuff. The most tolerable are those names of Moral consideration, as Μῆτις, Εὐβουλία, Φρόνησις, with which the Ternary is adorned: because he that would advise well, must cast his eye upon things past, present, and to come. Also Φιλία, Εἰρήνη, Ὁμόνοια, the union of parties being made by some Third thing or person. It is also called Εὐσέβεια, I suppose from the frequent use of the number Three in Religious Rites. The terms Τρίσαμος and Γρῶτον πλάτος are of Mathematical consideration, as are Δίσαμος and Πρῶτον μῆκος in the Binary; but have no greater plot upon us in either place, then to advertise us that the Binary is representative of two Mathematical Points, and of the first and shortest Line; the Ternary of three Points, and of the first and simplest Figure, which is the Triangle. Notions certainly whereby the Mind of man is gayly edifi'd and deliciously fed: and yet what follows is more vile and trivial. For the Ternary is called Κρονία, because Saturn had three Sons, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto; and Ἀΐδας, because Pluto was the third: Λατὼ and Ἑκάτα, because Latona was the Mother of Hecata who had three Titles, Luna, Diana, and Proserpina: Χαριτία, because there are three Graces, Aglaia, Thalia, Euphrosyne: Διοσκορία, from the three Dioscuri, Trittopatreus, Ebuleus, Dionysius: Φορκία and Γοργονία, because Phorcus was the Father of the Gorgons which were three, Medusa, Sthenio, Euryale. Of such pitiful trash was the Ternary made the Repository by the Pseudo-Pythagorists, who knew not the ancient Cabbala.

9. Who also finding Θαλασσοῦχος upon record in the Titles of the Ternary, put in Θέτις, and Ἀγυιόπεζα, I believe it should be Ἀργυρόπεζα, which is an Epithet of Thetis in Homer; and Ovid takes notice of the beauty of Thetis feet in that Pentameter, Et Thetidis quales vix reor esse pedes. They added also Ναέτις and Κραταιῒς, I think aiming at the same sense. Nor can they have any sense at all but in reference to the Third day's work, where there was made distinction of Land and Sea, and consequentially of Rivers.

But though there has been so much trash hitherto, yet there is one <113> Name behind that will compensate our pains of raking in this dunghill: And that is Λοξίας, which, considering the weightiness of its signification, and its easie reference to the oblique Motion of the Earth, (upon which depends the garnishing thereof with Plants and Flowers) and that *[25] Pythagoras is said to have first observed the obliquity of this Motion, I can willingly admit to be an ancient & authentick Title of the Ternary.

10. And it will not be unseasonable to take notice that the very *[26] Notation of the word countenances our conjecture, it being derived, as the ancient Hebrews have observed, from currere; certainly by reason of her constant course about the Sun, not because the Heavens run about her. Which we may be the better assured of, if we consider also the Notation of ἱστάναι or στρίζειν, (as the Seventy often render it) and πῦρ. as the Pythagoreans ordinarily call the Sun το πῦρ, as you may see in *[27] Aristotle, Ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ μέσου πῦρ εἶναί φασιν, and *[28] Plutarch, Κατὰ μέσον τοῦ κόσμου πῦρ ἵδρυσθαι νομίζουσι, και τοῦτο Ἑστίαν καλουσι. So that his το ιδρύμενον πῦρ, Fixt Fire, does exactly answer to that has the same signification, as all the Suns are acknowledged to be Stellæ Fixæ.

And in that this fixt Fire is called by the Pythagoreans Ἑστία, is a further discovery from whence they had their Notion, namely from the Hebrews, who call Fire , and the Chaldees , which is in a manner the very word Ἑστία or Vesta. Nor was it needful to retain the whole word , in Ἑστία having by its transplantation into the Greek tongue got a strong affinity with ἵστημι, the same with in Hebrew; so that it alone bears fully the same sense that : and the best Words are but the Remembrancers of the nature of Things.

But none such Philosophical ones as these of and , I may adde also , the easy and genuine Notations of them setting out the hidden natures of the things they belong to, with that exact opposition they have one to another: that of implying the Earth's Motion, that of implying the Earth's Motion, that of implying the Sun's fixedness, that of implying the Extinction of Light or Fire in all the Planets, that of implying the innate Light and Heat in all the Suns or fix'd Stars. The wonderful Congruity of the Philosophical Notations of which three words (to say nothing of ) cannot but gain further belief both to the Notations themselves, and also to the truth of the Physical part of the Cabbala. Nor is of less Philosophical consideration, though it were admitted to be from excelsum esse, and not from and . For then its being of the duall number would insinuate the same thing as before, namely the two Cartesian Elements or parts that Heaven does consist of, according as is observed in other words that denote things consisting of two parts, as , , and the like: and also the two kinds of Heaven, the one created the first day, the other on the second: As likewise does denote two kinds of Water, that from the Clouds, and that in the Sea, Rivers and Wells; but in a more Philosophical sense, the Waters visible and invisible; and then the Invisible, Stygian or Celestial, meaning by Celestial that part of the Mundus vitæ that descends εἰς γένεσιν.



1. Four Names more of the Tetrad that are Pertinent. 2. An account of those that are Impertinent. 3. That such Trifles either Numeral or Nominal could not win that reverence from Pythagoras, as to induce him to swear by the first Imparter of the Tetractys. 4. Γάμος a Name proper to the Quinary and Senary, and how the Binary and Ternary came by that Title. 5. Two more Pertinent names of the Quinary, with an account of the Impertinent ones. 6. That if the nature of Numbers, and not of Things, had been intended by the Tetractys, the Pentad had rather merited the Religion of an Oath. 7. The Impertinent Names of the Senary. 8. Names thereof referrable to Γάμος and Κόσμος. 9. Six other Names of the Senary mot fitly interpretable from the Text of Moses. 10. Eight Names of the Septenary referring to the same Text. 11. Of the Impertinent Names of the Septenary, and why that Number is called Pallas, and why Apollo ἑβδομαγενή.

1. WE come now to the Quaternary, of which, besides what we have noted already, there are four more Titles not altogether inept or insignificant, as Ἔξαρμα, Φύσις, Ἀιόλα, Κλειδοῦχος τῆς φύσεως.

Ἔξαρμα, because the distinct and articulate fitting out the parts of the Universe was on the Fourth Day. Φύσις, as denoting the Universal comprehension of Nature. Ἀιόλα, as intimating the variety of Objects in the Universe discoverable by the Lights of Heaven, which are the Fourth Day's work, and which are themselves a most eminent part of that variety: whence is αἰόλα Νὺξ in Sophocles, by reason of her being so variegated with Stars. And lastly, the Tetractys is called Κλειδοῦχος τῆς φύσεως, because the expounding the Fourth day's work is indeed the Key of the choicest secrets of Nature; or rather an Inlet to the truest and most concerning knowledge of Universal Nature, as well Metaphysical as Physical. Whence the Tetrad is not only said to be φυσικῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων πηγὴ, but (if I mistake not Photius his meaning) πολύθεος also, or rather πάνθεος, being full of Immaterial Beings every where, Dæmons, or Angels, or call them what you will; but the Greeks called them ordinarily θεόι.

2. But as thesee Names that have been here and elsewhere produced are pertinent to the purpose, so there are those that be as impertinent. For I find the ignorance of Posterity to have abused the Tetrad, as religiously as it was admired by the knowing Pythagoreans, to be a Receptacle of superstitious and useless toyes. As for example,[29] Because Mercury was born on the fourth day of the moneth, it was called Ἑρμης, Μαιάδης, Σῶκος. as also because Hercules was then born, Ἡρακλῆς, Ἀλκιμωτάτη, Ἔπανδρος, Ἀῤῥενουργὸς, Ἀθήλυντος. Because Bacchus was twice born, and the Tetrad generated of two (for two into two is Four,) therefore the Tetrad is called Διόνυσος, Βασσαρεὺς, Διμάτωρ, Θηλύμορφος, and also Διόσκορος, it may be in reference both to Hercules and Bacchus. And <115> lastly, because Fire has a Pyramidal form, and Four makes the πρῶτον σῶμα which is a Pyramid, one Unite laid on the other three, (from which form of an heap it is also called Σωρίτας) they style the Tetrad Ἠφαιστός.

3. But what pitiful trading would there have been for Pythagoras, if these be the riches of that Tetractys which he had so great esteem for, that he swore religiously by him that was the first Imparter of it? Will this answer that big report made by *[30] Plutarch, Ἡ δὲ καλουμένη τετρακτὺς μέγιστος ἦν ὅρκος, ὡς τεθρύλληται, καὶ Κόσμος ὠνὸμασται. (He speaks there of the compound Tetractys, but the Oath was indifferent to both.) The Tetractys so called was a grand Oath, as is famed, and was named Κόσμος The World. And certainly it was that clear and pleasant prospect into the Order and Nature of the Systeme of the World arising out of the conjunction of the Active and Passive Principle, and then running out to all Objects, as well Metaphysical as Physical, which were declared in te opening of the Fourth day's Creation; this, I say, certainly was that Tetractys which is called Κόσμος or the Universe, (that is, the Cabbala of the genuine and satisfactory knowledge thereof,) by the first communicatour of which Mystery both Pythagoras himself and the succeeding Pythagoreans so religiusly swore. But those other Toyes and Niceties that are merely Numeral, it is utterly incredible that the imparting of them should ever extort any considerable esteem at all from so wise a man as Pythagoras was voted by all men.

4. Concerning the Titles of the Quinary, those that we have already taken notice of are the most renowned in Authors, as you may see in the copious citations of *[31] Meursius, and so apposite to the work of the day, that nothing can be more. As for the Binary and Ternary's being called Ἀφροδίτη and Γάμος, as they are not so applicable to the dayes, nor competible to the nature of tose numbers, as I have *[32] above demonstrated; so they fall proportionably short in testimony of the Ancients, and certainly were the Additions of some idle and dry Pretenders to Pythagorism in after-Ages: as was also the adventuring to call the Quinary Ἀνδρογηνία, when Ἀῤῥενόσθηλις had been more proper, if they had known the first scope of these Names.

5. To those few titles of the Quinary which we have produced, there may be two added more, I think, not impertinent; the one Φύσις as it signifie τὰ αἰδοῖα, the other ἀκρότης ἐλαχίστη τῆς ζωότητος, alluding to the Five senses, which the Pythagoreans would easily acknowledge the meanest and most evanid part of that Life that is perceptive.

But there are several other Names of the Quinary impertinent, I must confess, to the Fifth day's work, though it may not be altogether impertinent to take notice of them, that no fraud be suspected in concelaing them. They are designed for the Notes of either Physical or Mathematical observation. The Physical discover how little Authentick they are, in running upon a supposition that is so Unpythagorical, namely, that there are four Elements, which compages the motion of the Earth naturally breaks a-pieces. But yet upon this Aristotelean conceit, that there are four, they will have the Æther a Fifth, and from thence call the Quinary Νέμεσις, as distributing the World into these Five Orders, Earth, Water, <116> Aire, Fire, Æther. And in reference to this Fifth call the Quinary Παλλὰς, and Ἄζυξ, as being a virgin-Element, and not mingling with the generations of things here below: also Ἄμβροτος, because it is the Region of Immortality; and Ἀκρεῶτις, because flesh and blood cannot inhabit there; and Ἀτάλαντος, because the Bodies of the Inhabitants are æquilibrious to the Region, and do not sink by any ponderosity; and lastly Ζανὸς πύργος, because though Jupiter fills all things, yet his highest dwelling is the Æther: Which yet is again very Unpythagorically spoken, for Ζανὸς πύργος is the Sun, not the Æther, when Physically interpreted, the same that Διὸς φυλακὴ in *[33] Aristotle.

As for the Mathematical Names, Δίκησις,*[34] Ἁμίθεος, Διδυμαία, Καρδιάτις, Κυκλιοῦχος, Ἄξων ἑδραία, all these six have but the intimation of this one sorry business, that Five divides Ten into two equal parts, as the Diameter does a Circle, as Justice decides equally, and as the Heart is in the midst of the body. Admirable profound Notions! The names that follow are more considerable, as namely, Ἀνικία, Ὀρθιᾶτις, Δίκη, Πρόνοια. All which refer to Five, as it is the Hypotenusa of the first Orthogonial Triangle, that has its sides including the right Angle, rationally: For it is called Ὀρθιᾶτις, as subtending the right Angle; Ἀνικία, as whose power is insuperable by the powers of both the sides; Δίκη, as equalizing its power to the powers of both the sides; *[35] το γαρ ισον δικαιον. and lastly, Πρόνοια, because there is such a Project and Contrivance in bringing the same thing about so exactly by means that seemed so different, and so unlikely to produce the same effect.

6. For this Invention in Geometry Pythagoras is said to have *[36] sacrificed an Hecatomb to the Muses; and this in Numbers, which might haply be mother to that in Geometry, does so far surpass the mere Numeral Mysteries of the Tetractys, that if the Tetractys had had no further reach then those dry Niceties, Pythagoras his Scholars would surely have chosen rather to have sworn by him as the teacher of the Pentad, then of the Tetrad. So well ascertained are we from every side that it was not the nature and mysterie of Numbers, but of Things, that was comprehended in the Pythagorick Tetractys.

7. Of the Titles that belong to the Senary, the most dry and impertinent are Ἀμφιτρίτη, Ἀγχιδίκη, Μεσευθὺς. the Senary being called *[37] Ἀμφιτρίτε, ὡς ἀμφὶς ἑαυτῆς δύο παρέχουσα τριάδας. and Ἀγχιδίκη, as being the next Number to the Quinary called Δίκη. and lastly, *[38] Μεσευθὺς, as being equidistant from 10. and 2. Six exceeding two as much as ten does six.

Those of Physical consideration are Διχρονία and Ἥμιον παντὸς, they both referring to the Signs of the Zodiack. The first both to those six in the Night and those other six in the Day; (For six ever rise by Night, and six by Day.) The latter to the Division of the World into two Halfs, (by the cutting of the Horizon,) Six Signs perpetually adhering to either Half thereof.

Those that referre to Pagan Superstition are Ἑκατηβελέτις, Τριοδίτις, Τριμορφος, which all have reference to Trivia, as being born on the sixth day of the moneth.


8. As for those Names of Ἀφροδίτη, Ζυγία, Φιλίωσις, Φιλητοσία, Ζυγίτις, Γαμηλία,[39] they are all referrable to Γάμος, which we have already taken notice of in our Defence of the Cabbala. To which you may also referre Λάχεσις, the Spinner on of Life from the birth. To Κόσμος also you may referre Ἀλήθεια, Ἁρμονία, and Πανάρκεια. the two former, as respecting God's general approbation of all that he had made as consonant to his Minde and Will; and the last, as implying a Perfection and Self-sufficiency in the World to subsist by virtue of those powers and parts God had framed it of.

9. The Titles that follow are more particular, and cannot well be made sense of, most of them, without reference to Moses's text. Such are Ἀρχὴ, Ἀνδρογυναία, Εἶδος εἴδους, Ψυχοποιὸς, Τῆς ζωτικῆς ἕξεως ἐμποιητικὴ, and Ὑγεία. For why should Six be called Ἀρχὴ, but that Adam's Dominion over the Creature is mentioned in the Sixth Day? Ἀνδρογυναία also answers verbatim to Male and Female created he them. And what sense can there be that Six is called Εἶδος εἴδους, but that Adam on the Sixth Day was created the Image of the Likeness of God? Let us make man in our Image after our Likeness. Whence *[40] Clemens and *[41] Philo also call him εἰκὼν εἰκόνος. And why should it be called ψυχοποιὸς and Τῆς ζωτικῆς ἕξεως ποιητικὴ, but that the Creation of man was on the Sixth Day, and so described by Moses, as that Adam being but a statue of Earth, an Image of clay at first, God breathed into him the breath of life, καὶ ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζωσαν; And haply in this respect also the Senary may be called Εἶδος εἴδους, the Soul being the very Form of that Form or Image of Earth that God had made. And lastly, it is extremely probable that Ὑγεία referres also to the sound constitution Adam was made in, Health being before Diseases, according to that Song in Maximus Tyrius, Ὑγεία πρεσβίστα μακάρων, &c. And sutably to that in the Book of Wisedome,[42] For God created all things that they might have their being, and the Generations of the World were healthfull, &c. Thus plain is it from these Instances that Pythagoras his Mysteries of Numbers had relation to Moses his Text.

10. As for the Septenary, we produced no names of it, which Omission we will now supply. For some of them seem very apposite and naturally referrable to the Mosaick Doctrine. As Ὀυλομέλεια, Τελεσφόρος, Ἀδράστεια, Τύχη. For the Septenary may well be called Ὀυλομέλεια and Τελεσφόρος, because it is said that on the Seventh day God ended his work, all things being then entire and perfect. It is also fitly called Ἀδράστεια,[43] παρὰ τοῦ μὴ δρᾷν, à non agendo, because God rested on the Seventh Day from all his work. Or if Ἀδράστεια signify the same that Νέμεσις, the sense will be, that God sitting still and creating nothing any further, yet there is such a law of things in the very Creation it self, that what by Free Agents and what by Natural no man shall escape Punishment; which is intimated by Ἀδράστεια, deriving the word παρὰ τοῦ μὴ διδράσκειν, à non fugiendo. Τύχη also has some affinity with this Notion, it being a result from God's resting on the Seventh Day.

But there are also other Names, as Σεπτεὶς, Φυλακῖτις, Καιρὸς, Ὄνειρος.


The first of which is rather a Pythagorick Notation of the number Ἑπτὰς, then a new Name, and signifies Cultus Septenarii, from σέβειν or σεβάζειν. which answers to, God blessed the Seventh Day, and sanctified it. And from God's so strictly commanding the people φυλάξαι τὸ σάββατον, it is not improbable the Septenary may be called Φυλακῖτις. or else from φύλακες, Vigiles, Watchmen or *[44] Angels, into whose hands the Government of the World is committed in this Sabbatism of God. And lastly, it is called Καιρὸς, καὶ ἐξοχὴν, the Seventh day being so sanctified a season or opportunity cut out of the whole summe of time, to employ our thoughts on the best things, and meditate on the Wisedome of God. Which kind of celebrating this holy Rest and Repose if they called Ὀνειρος, it is because such divine Speculations are most clear when there is the strictest ligation of the Senses of the Body, analogical to that in Sleep. But it is more likely to referre particularly to Joseph's explication of Pharaoh's dreams of the Seven Kine and of the Seven ears of Corn, the History of that Nation, whose Philosophy was so sacred to them, not seeming unworthy of their memory.

11. As for those Names of Ἀυδὴ and Φωνὴ, the reason is very trivial, from the Seven Vowels in the Greek Alphabet. Κρίσις respects the Critical Days in diseases; and Κέρας Ἀμαλθείας is attributed to the Septenary in which the Universe is said to be perfected, in such a sense as it was to the Ternary in respect of the fulness and well-furnishedness of the Earth.

The other Appellations are such as belong to either Pallas or Apollo, both of which signify the same thing, that is to say, Wisedome: And I cannot assure any one that Apollo's being called ἑβδομαγενὴς and the Septenary Pallas had not its true and primeval occasion from this Cabbala of Moses; the divinest Wisdome owing its original to Rest and Vacancy from worldly Employments, from which God commands his people to ceases on the Seventh day. So that the more we consider those Names of the Pythagorick Numbers that can answer to the Days of the Creation, the greater fitness we find in them and applicability to Moses his Text.


1. The trivial Names of the Denary. 2. Nine significant Names of the Denary relating to the Universe or the fourth Day's work. 3. Aaron's Vestments an emblem of the Universe; 4. And an Indication of the Divinity of Christ. 5. Three more names, Ἥλιος, Φάνης, and Σφαῖρα, and in what regard given to the Denary. 6. The Decad, or rather the Tetractys, called Κλειδοῦχος, because the mystery of the Creation is chiefly locked up in the Fourth day. 7. As also because of its punctual and express significancy of the nature of that Day's creation. 8. Why it was called Κλειδοῦχος τῆς φύσεως. 9. Why the Decad or Denary called Κλαδοῦχος. 10. And why Πίστις. with a fuller inference of the true ground why the Tetractys was mentioned in the Pythagorick Oath, rather then the Pentador any other Number.


WE are not at all concerned in the Octonary and Novenary, they having no reference to any of the Days of the Creation. But the Denary adhereth so close to the Quaternary, in that it is the Power thereof, that it would be a culpable Omission if I should not bring into view all its Titles. The aptness and significancy of Κόσμος, Οὐρανὸς, Παντέλεια, and Τὸ πᾶν, I have already observed. Of the remaining, the least to the purpose are *[45] Πρῶτος τετραγωνισμὸς, Μνημοσύνη, Μνήμη. It is called Πρῶτος τετραγωνισμὸς or the first Quadrature, only because it is made of the four first Numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4. It is adorned with the Title of Μνημοσύνη, because she is the Mother of the nine Muses; and these shallow Pseudo-Pythagorists, it seems, thought it a fine thing to bestow one of the daughters on every one of the other nine numbers of the Denary; but they have placed the Mother as well in the Rear as the Van: so fickle are they in these worthless fooleries. I need not note that Μνήμη was added as a synonymon of Μνημοσύνη.

2. But the rest of the Titles of the Denary, or Decad, are not such trash; but reflect, as the Decad ought to doe, which is the power of the Tetrad, upon the Fourth Day's Creation, which was the articulating the Universe into form and shape and right order. And therefore as this Number Ten (according as I noted before) was called Κόσμος for the comprehensiveness of the Ttile; so, I conceive, congenerous to this are those names of Εἱμαρμένη, Οὐρανία, Ἀιὼν, Κράτος, Ἀνάγκη, Ἄτλας, Ἀκάμας, Πάμωχος, Θεὸς, (from which last the Quinary also is called Ἁμίθεος) these all of them being of a comprehensive signification. For Ἑιμαρμένη and *[46] Ἀνάγκη intimate that law of Fatality and Necessity in the order of the Universe; and Ουρανια that heavenly Musick or Harmony of that Order; if it was not cast in vainly as one of the nine Muses, to fill up. Ἀιὼν, Κράτος, Ἄτλας, Ἀκάμας, denote the permanency and stable durancy of the world, that there is no fear that of its own nature it will ever fail. According to which sense are those expressions in the Pythagorick Oath, Πηγὴ, ῥίζωμά τε ἀενάου φυσεως Ἀέναος φύσις plainly answering to Ἀιὼν, which is as much as ἀεὶ ὤν. and Κράτος, Ἄτλας, Ἀκάμας, to Ῥίζωμα and Πηγή. For these Four, namely, The Spirit of Nature, Suns, Planets, and Vortices, are rightly said to be all what those Names expresse. And the Congruity is exact, in that, as the Tetrad and Decad are really the same Tetractys, so their names also be of the same importance, and point at the same things. And lastly, Θεὸς and Πάμωχος (if Πάμωχος be ὁ Κύριος, as Hesychius renders it) sound to the same tune, and are most fitly understood from that Tetrastich of the Sibyl, Εἰμὶ δ' ἐγὼ ὁ ἐὼν, (σὺ δ' ἐνὶ φρεσὶ σῇσι νόησον) Ὀυρανὸν ἐνδέδυμαι, περιβέβλημαι δὲ θάλασσαν, Γαῖα δέ μοι στήριγμα ποδῶν περὶ σῶμα κέχυναι, Ἀὴρ δ' ἠδ' ἄστρων με χορὸς περιδέδρομε πάντῃ. According to which sense is also that in *[47] Plotinus, Θεὸς μὲν οὖν τὸ πᾶν τῆς χωριστῆς ψυχῆς συναριθμουμένης, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν δαίμων μέγας, καὶ τὰ παθητὰ ἐν <120> ἀυτῷ δαιμόνια. So evident is it that all those Names respect the whole Universe in all the Lineaments thereof.

3. But there is something so sacred in those Sibylline verses, that I cannot let them passe without further Observation. Which though it may seem somewhat digressive, is not altogether impertinent to our present purpose. For I do not question but the Sibyl in this description alludes to the Sacerdotal Vestments of Aaron, whom Philo makes a Type or Figure of the only-begotten Son of God, whom he calls τὴν πρωτόγονον θεοῦ, and τὴν θεῖον λόγον, and *[48] makes him the eternal high Priest of this vast Temple the Universe, styles him εἰκόνα τοῦ ὄντος, the Image of Jehova, and the maker of the World. Λόγος δέ ἐστιν εἰκὼν θεοῦ δίοὗ σύμπας ὁ κόσμος ἐδημιουργεῖτο. And yet in a complex sense he makes the *[49] Universe also the Son of God. For after a particular description of the meaning of the Vestments of Aaron and his Priestly Ornaments, where he will have the two precious stones on his shoulders to signify the two Hemisphears (each of them having six names of the Tribes as the Hemisphears six Signes apiece so divided by the cutting of the Horizon;) the twelve stones in the Breast-Plate to signify the twelve Signes in the Zodiack, and their being ranged into four Ternaries, to denote the four Seasons of the Yeare; he blew Robe to emblematize the Air, the Flower-work at the hemme thereof the Earth, Ῥοϊσκοι the Pomegranats (in allusion to ῥέω fluo) the Water, and the *[50] Bells the harmonious mixture of Water and Earth for generation: he finally addes this reason of the Attire, *[51] Ὅπως ἐν ταῖς ἱερουργίαις συλλειτουργῇ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος ἀυτῷ, That the whole World might supplicate together with the high Priest. To which he immediately subjoyns, For it is most fit for him that supplicates the Father, καὶ τὴν ὑιὸν ἐπάγεσθαι πρὸς θεραπείαν γεγεννηκότος, as if the Universe were the Son of God. Which saying is unsound, unless he, whom he elswhere calls πρωτόγονον θεοῦ, and the Divine Logos, to be taken in to make the conception entire.

For thus will it appear that the Divine Logos is the true high Priest indeed, whose Induments are (according to those verses of the Sibyl) all the parts of the Universe; and that Aaron was but a Figure of Him; and that Εἰμὶ δ' ἐγὼ ὁ ἐὼν, answers to the sculpture of the four letters in the golden plate upon the forefront of Aaron's mitre, which Philo sayes was ὄνομα τοῦ ὄντος, upon which the Sibyl's ὁ εὠν reflects, and whereby was understood Jehova Filius: that ὀυρανόν ἐνδέδυμαι referres to his blew Robe; which is not the Aire, but so much of the Heaven as lyes betwixt the Sun and any Planet or Earth in the same Vortex; as those *[52] ῥοϊσκοι are not the Water, but the whole Globe of Earth and Water, which is every where at the lowest parts or hemme of this blew Garment of the eternal Aaron. Which Pomegranates fitly represent the Seminal fulness of the Earth, the mother of all things: and in that they are many, they intimate the plurality of Earths or Planets in their respective Vortices. Nor does the scarlet interwoven in the Ephod and Breast-plate signify the Element of Fire, as Philo would insinuate;[53] but the contexture of scarlet and purple with gold and white silk, of which the Ephod and Breast-plate did consist, denotes the vehement Heat and refulgent Light of the Sun; which is the Pythagoreans τὸ πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ ἱδρυμενον, <121> as the Ephod and Breast-plate have their place in the middle of the Body, which is the Region of the Heart, the Sun of the lesser world. And lastly, the Tunica Ocellata, or Stole of Eye-work, as I may so call it, that reached farther then the blew Robe (even as far as could be) it is apparent that it denoted the Starry Heaven; the Starrs being fitly compared to Eyes, as Plato has elegantly compared them in that known Distich of his, Ἀστέρας εἰσαθρεῖς ἀστὴρ ἐμὸς, &c.

And though γαῖα in the Sibyl be called στήριγμα ποδῶν, yet in that it is said περὶ σῶμα κεχύσθαι, it implies the loose flowing of it, as of those Pomegranates at the hemme of the Sacerdotal Robe. Nor can the Air be said περιδραμεῖν πάντῃ (which certainly is here as much πανταχῆ) and that so joyntly with the Chorus of the Planets, but it must imply the mobility and plurality of Earths; which therefore gives light to the former verse. But that there is[54] a golden Bell and a Pomegranate, a golden Bell and a Pomegranate, no better sense can be made then what Philo has given in *[55] another place; Τὴν δὲ ἁρμονίαν καὶ συμφωνίαν καὶ συνήχησιν τῶν τοῦ κόσμου μερῶν οἱ κώδωνες ἐμφαίνουσιν, The Bells import the Harmony, Symphony and Consonancy of the parts of the Universe. For which reason the Pythagoreans called the Tetractys Ἁρμονία. And that ridiculous fame of *[56] Pythagoras his Musick of the Sphears was questionless nothing but the misreflected Echo of the sound of these golden Bells hanging on Aaron's Robe. For Pythagoras held no Sphears at all, but speaking the mystical language of the Jewish Philosophy, was misunderstood; as he was also in the mystery of Numbers, the world conceiting generally of him that he made them the Principles of all things, whenas he understood them only as the Symboles of things. But *[57] Aristotle encounters the opinion as seriously held by him, but with as good sport to the intelligent Bystanders as if they should see one fiercely run his lance against a suit of armour, mistaking it for a man of Warr. But this onely by the bye: we will return to the business in hand.

4. That πάς ὁ κόσμος συλλειτουργῇ, which I above cited out of Philo, is to be understood complexly, taking in also the Eternal Logos, is plain out of a parallel place, where Philo again describing the Sacerdotal Vestments, speaks as before; Το͂υτον τὸν τρόπον ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς διακοσμηθεὶς στέλλεται πρὸς τὰς ἱερουργίας, ἵν' ὅταν εἰσίῃ τὰς ἐυχας ποιησόμενος, συνεισέρχηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος ἀυτῷ. wherein yet in the conclusion he does expresly comprehend τὸν τὸ σύμπαν συνέχοντα καὶ διοικοῦντα λόγον.[58] and immediately addes, For it is necessary for him that would supplicate the father of the World, παρακλήτῳ χρῆσθαι τελειοτάτῳ τὴν ἀρετὴν ὑιῷ, πρός τε ἀμιηστείαν ἀμαρτημάτων καὶ χορηγίας ἀφθονωτάτων ἀγαθῶν. Whence it is no wonder that the Decad, which is the symbol of the Universe, is by the Pythagoreans called Θεός. which is the present and more particular scope I aimed at.

But that which is most admirable to consider is, with what exquisite reason the Eternal Logos, which was the Framer of the World, and is, as it were, invested in his own work, is supposed the true High Priest according to this Type of Aaron. For who so fit and effectual Interces <122> sor with the Father for the faults and offence of the World as he that made it, and in whose breast is contained the Platform thereof, who understands so throughly the necessity of the occurrence sometime of such things or passages as are not so holy and perfect as were desirable, and can out of the perfect knowledge of the nature of things, distinctly plead the unavoidableness of sundry ill emergencies from that *[59] Incompossibility and Incommensurability that is inexpugnably lodged up in the perverse and unreclaimable Hyle?

Besides, presenting himself in his Sacerdotal vestments, which is the Compages and harmonious fitting of all the parts of the Universe, he does thereby also in a special manner plead for the particular miscarriages in some few, whenas the rest of the parts of the Creation are so healthful and lovely, and those that are out of frame are no more then the passing of a discord in good Musick, which makes the next Note come off more sweetly. As if he should alledge to his Father, that taking one thing with another, and considering under one view all the ends and Periods of things, all are in a sort allowable and good, and that those parts that seem most dark and dismal, it is the prerogative of the Sovereign Goodness to bring light out of them, and that to whom much is forgiven his love will be also much.

Such an high Priest as this I doubt not but Aaron did typifie in his Sacerdotal Habiliments. Which is a special confirmation of the Divinity of our blessed Saviour.[60] This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted of in comparison of him. He hath found out all the waies of Knowledge, and has given it to Jacob his servant, and Israel his beloved. Afterward did he shew himself upon Earth, and conversed with men: Preludiously in the Cloud and in the Bush, but fully and completely in his being incarnate of the blessed Virgin. And Aaron also bore the figure of both his natures: of his Divine nature in his Priestly vestments, which could signify no clothing but that of God; of his humane nature in his own person, Aaron being but a mere man.

And yet because he was to sustain the person of him that was truly God, the Lord Jesus, there were some *[61] injunctions, or rather Privileges, put upon him which supposed him in a manner elevated above the nature of man. Upon consideration whereof Philo breaks out into such expressions as are the most significative of the condition of Christ the θεάνθρωπος, and true high Priest, as any can be uttered. *[62] Βούλεται γὰρ ὁ νόμος τὴν ἀρχιερία μείζονος μεμοιρᾶιθαι φύσεως ἢ κατ' ἄνθρωπον, ἐγγυτέρω προσιόντα τῆς θείας, μεθόριον, εἰ δεῖ τα'ληθὲς λέγειν, ἀμφοῖν. ἵνα διὰ μέσου τινὸς ἂνθρωποι μὲν ἱλάσκωνται θεὸν, θεὸς δὲ τὰς χάριτας ἀνθρώποις ὑποδιακόνῳ τινὶ χρώμενος ὀρέγῃ καὶ χορηγῇ. that is to say, The Law will have the high Priest to partake of a nature greater then humane, approaching nearer to the Divine, or (to speak exactly) to be the Confine of both; that men might propitiate God by a Mediatour partaking of both natures, and God by using his Ministry may reach forth the supplies of his Grace unto men. So clearly is the Divinity of Christ prefigured in the Law of Moses.

Which weighty Considerations may make this seeming Digression <123> more pardonable. For it is not a mere Digression, but an Exposition of what I had alledged for the proof of the meaning of Θεὸς, one of the Names of the Decad that respect the integral or more Universal Lineaments of the World.

5. But Ἥλιος, and Φάνης, and Σφαῖρα may very well more particularly glance at the Lights made on the Fourth day; which are not without the whirling of the round Vortices, which is insinuated by Σφαῖρα. And lastly, Κλειδοῦχος, (which was also the name of the Tetrad) Κλαδοῦχος and Πίστις, I conceive that they all of them respect rather the Tradition of the Tetractys, or the Opening the Mystery of the Creation by the unfolding the properties of that Number applicable to the Fourth Day's work, as it is conceived to be the more general Delineation of the Universe, then that they were meant of the things themselves said to be created on the Fourth Day. But that the Fourth Day is comprehensive of the whole Creation, those names of the Decad (which is the immediate power of the Tetrad) do plainly import, they all of them in a manner tending that way, and are drily and ridiculously imposed upon the Number without such reference. For why should the Decad be called Ἥλιος, Φάνης, Εἱμαρμένη, Ἀνάγκη, Αἰὼν, &c. but that it refers to the Law and Order of the Universe, and the furnishing of it with Suns and Planets? And though the Decad, it being the Comprehension of all simple Numbers, may be a Symbol of the Universe, and upon that account be called Οὐρανὸς, Κόσμος, Τὸ πᾶν, Παντέλεια, and also Σφαῖρα, and by reason of the ἀνακύκλωσις, the Revolution in numbring from Ten to Ten again, and so in infinitum, as is obvious to observe: yet if there were no further drift or more serious reference to something else, the mere assimilation of this Number Ten to the World or a Sphear were a very juiceless and trivial thing.

6. In brief therefore, the Cabbala of the Decad or Tetractys, for they are all one, as *[63] Athenagoras has observed, is called Κλειδοῦχος or Key-bearer, First, because it was the Exposition of that part of the Mosaick Creation which was the closest locked up. For although that upon the mere granting a Philosophick sense of the Text, and that the First day's Creation is onely of Immaterial Beings, (as the Monad naturally implies) it will necessarily follow that the Earth is not said to be created at all, unless it can find place in the Fourth day: and that moreover the Text also does universally pronounce of the Lights that were made, That they were to be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; which is very hardly good sense, taken distributively, because these ends and offices will be coincident in some; nor can be taken by way of enumeration of offices or properties belonging to every one of the Lights of Heaven, unless there be Planets or Earths about all the Suns, which we usually call Fix'd stars: Yet these things are so faintly and obscurely insinuated, and that that distributive sense, though more harsh and inept, is so far possible, that the work of the Fourth day, unless we be admonished to the contrary by some knowing Mystagogus, will notwithstanding all this seem onely a particular creation of the Lights of Heaven as such, and in such a sense as is vulgarly conceited. And therefore for want of such an expressness in the meaning <124> of this day's Creation as is in the others, the Mystery thereof may well be look'd upon as sealed and locked up from vulgar sight, and thereby the most concerning things in the whole Cabbala. Whence also the Cabbala of the Tetractys, or the Traditional Explication of the Fourth day's work, must be acknowledged to be rightly styled Κλειδοῦχος, as being the Key-bearer or Opener of the most concealed Mysteries of the Creation.

7. And then secondly, The Tetractys in reference to the nature of the number it self and property thereof (though it be but a toy, and such as Lucian might justly deride, if there were no further usefulness in it) may well be called Κλειδοῦχος, in that it is so elegantly and expresly significative of the Cabbala of the Fourth day's Creation. And indeed the Analogy here betwixt the Sign and the thing signified is admirable: For as the Fourth day's Creation in external shew is but part of the Creation allotted to the Fourth day, as other parts to other days, but in a more recondite meaning is indeed the fashioning and ordering the whole Universe, framing of it into Suns, Planets and Vortices; so the Tetractys or Four, the Symbol hereof, is at first view but one certain number, part of the Decad, but in the hidden power comprehended therein is the whole Decad, 1, 2, 3, 4. put together making up Ten.

To which you may adde, That as the work of the Fourth day seems at first view to be onely the making of Lights, whose rayes are receiv'd in Pyramidal forme, whenas it was indeed the framing of the World, and contriving it into so many round Vortices: so the Tetrad or Tetractys in its apert nature is onely the First Pyramid (for Four is so in numbers) but in its more abstruse Power is a Sphere, as was noted *[64] above.

And lastly, As the Fourth day's Creation seems only to respect the visible and material World according to the external sense, but does necessarily imply an Immaterial Principle ordering the matter into that frame of things: so the Tetrad is only Feminine in its open or exteriour nature, but in its parts whereby it grows into a Decad is both Masculine and Feminine, as well 1 as 3 (as Zaratas would have it) being Masculine, and 2 and 4 Feminine: As in the more compound Tetractys 36 there are four Masculine numbers, 1, 3, 5, 7, and four Feminine, 2, 4, 6, 8. Which, as in the former consideration, intimates the necessity of conjoyning the Active and Passive principle in the Fourth day's Work, that is, in the Fabrick of the Universe. But in that the composition of these parts fall into thirty six, which is a circular Number in an easier sense then Ten, there may be intimated thereby that the whole Six daies Creation is comprised together in the Fourth, and that the framing of the World is by circumgyration of the Æthereal Matter into repeated Vortices. But this compound Tetractys belongs not to this present inquisition. The Analogie betwixt the Simple Tetrad and the Fourth Day's Creation in the Philosophick sense is so exquisitely express, that I think it is apparent by this time why it has gain'd the Title of Κλειδοῦχος amongst the Pythagoreans, its very property so fitly opening the right meaning of the Work of the Fourth Day.

8. And that it was called Κλειδοῦχος τῆς φύσεως, implies also that it <125> was intended chiefly and more immediately for an universal Natural Cabbala, the grand Theorems of Nature being comprised there, as Metaphysical Theorems in the First Day's Work and in the two following Chapters. Out of which considerations the reason is evident of all those Names given to the Denarius which signifie the Universal Law or Compages of Nature, which must be cast upon the Fourth Day, there being no Tenth Day of Creation for them to be cast upon. And Ten is the Tetractys as well as the Tetrad it self. *[65] As Thirty Six is called the Tetractys as well as the Four first masculine Numbers and four first feminine out of which it results.

9. That the Decad should be also called *[66] Κλαδοῦχος, the reason is very easie and natural, if referred to the Fourth Day's Cabbala. For taking hold of that root or stock, as I may call it, we have also hold of the branches. For the Cabbala of the Tetractys will naturally shoot out into the consideration of the first, second, third, and of the fifth, sixth and seventh Daies; the nature of the World not being rightly understood without reaching into them also, which are as it were the κλάδοι, the Sprigs or Branches on this side and that side of the Cabbala of the Fourth Day.

10. And for that third and last Name, Πίστις, it is a further argument that the Names of the Decad refer to the Fourth Day: it intimating that the Decad is also that very Tetractys by whose Inventer and Communicatour Pythagoras and his Followers were said to swear, in that the Decad is called Πίστις, as well as the Tetractys Ὅρκος, and πίστις is that assurance which is given by Oath. For πίστιν ἐπιτιθέναι is as much as to swear in the phrase of the Greek Language. So strangely and easily do things come about every where, and naturally fall in together to one joynt confirmation of the truth of the Philosophick Cabbala, and so manifest is it what special reason Pythagoras had to mention the Tetrad rather then the Pentad, or any other number, in that form of swearing by Him that first imparted the Cabbala. For if the Mystery had ended in the numbers themselves, and had not been the Symbols and Repositories of some real knowledge of things Natural or Divine, the Pentad had deserved that celebrity of an Oath better then the Tetractys, as I was *[67] above intimating.

To conclude therefore in general concerning the Pythagorick Names of Numbers, I dare appeal to any one if I have not got an hundred times more ground then I have lost by being called to this strict account, and if there has not been made a large accession of very pertinent Names to those I had before produced, as also a plain discovery how those came in amongst the Pythagorick Titles that are nothing pertinent to our present Cabbala. Which so punctual account cannot but give ample satisfaction to all such as know when to be satisfied.



1. The Second Objection, from the Unsutableness of the Pythagorick Philosophy to the Judaick Cabbala, which makes no mention of the Motion of the Earth; with the first Answer thereto. 2. A second Answer, wherein is shown how easy, if not necessary, it was, that the Motion of the Earth should be lost out of the Judaick Cabbala. 3. But that there is notwithstanding that in the Jewish Cabbala which will necessarily inferre the Motion of the Earth. 4. That the Ancient Wise men of the Jewes did hold the Motion of the Earth, as appears from Pythagoras his having drawn his doctrine from that Fountain. 5. That Numa Pompilius was descended from the Jews. 6. And that the Temple he built to Vesta is a Demonstration he held the Earth's Motion.

1. THE Second Objection against our Cabbala is that taken from the Maimedness of that Doctrine which I pretend to be Judaical or Mosaical, which should consist of these two main parts, The Motion of the Earth with those things that are necessarily involved therein, and the Præexistence of the Soul; the former whereof, say they, is not to be met withall in the Jewish writings. To which I answer,

First, That it is on this side the Generosity of my Design, merely to apply to Moses his Text such Truths as remain amongst the Writings of the Jews, and may be supposed Reliques of the ancient Cabbala; but that the high scope I drove at was, by the method I have taken, to recover to their cognoscence that noble part of their Cabbala which was lost, and yet which Pythagoras once had from their forefathers, as is abundantly testified by the suffrages of Historians. And truly this Physical part of the Cabbala which I have applied, fits so well and sticks so close to Moses his Text, not onely as to the things themselves, but also by virtue of the consideration of the Names and Properties of the Pythagorick Numbers, that by this Artifice, as by cramps of Iron, both parts of the Cabbala are held so firmly together in one, that it is made apparent to any indifferent eye, that the whole Cabbala is of one structure and piece, and belongs all to the Text of Moses.

2. And then again in the second place, I demand what is the Physical part of the Jewish Cabbala if this be not (for they will not deny but that Moses does Philosophize in this first Chapter of Genesis) or what so great and so true Theorems can they apply as I have applied to his Text? If they will answer there were indeed such, and so fitly applicable, but they are lost; I say, in that the Physical part was lost, it is a shrewd presumption, even from thence, that this is it which we have recovered, no Cabbala being so likely to be lost as this, it being a harder thing to communicate to one the Pythagorick systeme of the World then the Præexistence of the Soul; as appears in that it was a piece of Philosophy too big for the Capacity of *[68] Aristotle himself, who though he could name the opinion, and refer it to the Pythagoreans, yet he could not close with it. For the prejudice of Sense is great against it, and then the Philosophick and <127> Mathematical preparations more voluminous by far then what is requisite for the receiving of the doctrine of the Souls Præexistence. Whence it is, that though Platonism be derived from Pythagorism, yet it has left out the Theory of the Earth;s Motion; nay the Pythagoreans themselves had in time lost it, as it appears in *[69] Timæus Locrus, Apollonius Tyaneus, and in some of the Titles the Pythagoreans have given to their Numbers.

And yet fewer Jews would be found capable of receiving this part of the Cabbala, then Pagans; it being necessary for them that they be furnished not only with what preparations were required in the other, but also with a special hardiness of enduring to see the Cortex of the Mosaick letter as it were to break in pieces, to render up this recondite kernel for them to feed upon: whenas they might be taught the Præexistence of the Soul with little or no violence to the outward Letter of Moses, that is to say, to the Literal Sence of it. Wherefore in that the Motion of the Earth has been lost, and appears not in the remains of the Jewish Cabbala, this can be no argument against its having once been part thereof.

3. But thirdly, Though the structure of this Theorem be lost amongst them, yet the foundation is not, which is a fair evidence that the Edifice once stood there. And this foundation is to be seen not only in their language it self, which I have *[70] noted above, but also in their Writings, as that in Gemara, Non orbes, sed in cœlo liquido moveri sidera, vetustissima Hebræorum sententia est, ut *[71] nos docet Gemara ad initium Geneseos. But those most Ancient of the Hebrews, unless they were very short-witted, as certainly the nearer successours of Moses were not, but excellent Philosophers, Moses himself without all question being such, they could not possibly hold the Heavens liquid, but withall mought hold the motion of the Earth, nor they nor Pythagoras hold the Earth's motion without holding the Æthereal Vortices, as I have plainly demonstrated in my *[72] Letter to V. C.

4. And fourthly and lastly, That they did expresly hold the motion of the Earth, is in my apprehension sufficiently evinced already by what I have produced to prove that Pythagoras was either a Jew himself, or at least received his Doctrine from the Jews. Of which truth the Præexistence of the Soul and the Triunity in the Godhead, which Pythagoras taught, are no obscure indications. For it is plain out of the Book Jetsirah, that the Jews hold the Triunity of the Godhead as well as the Soul's Præexistence. Wherefore in all likelihood he drew his *[73] Physical Philosophy from the same fountain from which he did his Metaphysical. But this Physiological part of the Cabbala being neither so usefull nor obligatory as to matters of Religion, nor so easily received nor grasped by reason of the vast excursions in that Theory, or if grasped, hard to be held by any long succession of men; (whose minds are most engaged in their personal interest, whether in reference to this world or that which is to come;) it is no wonder, as I have already noted, that time wore it off, or let it sink and lost it, there being so few that were found fit, or that thought themselves concerned to receive it.

5. But nevertheless (which is the main thing I intended to answer in <128> this last place) though the fame of this part of the Cabbala be in a manner extinct amongst the Jews, yet that it was once the hidden Doctrine of the learned of that Nation, seems to me sufficiently credible from what Plutarch writes of Numa Pompilius. For his so strictly prohibiting the use of Images in Divine worship is very apparently Mosaical. As also that Principle of his, Οὐ καλῶς φορεῖσθαι τὰ ἀπόῤῥητα ἐν ἀψύχοις γράμμασιν, That inanimate Books are no fit bearers of secret Mysteries, shews that he was taught Cabbalistically by orall Tradition: and it is a thing confessed that there was a secret Tradition of more recondite learning amongst the Jews.

And Numa's Instructer is said to be not a Græcian, but βάρβαρός τις βελτίων Πυθαγόρου, some Barbarian greater and better then Pythagoras himself; and where, I pray you, was such an one to be found, unless descended from the Jews? But another fame, I must confess, there is, that he was taught by Pythagoras; but not by him of Samos, for he was some Ages after, but by one Pythagoras who was a Lacedemonian, as Numa himself was. For the Sabines were a Colonie of the Lacedemonians, as *[74] Plutarch affirms.

And to come home to the point, the Lacedemonians themselves were descended from the Jews, as appears both from the first Book of Maccabees and from Josephus.[75] For Areus King of the Lacedemonians in his Letter to Onias the high Priest does expressly affirm that it was found in writing, That the Lacedemonians and Jews were brethren, and that they were of the Stock of Abraham. And the Letter of Jonathan the high Priest acknowledges the Kindred, and that they found it so in their Records; and addes further, that they remember the Lacedemonians in their Sacrifices and in their Prayers, as it becometh brethren.

6. Well, be it so then, will you say, and it seems exceeding probable from all these circumstances, that Numa was both descended from the Jews, and imbued with the Jewish Religion and learning. What's this to the purpose? or how does it prove the Motion of the Earth once to have been part of the Judaical Tradition or Cabbala? Only thus much; That Numa did so religiously resent the truth of the Theoreme, that knowing there was no such august Temple of God as the Universe it self, and that to all the Inhabitants thereof it cannot but appear round from every prospect, and that in the midst there must be an ever-shining Fire, I mean a Sun; in Imitation hereof he built a round Temple, which was called the Temple of Vesta, concerning which Plutarch speaks very plainly and apertly;[76] Νουμᾶς δὲ λέγεταὶ καὶ τὸ τῆς Ἑστίας ἱερὸν ἐγκύκλιον περιβαλέσθαι τῷ ἀσβέστῳ πυρὶ φρουρὰν, ἀρομιμούμενος οὐ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς ὡς Ἑστίας οὔσης. ἀλλὰ τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου, οὗ μέσον οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ τὸ πῦρ ἵδρυσθαι νομιζουσι, καὶ τοῦτο Ἑστίαν καλοῦσι καὶ Μονάδα. Τὴν δὲ γῆν οὔτε ἀκίνητον, οὔτε ἐν μεσῳ τῆς περιφορᾶς οὖσαν, ἀλλὰ κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ πῦρ αἰωρουμένην, οὔτε τῶν τιμιωτάτων οὖτε τῶν πρώτων τοῦ κόσμου μορίων ὑπάρχειν. That Numa is reported to have built a round Temple of Vesta for the custody of a Fire in the midst thereof that was never to go out: not imitating herein the figure of the Earth, as if she was the Vesta, but of the Universe; in the midst whereof the Pythagoreans placed the Fire, and called it Vesta or Monas, and <129> reckoned the Earth neither immoveable, nor in the midst of the Mundane Compasse, but that it is carried about the Fire or Sun, and is none of the first and chief Elements of the World. What can be more plain then these Testimonies? But I leave it to every mans judgement to infer with what measure of confidence he thinks good.


1. The Third Objection, taken from the Heterogeneousness of the Exposition of the First Day's Creation to all the rest, it alone being Symbolical. 2. The Answer to the Objection. 3. That the Description of the Earth in the First Day intimates a Symbolical sense thereof; And how there is the same Idea in vulgar phansyes of Light or Day and of Heaven. 4. That Heaven in the First Day signifies the Immaterial Orders of Beings, expresly proved out of Origen. 5. The same further confirmed out of Parmenides the disciple of Diochætes the Pythagorean, whom it is probable to have been acquainted with the Text of Moses. 6. That the Jewish Rabbins also give their suffrage thereto. 7. Testimony of Scripture that the Creation of Angels and of the Souls of men is signified by the Light created in the First day. 8. That Heaven and Light understood of the Mundus Vitæ do not signifie merely Symbolically. 9. A further consideration evincing the same Conclusion. 10. That whether Heaven and Light signifie Symbolically or no, the First Day's work will not be so heterogeneous to the rest, an Evening and Morning being fetched from thence to every Day's Creation. 11. That the Metaphysical Hyle in the First day's creation is not called Earth merely Symbolically, a thing not hard to prove, but needless.

1. THE Third Objection is against our Exposition of the First Day's work. For they urge, that it is very Heterogeneal and strangely different from the Interpretations of all the rest of the Days, where the things mentioned are not Symbolical, but are properly what they are said to be: But Heaven and Earth and Light are not so in the First Day's Creation, but the Symbols of something else. Which makes the Cabbala go off but harshly, it seeming not all of one piece.

2. But I answer; The question is not whether the Interpretation may seem harsh to a nice and squeamish phansy, but whether it be true: which I think I have produced no mean proofs for already, & must further re-mind you how many there be that interpreting the story of Adam and Eve in Paradise literally, do notwithstanding not think it harsh to expound that of the Serpent symbolically. But there was also a necessity of speaking of the Creation of Immaterial Beings in a Symbolical way, Moses having a design not to mention any thing hard or subtile in the mere letter of the Text, as is acknowledged by all Interpreters. Neither could there be a Philosophical as well as a Literal Cabbala without taking this liberty; which ought to be freely granted, no uncertainty or obscurity arising <130> therefrom, by reason of the Cabbala of Numbers belonging to the Six Days Creation. For that trite Aphorisme of the Pythagoreans, -----Ἀριθμῷ δέ τε πάντ' ἐπέοικε, is here fully verified, as was, I suspect, chiefly understood at first of the Six Days Works, That all things were like to, or bore a resemblance of, the Number to which they referred. Whence we may be assured that Immateriality was the work of the First Day, a Monad or Unite being so express a signification of the nature thereof.

3. And that the Earth might not break that sense of the Cabbala, the description is such as does very naturally favour the Philosophical meaning, the Text calling it *[77] Vacuity or Emptiness it self, as I have already noted. Nor is it at all harsh that Heaven and Light are made Symbols of the same thing, not only for those Reasons I have already alledged, which verge more near upon Philosophy, (of which the chiefest is, that Heaven or Æther is the very body of Light, or Light it self when duly moved) but also from that notion or Phantasme that naturally arises from the Letter it self according to vulgar apprehension of things, who certainly have the same Idea in their minde of that illuminated Concave which is Heaven, that they have of Day distinct from the Sun. And there was no visible Concave at first but that of Day, there being then neither Moon nor Starrs to inlighten the Night.

And that this conceit of ours is sound, appears further in that Jupiter and Diespiter are the self-same Numen amongst the Heathen. And yet Jupiter, that is Jovis Pater, Father Jovis, is the convex Heaven. Τὸν πάντα κύκλον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Δία καλέουσιν, *[78] Herodotus speaks it of the Persians. And Dies Pater, that is, Father Dies (for, as *[79] Varro has interpreted it, it is the Nominative case, as in Marspiter, Neptunuspater, Januspater) what can it be but this illuminated Concavity or Convexity which is called Day, a distinct Numen amongst the Heathen as well as Night, who made the notorious Phænomena of Nature so many Deities; and Macrobius expressly, Cretenses Δία τὴν ἡμέραν vocant & Jovem Salii, in carmine, Lucetium? whence Dijovis in all likelihood is the same that Diespiter. But we will not dwell upon these toyes. It was sufficient to have noted that Οὐρανὸς and Ἡμέρα are all one in the Heathen Theologie with Ζεὺς, and therefore all one with one another. It is now more material to consider that without any light at all there can be no discernment of any thing, and that therefore Heaven must be vulgarly conceived under the notion of this luminous Concavity, which for the lightsomeness thereof is called Day, and for its height and hollownesse (for Cœlum is as much as Κοῖλον hollow) is termed Heaven, and that they are one joynt Object, especially in the First Day's Creation; Heaven being no where discoverable but in this newly-created Day, whose joynt appearances made up but one and the same Luminous Concave, as I intimated before.

Whence the literal sense of the First Day's work, as it is the Symbole or Representation of the Philosophical, is very easy and natural if you take it thus; namely, That first it is summarily said, God created Heaven, (that is, this Luminous Concave) and the Earth. But this Earth was nothing <131> but Emptiness and Vacuity, and darkness was on the face of the Abysse, &c. describing thus, First, the condition of the Earth more punctually, which is the first part of this day's Creation; but then after that coming to the other part, he tells us how God commanded the Light to be made, that is, this luminous Concave, Heaven, (for they are in Idea really the same, as I have said, and therefore the words Light and Heaven but Synonyma's here) and how he called this Light or Cœlum luminosum, Day, &c. Which structure and sense of things considered, it cannot but take away all scruple and conceit of any harshness in making Heaven and Light symbols of the same thing, namely, of that which the Platonists call Mundus vitæ, or the World of Life, and Forme.

Nor can it be objected that this Literal sense is incoherent with the Literal Cabbala we have framed already, where the Heaven is made on the Second day, and therefore cannot be literally made in the First. For I mean here by the Literal sense, not that continued popular sense or Literal Cabbala; for that is not supposed the Basis of the Philosophical (For these three distinct Cabbala's have no intended either agreement or disagreement one with another, as having no mutual reference at all, but grow out of the Letter which is common to all three, as three several sorts of Flowers out of one bed of Earth in a Garden.) But by the Literal sense here I understand such a sense as may be made out of the letter qualified and prepared by a skilful hand for a fit and unforced exhibiting any part of either the Literal, peculiarly so called, or else of the Philosophical or Moral Cabbala; whether this preparation be made by Grammar and Criticisme, or else by Phantasmatical or real and true Notion. For the Letter, as I said, is common to all three Cabbala's, but is to be prepared and fitted in each, not to a sense congruous to the series of things in either of the other two, but of those things in one and the same Cabbala. Which is a Principle that there is no man, that well considers, but must acknowledge both rational and necessary.

4. But now, that we have given the right sense of the first Day's Creation in our Philosophical Cabbala, besides what we have produced already, appears further out of *[80] Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, who comparing the Second Day's work with the First write thus; Καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ μονάδι συνίστησιν οὐρανὸν ἀόρατον, καὶ γῆν ἁγίαν, καὶ φῶς νοητόν. ἐν δὲ τῇ κοσμογονίᾳ τῇ αἰσθητῃστερεὸν οὐρανὸν δημιουργεῖ. Which interpretation *[81] Origen follows exactly, Cum antea, saith he, Deus cœlum fecisset, nunc firmamentum facit, id est. corporeum cœlum. Fecit enim cœ prius, de quo dicit, Cœlum mihi sedes est. And a little after; Cum enim ea quæ facturus erat Deus ex spiritu constarent & corpore, ista de causa in principio & ante omnia cœlum dicitur factum, id est, omnis Spiritalis substantia, super quam velut in throno quodam & sede Deus requiescit. This therefore is that Mundus vitæ which is the highest Throne of God. Which the Pythagoreans also call Ζανὸς πύργος, the Tower of Jupiter, it being his highest habitation, and is also termed his Δημιουργικὴ φρουρὰ, the external framing of the World in all the parts of it being immediately or instrumentally performed by it, as the Fœtus is in the wombe.

5. According to which sense is that of Parmenides, That there are but <132> two Principles, πῦρ καὶ γῆ, which in Hebrew would be , Lux & Terra, or (which I have shewn to be the same,) Cœlum & Terra; and addes further, Καὶ τὸ μὲν δημιουργοῦ τάξιν ἔχειν, τῆν δὲ ὕλης. Which does so exquisitely answer to the *[82] Text of Moses in the Philosophical sense, that it will be hard to doubt but that he had these two Principles from thence, the one Active or Demiurgical, the other Passive or Material. The one symbolically called πῦρ, , Lux or Æther; the other γῆ, which is , Terra; Heaven and Earth. And for that Riddle which *[83] Laertius addes further, Γένεσίν τε ἀνθρώπων ἐξ ἡλίου πρῶτον γενέσθαι, ἀυτὸν δὲ ὑπάρχειν τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν, I leave to the ingenious to unriddle from and , and the Hebraism of the *[84] article which I have noted, and then to judge in how right a sent of things we have been in the pursuit of the meaning of the Physical part of the Philosophick Cabbala, and whether Pythagoras did not understand things the same way. For this Parmenides was a Pythagorean, as having been an Intimate of one Diochætes a follower of Pythagoras: Which Diochætes, as Sotion writes, was indeed poor, but a aingularly-honest and good man; for which reason Parmenides adhered to close to him for his society while he lived, and had so great an honour for him, that he built an Ἡρῶον, or Chapel, to him when he was dead.

All which Circumstances may justly make a man suspect that this Diochætes was acquainted with the Jewish Learning & the very letter of Moses, (as *[85] Pherecydes Syrus is also said to have gotten τὰ Φοινίκων ἀπόκρυφα βιβλία, that is, the secret Books of the Phœnicians or *[86] Hebrews) or, if you will, with the Literal and Philosophical Cabbala. From whence Parmenides might take occasion of making that Distribution of Philosophy into such as is accurately and intellectually true, and such as is according to the Appearance of things to the Vulgar. Δισσήν τε ἐιναι τῆν φιλοσοφίαν, τὴν μὲν κατ' ἀλήθειαν, τὴν δὲ κατὰ δόξαν. The latter of which, were it not in some such respect as I have intimated, would not have been taken notice of by Parmenides for any piece of wisdome or Philosophy at all. And that δόξα will signifie external Appearance, is plain in that *[87] Epicurus divides that which appears ab extra into ἐνάργεια and δόχα, and Democritus in Laertius has defined, ἀρχὰς ἐιναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους καὶ κενόν. τὰ εὐ ἄλλα πάντα νενομίσθαι, δοξάζεσθαι. that is as much as to say, φαίνεσθαι, to be φαινόμενα, or externall appearances.

To this πῦρ καὶ γῆ of Parmenides exactly answers that Couple of Principles amongst the Pythagoreans, φῶς καὶ σκότος, which plainly point at the Light and Darkness in the beginning of Genesis; the Pythagoreans rendring φῶς, Parmenides, πῦρ, and the one calling the Hyle γῆ, the other σκότος, but both reflecting on the Text, where Hyle is denoted by both those characters. And that Parmenides meant not this sensible Earth is plain out of *[88] Aristotle, who saies that Parmenides ranked his first Principle Fire, κατὰ τὸ ὂν, θάτερον δὲ κατὰ τὸ μὴ ὂν, such as Plotinus describes Hyle to be: and Theodotion renders κένωμα καὶ οὐδέν. But I have run out too far, let us return to Origen.

6. Consonant to that Interpretation of Origen is that general Doctrine of the Jewish Rabbins, Solium gloriæ Dei creatum esse ante creationem <133> Mundi, as you may see in *[89] Maimonides. But that that which is the Throne of God should be called Heaven, is no wonder, nothing being more ordinary then the placing of his Throne there. Wherefore, according to the general consent of the Rabbins, there was an Heaven made before the Creation of the outward World. And when, I pray you, then should it be made, if not in the first day? or what can be His throne that is said to sit upon the Cherubims, but the Angelical Orders? And that the Cabbalists expound the Creation of Heaven to be the Creation of Angels, *[90] Menasseh Ben Israel assures us, and alledges the Targum upon Job, and Moses Ægyptius to the same purposes.

7. But not only Origen, Alexandrinus, and the Jewish Writers put in their suffrage for our Interpretation, but, if I be not mistaken, the very Scripture it self, nay I may say God himself personally in the Scripture Job 38. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. When the Morning-Stars sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for Joy? Where what is meant by the Morning-Stars, he must be blinde that cannot discern from the following Exegesis, namely the Sons of God, which is as much as the Angels; who are called Morning-Stars Symbolically, and in allusion to the First Day's Creation, namely the creation of Light, which was the Morning of the World and the Birth of Spiritual and Angelical Beings. And therefore again, v. 19, 21. concerning this First Day's creation of Light, he asketh Job another like question; Where is the way where Light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof? alluding certainly to the Light and Darkness mentioned in the First Day. For thereupon he demands further, Know'st thou that thou wast then generated or made, and that the number of thy Dayes is great? So the learned of the Jews read it, and do out of this Text confidently conclude their Præexistence of Souls. Which if they do rightly, no question but their Creation is involved in the creation of Light in the First Day's Work. From these Testimonies I think it is plain enough, that by the Creation of Heaven or Light is understood, as Origen has ventured to affirm, the Creation of all Spiritual substances.

8. But further, to come nearer to the Objection, I do not conceive it necessary to acknowledg that Heaven and Light do signify merely Symbolically, but that the Things created the First day may be called most truly and properly by those Names, though they were first given to the Material Heaven and Visible Light: as the words Spiritus, Anima, and Ψυχὴ, were terms first given to that which is material, meaning thereby a waft of Aire, Winde, or breath, but now signify, and that properly and truly, the first of them any Immaterial substance, the two latter the Soul of man which is Spiritual and Immaterial. And so it may be with Heaven and Light, that which is conceived of Heaven belonging more truly and eminently to the Mundus Vitæ then to the Material Heaven it self. *[91] For the generations of sublunary things, their Fates and Periods, that vital Inluence, and the Measurings of time, I do not doubt but all are more truly, more primarily and properly attributed to the World of Life, in which are all the Seminal Forms of things, then they are to the corporeal Heaven; & do hugely suspect, though I will not affirm, that the Lights of <134> Heaven themselves would not be what they seem to us, let the Matter be never so subtile & soundly agitated, were they not actuated also by the Spirit of Nature, & became in some sort Vital thereby: insomuch that I conceive Spirit to be a further illumination of Light it self, as when the Soul acts in the eye. Besides, considering the promanation and intertexture of the Rayes of Light, that which is said thereof is more eminently and perfectly true in the nature of every particular spirit (as I have *[92] elsewhere shown at large) then in Light it self. That apprehension also that Heaven is the highest part of the Creation, is not severely and Philosophically true in the material Heaven, it being every where and the Earth it self a Planet: but it is irrefragably true of this Heaven that was created the First day; which is also the inaccessible Light where He swels unto whom the eye of no mortall can reach.

9. Besides all which, There being such a constant and necessary union betwixt the Æthereal or Heavenly Matter and the Mundus Vitæ in all the parts thereof whereever they act, in this regard also it is plain that the terming the First day's work Heaven and Light is not merely Symbolical, but reaches the very nature & property of the things: according as Virgil does seriously Philosophize in those expressions touching the Souls of men, Igneus est ollis vigor, & cœlestis origo Seminibus; quantum non noxia corpora tardant, Terreníque hebetant artus, moribundáque membra.[93] Whereby he would insinuate that there is an igneous, luminous, or Æthereal Vehicle alwaies intimately adhering to the Soul, though it be much slaked and damped with the gross and crude moisture of the Body during this Earthly Peregrination.

10. And lastly, whether we phansy Heaven or Light to signifie symbolically or no, there will not be that Heterogeneity and difference from other Day's Creations as is conceited; this Lightsome Heaven or Heavenly Light being symbolically called the Morning of each Day's Creation, as the Material part or Passive Principle is styled the Evening. Which Morning is alwaies a parcel of that full Day which was first created, and is castigated and mitigated by its conjunction with the dark Matter into a moderate Matutine Splendour, as those several parts of the Matter thus and thus modified, answering to the several Capacities of that dark Emptiness and Vacuity (which was the Midnight opposite to that full Day) being raised to an actual Materiality, may go for the Evening-Twilight of every Day's Creation being the μεθόριον betwixt the Mundus vitæ or Full day, and that Metaphysical Hyle or Midnight, so soon as once its parts have but material existence, or exist as to their Matter; as the Dusk of the Evening is the μεθόριον betwixt Day and Night.

11. And now if we would be so toyishly, or rather tediously, curious, we might also goe about to prove that the Earth mentioned in the First day's Creation, which is nothing but that Metaphysical Hyle, ought not to be thought to be so much symbolically as truly and properly so called, the most peculiar Attributes of the Earth being only true in it. For the Earth strictly and philosophically considered is neither the lowest of the <135> Creation, nor immovable; but this Metaphysical Earth is both, as is manifest at first sight, it being the lowest degree and shadow of Being; and not only immovable, but undiminishable and unimpairable, as I have already noted. But this is a subject not worth the polishing, the main work of the First day being the creating of Heaven or Light; and the description of the Earth there being such as does easily enough assure the Philosophick sense to any that are not over-scrupulous; of which more in the following chapter: and lastly, it being a matter of no such great consequence whether Earth and Heaven and Light signify Symbolically or no; seeing that let their signification be what it will, it is, in such sort as I have described, carried down to the work of every day, whereby the whole piece becomes sufficiently homogeneal.


1. That Hyle or first Matter is mere Possibility of Being, according to Aristotle. 2.That the same is but Empty Space or Capacity of Body, according to Plato and Plotinus; and how fitly the Description of Hyle in them agrees with Moses his Terra inanis & vacua. 3. What in Plotinus his description answers to Abyss, Darkness, and Waters in Moses. 4. That Plotinus seems to make Hyle a mere Non-Entity. 5. But that his more express Opinion is, that it is the Potentiality of Corporeal Beings, and Entity in reversion. 6. How this Hyle may be said to be created. 7. Why Moses would take notice of so lank and evanid a business as this Hyle seems to be, in his Six Days Creation. 8. That Incompossibility is involved in the notion of the Mosaick Hyle, with a special reason why the Pythagoreans might call the Decad Ἀνάγκη.

1. BUT now for those Three additional Quære's touching this Metaphysical Hyle; The first of them is concerning the Name thereof, why I would adventure to give so substantial a name as Hyle, which is as much as to say, Matter, to that which I acknowledge to have no Being but a Metaphysical one, and that such a Metaphysical one as is not truly any Being, but a mere Capacity thereof. But I answer, That I have rather surnamed the Hyle of the Ancients Metaphysical, then transplanted the name of Hyle to a mere Metaphysical Entity. For so far as I can find, they usually allow their Hyle no more Entity then I have allotted to it in my description thereof; namely, That it is the Capacity only of the existence of the Corporeal or Sensible World, but it self is neither Substance nor any thing else actually. Λέγω δ' ὕλην ἣκαδ' ἁυτὴν μήτε τὶ, μήτε ποσὸν, μήτε ἄλλο μηδὲν λέγεται οἷς ὥρισται τὸ ὄν. It is Aristotle's Definition of Matter in his *[94] Metaphysicks. And again not far after, Τὸ δυνατὸν ἐιναὶ καὶ μὴ ἐιναὶ, τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ ἐν ἑκὰστῳ ὕλη, The possibility of being and not being, that is the Hyle or Matter in every thing.

2. And Plato, in his Timæus, casting things into Three ranks, makes one kind to be, Τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον εἶδος, which is intelligible, ingenerable and <136> incorruptible, invisible and immovable: The second kind is what has some resemblance of this, and bears the same name with it, but is sensible, corruptible, and movable: The third he makes τὸ τῆς χώρας, Place or Space (Plutarch interprets it διάσμα) φθορὰν οὐ προσδεχόμενον, ἕδραν δὲ παρέχον ὅσα ἔχει γένεσιν πᾶσιν, ἀυτὸ δὲ μετ' ἀναισθησίας ἁπτὸν, λογισμῷ τινι νόθῳ μόγις πιστόν. This is his description of Matter, as both Plutarch and also Plotinus supposes. But it is a very suspicable business that he means no more then empty Space by it; which he calls χώρα, and which is very hard to conceive what it is, but makes it also the seat and foundation of all generable things, and accordingly *[95] Plotinus calls it ὑποβάθμα. Which answers exactly to Terra inanis & vacua in Moses, Stability and Emptiness being thus comprised in one.

Plotinus insisting upon this notion of χώρα, makes Matter such to the Bodies of the world as an empty room is to our Senses, and affirms that it is impassible,[96] Οἷον ἐν οἴκῳ τῷ ἀυτῷ ἀλλήλους παιόντων ὁ οἶκος ἀπαθὴς καὶ ὁ ἐν ἀυτῷ ἀὴρ, as when men strike one another in the same room, neither the room nor the aire therein is concerned in their strokes. Answerably to which notion he calles Matter εἴδωλον καὶ φάντασμα ὄγκου,[97] the shadow and phantasm of bulk; and adds further, that it is τὸ ἀντερεῖδον μὴ ἔχον, a thing that has no resistency. For τὸ ἀντερεῖδον μὴ ἔχον answers to what he speaks to the same purpose in his *[98] sixth Ennead, Ὀυδὲ γὰρ ὀρθῶς τὸ ἀντιτυπὲς ἀυτῇ διδόασιν. And therefore in his *[99] second Ennead he styles Matter ὄγκου ἐπιτηδειότητα, only a preparation or Capacity of bulk, as appears in that he calls it also κενὸν ὄγκον, an empty bulk, and in the eighth Chapter flatly denies that it has either rarity or density or magnitude.

And further expressing the desolate condition of the Matter in his *[100] third Ennead, he calls it τῶν ἀεὶ προσαιτοῦ πενίαν, and τῶν πάντων ἐρημίαν, an ever-craving penury and universal desolateness, whose want is rather mocked then supplied: the Forms it seems to receive being like the Echoes in hollow solitudes, not imbibed, but rebounded, nothing sticking of what it participates, but being as a Looking-glass, which rather reflects then receives images. Which is consonant to what *[101] elswhere he writes, Δεῖ δὲ ἀυτὴν μὴ σύνθετον ἐιναὶ, ἀλλὰ ἁπλοῆν καὶ ἕν τι τῇ ἀυτῆς φύσει, ὅυτω γὰρ πάντων ἔρημος, That the nature of Hyle must not be compound, but simple and one, that it may be void of all: which shews how fitly it is ranged in the First day's work. Besides that he plainly declares, Ὅτι ἡ ὕλη ἕν τι τῶν ἀσωμάτον, That Hyle or Matter is in the rank of Incorporeals, both in his *[102] second and *[103] third Ennead.

Such plentiful expressions are there in Plotinus that answer to Moses his , which signifie Vacuity and Emptiness, or κένωμα καὶ ὀυδὲν, according to Theodotion. We have already intimated that hyle is called ὑποβάθρα and ἕθρα, which answer to the Stability of the Earth, the first Appellation of the Mosaick Hyle. And Plotinus is very express in that similitude of the Echo to which he compares the Forms which the Matter is said to receive: *[104] Ἀλλ' ἔμεινεν ἡ ἀυτὴ ἡ ὕλη ὀυδὲν δεξαμένη, ἀλλ' ἐπισχοῦσα τὴν πρόδον, ὡς ἕθρα ἀπωθουμένη. In which words he compares the Matter to a fixed seat against which the Forms do as it were hit, but do not sink in, so that he will have the Matter to remain as before, unchanged and un- <137> movable. Accordingly as he also expresses himself in the eleventh Chapter, That the Matter has neither more nor less by the access or recess of Forms, μένει δὲ ὃ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἦν. Which word μένειν he often uses in setting out the steddiness and immutableness of the Matter, in that sense that Pato uses it speaking of the stability of the Earth, Μένει δὲ ἑστία ἐν θεῶν οἴκῳ μόνη. So that these flitting Forms and Matter are as the Generations of men and the Earth, One generation goeth and another cometh, but the Earth standeth fast for ever.[105]

3. That also sutes very well with the third Appellation of the Mosaick Hyle (namely Abysse) which Plotinus has in his *[106] second Ennead. Τὸ δὲ βάθος ἑκάστου ἡ ὕλη, διὸ καὶ σκοτεινὴ πᾶσα, That the Profundity of every thing (he calls it the τὸ ἔσχατον *[107] elsewhere) is the Matter; and therefore is ever dark. Which Darkness is a fourth Property of the Mosaick Matter, and on which Plotinus insists pretty copiously in this *[108] second Ennead, and contends we can have no other notion of it, it being οἱον ὀφθαλμῷ τὸ σκότος, as darkness is to the Eye: and that the Soul can no otherwise see it ἢ ὡς ἀσχημοσύνην καὶ ὡς ἀλαμπες. And a little after, Τοῦτο νοεῖ ἀμυδρῶς ἀμυδρὸν, καὶ σκοτεινῶς σκοτεινὸν, καὶ νοεῖ ὀυ νοοῦσα, as a man sees darkness. And lastly, that he may not seem not to have touched, at least, every part of the Mosaick description of the First Matter, what Moses may mean by the mobility of the Waters Plotinus has expressed by τὸ ἀόριστον, or ἡ ἀοριστία, the Indefiniteness or Undeterminateness of Matter.

4. And truly I think what we have produced hitherto bids fair for a proof that he means no substantialler a Being by Matter then what may well be called Metaphysical. But he speaks broader, and yet more compendiously, in his *[109] third Ennead, where (as *[110] Clemens also sayes Plato styles the Matter) he calls it τὸ ἀληθινῶς μὴ ὂν, That which is truly Non-Entity: and a little after further describing it, οὗ τὸ ὂν ἐν φαντάσει οὖκ ὄν ἐστι, Whose Entity being but in imagination is no Being: And in chapter the thirteenth he declares, That if Matter would keep herself what she is, ἀνάγκη ἀυτὴν μὴ μόνον τῶν ὄντων ἄδεκτον ἐιναὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἴ τι μίμημα ἀυτῶν, καὶ τούτου ἄμοιρον εἰς οἰκείωσιν ἐιναὶ, she must necessarily be unreceptive of all Entityes: nay, if there be but the least shadow of them, she must not share therein, that she may conserve to herself her own property.

5. But the Philosopher is so severe in such expressions, that he seems to strip Matter more naked then she really ought to be. But he is more moderate in others, where he will permit her to be the Possibility. As in Ennead the *[111] sixth, Εἰ γὰρ δύναμίς ἐστιν ὃ μέλλει ἔσεσθαι, ἐκεῖνο δὲ μὴ οὐσία, οὐδ' ἂν ἀυτὴ οὐσία, For if that be only Potentiality which is to come, and that which is to come no Essence or Substance; Matter, which is but Potentiality, is no Substance or Essence. And in Ennead the *[112] second he will allow Matter to be Essence in Reversion. Τὸ εἰναὶ ἀυτῇ μόνον τὸ μέλλον ἐπαγγελλομενον, The Being of Matter is only an expected or promised Being, or, as I said, a Being in reversion. And toward the end of the Chapter he concludes, Εἴπερ ἄρα δεῖ ἀυτὸ εἰναὶ, δεῖ ἀυτὸ ἐνεργείᾳ μὴ εἰναὶ, ἵνα ἐκβεβηκὸς οὑτ ἀληθῶς ἐιναὶ ἐη τῷ μὴ ἐιναὶ ἔχῃ τὸ ἐιναὶ. And in the close of all, Εἴπερ ἄρα δεῖ ἀνώλεθρον τὴν ὕλην τηρεῖν, ὕλην ἀυτὴν <138> δεῖ τηρεῖν, τουτέστι, δυνάμει λέγειν ἀυτὴν ἐιναὶ μόνον ἵνα ᾖ ὅ ἐστιν. The sense of both which sentences is but this, That the Essence of Matter excludes real Existence, and consists only in Capacity or Possibility of Being. Whence it is manifest, That this Platonical Hyle which I have applied to the First Day's Creation may rightly be called Metaphysical, or, if you will, that which has but the most evanid Metaphysical Entity by called Hyle, which was the thing aimed at.

6. But now there is a more dangerous Quære that emerges out of the Answer to the former, namely, How this mere Capacity or Possibility of corporeal and sensible Beings can be said to be created. For this Possibility and Capacity seems to be of it self, and to need no Creation. But I answer, That Creation is nothing else but an Emanation of the Creature from God, as *[113] Aquinas has determined; and I say, that this Possibility and Capacity of things is the utmost Projection or Emanation from the Divine Existence, and would not be without Him. For if He were not, every thing else would be impossible to be. Therefore this Possibility depending on Him, and being not a mere nothing according to the Metaphysicians, who allow Ens in potentia to be truly Ens as well as Ens actu, it is rightly said to be created by Him. And if Creation be ex nihilo, this is much more eminently so then any, that which is below it being the most absolute Non-ens that is conceivable; which is, as I said, Impossibility, which would be the state of all things were there not a God.

7. The third and last Quære is, why Moses should take notice of so lank and evanid a business as this mere Possibility of the external Creation. For what good is there to consider that the Possibility of an House or Statue is before the Masons and Statuaries making of them? But I answer, The reason is not the same, there being an infinite difference betwixt the whole Universe and an House or Statue, and betwixt God and a Mason or Statuary. And therefore in such vast things as God and the Universe every minute consideration will be great: and we see that humane understanding has ever thought it so. For mens minds have been much puzzled and plunged in the diving down to the lowest and last ground of all things, which they call Hyle, and have commonly defined it such as I have described it, a mere Potentiality.

Besides, is that a contemptible Notion or Speculation, to consider that the very Possibility of other Beings is from God; and that it is impossible for any thing to be without Him? For as it is an Aphorism most true, so is it also very closely connex with Piety and Religion; and such a Philosophy we are to expect from so holy a man as Moses.

And lastly, when we say, This Hyle is the Potentiality or Capacity of things, it involves also in it Incompossibility, as being a finite Capacity or Possibility. And therefore from hence there will be a necessary sequel of such things as are accounted evil in the World. For such a Capacity or Possibility as is but finite dwells next door to Necessity, the Mother of Mischief, as is intimated in the Pythagorick verses, though upon another occasion, -----Δύναμις γὰρ ἀνάγκης ἐγγύθι ναίει. <139> Nor can I make any allowable sense of *[114] Plato's Ἀνάγκη πολλὰ τῷ θεῷ δυσμαχοῦσα καὶ ἀφητιάζουσα, of his Necessity that does refractorily and untamedly resist and oppose God, but this Incompossibility of the Creation. But in that he calls it ἄτακτον ψυχὴν καὶ κακοποιὸν, and ψυχὴν ἐναντίαν καὶ ἀντίπαλον τῇ ἀγαθουργῷ, is either a ranting piece of Rhetorick; or rather Poetry, or else a gross mistake of Moses his Text (for that he was acquainted with it I have intimated before) he interpreting in such a sense as the Literal Cabbala has expressed it, which he conceived to be the effect of this ψυχὴ ἀτακτος καὶ κακοποιὸς which he imagined.

8. But the face of the First Matter in Moses is horrid and dismal enough without any such freakish conceits fetch'd from the misunderstanding of the Literal Cabbala, to make it bewray its own guilt and accessoriness to those evils that happen in the World. And being no other then such as has been hitherto described out of Plotinus, Plotinus himself does notwithstanding lamentably complain of the mischiefs arising out of it, in his Περὶ τοῦ τίνα, καὶ πόθεν τὰ κακὰ, where he defines this Hyle to be κακοῦ οὐσία, and τὸ πρῶτον κακὸν, The essence of Evil,[115] and the First or Original Evil; and giving a reason of what evil there is in the World, he writes thus, Μεμιγμένη γὰρ οὖν δὴ ἡ τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου φύσις ἔκ τε νοῦ καὶ ἀνάγκης, καὶ ὄσα παρὰ θεοῦ εἰς ἀυτὸν ἥκει ἀγαθὰ, τὰ δὲ κακὰ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχαίας φύσεως τῆς *[116] ὕλης λεγομένης. That the world is mixt of Intellect and Necessity, and that those things that come from God are good, but the evils are from that antique Nature which is called Hyle. But it is, I must confess, pretty humoursomely spoken of him to call this Hyle antique, unless it be merely in reference to particular vanishing shows in the World: For the World it self is as antique as this Hyle according to his own doctrine elsewhere. As in his fifth *[117] Ennead, where he makes the Universe a necessary Emanation of God, and the natural Image of the Eternal Intellect: and thence inferres, Πᾶσα δὲ φύσει εἰκών ἐστιν ὅσον ἂν τὸ ἀρχέτυπον μένῃ. And in *[118] another place, Ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστιν ὁ Κόσμος, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ λογισμοῦ γενόμενος, ἀλλὰ φύσεως ἀμείνονος γεννώσης κατὰ φύσιν ὅμοιον ἑαυτῇ. And in the foregoing chapter to this Citation he sayes the very same thing, Γέγονε δὲ ὁ Κόσμος οὐ λογισμῷ τοῦ δεῖν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ δευτέρας φύσεως ἀνάγκῃ, That the World was not made by consultation and reason that it ought to be so, but by the immediate Necessity of the emanation of an After-Nature. Which Conclusions of Plotinus if they be true, I should think this as eminent a reason as any why the Pythagoreans called the Decad, which is their Symbol of the Universe, Ἀνάγκη, that is, Necessity.

But I the more willingly made this excursion, because it makes for the more easy understanding of what I was going to adde for the further proving that Plotinus makes Hyle the Root of all evils. In the first *[119] Ennead, as before, Ἐπεὶ γὰρ οὖν οὐ μόνον τὸ ἀγαθὸν, ἀνάγκη τῇ ἐκβάσει, τῇ παρ' ἀυτὸ ὑποστάσει, ἢ, εἰ οὕτω τις ἐθέλει λέγειν, τῇ ἀεὶ ὑποβάσει καὶ ἀποστάσει, τὸ ἔσχατον, καὶ μεθ' ὃ οὐκ ἦν ἔτι γενέσθαι ὁ τιονῆ, τοῦ το ἐιναὶ τὸ κακόν. ἐξ ἀνάγκης δὲ ἐιναὶ τὸ μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον, ὥστε καὶ τὸ ἔσκατον. τοῦ το δὲ ἡ ὕλη μηδὲν ἔτι ἔχουσα ἀυτοῦ, καὶ ἄυτη ἡ ἀνάγκη τοῦ κακοῦ. For since that the Soveraign Goodness is not alone, it must needs be that, by an Egression, or gradual Subsidency or Descent or Distance from it, the Extreme, and after which it was im <140> possible there should be any thing, that this must be the Evil. And of necessity there is something after the First, so that there must be an Extreme. And this is Hyle or Matter, having nothing of the First, and this is the Necessity of Evil: namely so far forth as this Hyle has nothing of the First, nor is capable thereof. Which is as much as to say, that the Incompossibility or Incommensurability in the lowest creation of things (and such is the Corporeal World) is this Ἀνάγκη, this Necessity of Evil. That there would be an Impossibility of all things if there were no God, but there is now an Incompossibility or Incommensurability in these lower things notwithstanding that there is one: as it is impossible that the edge of a Knife and the back should be alike strong.

Which considerations of this Metaphysical Hyle are not so trivial, nay are rather so weighty, that they may very well be thought worthy of Moses his distinctly taking notice of them in that squallid and horrid hew he sets out this Hyle or First Matter in, in the First Day;s Creation, and for these reasons, his having made it part of the First Day's work. For it is such a truth as deserves a serious meditation; nor can it misbecome a Philosopher to speculate the First grounds of those effects for which all-foreseeing Providence has so expressly fitted the generality of mankind, in furnishing them for the reception of such odd and cross occurrences with those high and histrionical Passions of Laughter and Weeping. So plain is it that our making this Metaphysical Hyle to be signified by the void and formless Earth enveloped with waters and darkness, is a sound and unexceptionable Interpretation.


1. A new Supposition concerning Hyle, as if it were an actual material Substance, and how applicable Moses his description is thereunto. 2. How it can be referred to the First Day's Creation, of which an Unite is the character. 3. How it will be found to be the Inferiour Waters in the Philosophical sense. 4. What coagulated the Monadical consistence of this Physical Hyle into a capacity of becoming Æther or the Second Day's work. 5. That the supposition of this Physical Hyle is very passable, if of Monadical consistence; otherwise intolerable.

1. BUT if it will be an ease to any mans mind to have a more plump and perceptible Object couched under this name Hyle, the Text peradventure is not altogether uncapable of it. For suppose we should make this Hyle real and actual Matter, consisting of those perfect Parvitudes (which I have *[120] elsewhere described) actually divided one from another, and equally charged with so much motion or thereabout as is now conserved in the World; the attributes of that Hyle described in Moses will agree very well thereto.

For first, it will be ἕδρα and *[121] ὑποβάθρα a ground and seat for Forms: and being thus a Sustentacle or Foundation, be fitly represented by the <141> term Earth. As also it will be such a Βάθος or Profundity as the name Abysse may well reflect upon, it being the deepest or lowest of the real Creation. Then for Vacuity and Emptiness, this Hyle is utterly empty of all sensible Forms (and we suppose it as yet not joyn'd with any Substantial ones) and is not so much as thin or thick to the touch, because not perceptible at all, and is truly that τὸ μετ' ἀναισθησίας ἁπτον which *[122] Plato ventured at, it being indeed tangible in it self, but not so to the touch of man or Angel, by reason of the infinite subtilty of the consistency thereof. And must needs be therefore as a void Solitude and empty Space, a mere Vacuum as to the search of any created sense; which roving up and down could finde no crassitude any where but what these perfect Parvitudes have, which are so infinitely subtile that no Touch can perceive them, so that all will seem as absolutely empty and void.

And thirdly, this wast Solitude will be as dark as Pitch, insomuch that of the Sun were where it is now, and the rest of the Vortex were of this consistency of Matter I describe, it would be as black as Midnight, as I could easily demonstrate.

And lastly, for the Fluidity or Waterishness of it, it is infinitely more Water, that is to say, more fluid then Water it self; and if Thales his opinion had any truth in it, it must be found here. But *[123] Aristotle seems to make this the Philosophy of far ancienter Sages, Such, saith he, as made Oceanus and Tethys the fathers of Generation, τῆς γενέσεως πατέρας, (for so he speaks) and taught that Water, namely Styx, was the Oath of the Gods. Τιμιώτατον γαρ τὸ πρεσβύτατον, ὅρκος δὲ τιμιώτατόν ἐστιν. And certainly such a Water as this Hyle is which I have described, which the Sun cannot so enlighten as to be seen through it, or any light from the Sun, must be a Stygian water indeed: and it is here observable that the Pythagoreans called the Monad Styx. So fitly does the nature of this Physical Hyle thus described agree with those Attributes in Moses his Text.

2. But how will you be able, will you say, to make it sute with the character of the Day, namely with an Unite or Monad, and so carry things down into the Second Day's work so as you do in your Metaphysical Hyle, which you make the Waters under the Firmament, and that Firmament the vastly-extended matter, which is properly divisible, and therefore denoted by the Binary, and being framed into an Æthereal consistency is called Heaven, which environs every Earth, as lying next to the Physical waters thereof, which are every where to be gathered together into one place, &c?

I must confess, that the nature of the Physical Matter being divisible, and the Binary so express a note thereof,[124] and the Metaphysical ἕν τι καὶ ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀσώματον, as *[125] Plotinus has described it, I could not withhold but conclude, That the Metaphysical Hyle belonged to the First day, and the Physical to the Second. Which is a very sober and safe Interpretation, as appears from what has been said. But I shall hold on, and try how tolerable the other will prove.

I say therefore, That this Physical Hyle, as I have described it, is also ἕν τι καὶ ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀσώματον, in a very considerable sense. It is one and simple, that is to say, exactly uniform every where, and indivisible into any <142> parts that are of a different nature; whenas the Firmament in the Second Day is distinguishable into the First and Second Element. And then again, as to any sense it is as good as incorporeal, being only ἁπτον μετ' ἀναισθησίας, as Plato has phrased it to our hands, and therefore may well be ranged amongst incorporeal Beings. But besides, it consisting of actual perfect Parvitudes and of nothing else, which are so many Physical Monads, and utterly indivisible in themselves, as the incorporeal Beings created the First day are, but separable, as they likewise are, one from another; it may unforcedly be referred to the First day's work.

3. But now as touching the Waters under the Firmament; This Physical Hyle thus considered with all that ἀοριστία and fluid Undeterminatenesse of the Possibility of corporeal Creatures which is necessarily inherent in it, will be fitly and expresly enough those inferiour Waters. And the or , the Firmament or Heaven, will be an Order of Being betwixt this Physical Hyle (wherein is comprised the abovesaid Possibility of things and Indeterminateness) and those Immaterial Beings that descend εἰς γένεσιν, and are noted by the name of Superiour Waters or Waters above the Firmament. For this thin Primordial Water consisting of mere Physical Monads was before the Firmament, and filled all. Out of this, and in order next above it, was the Heaven or Firmament, or, as the Greeks call it, Æther; and next above this Æther, and which was created before it, is that part of the World of Life that descends into generation. This is the Order of things; and it is easily intelligible, you will say, that the Æther is a middle Term betwixt those two Extremes, the Physical Hyle and the World of Life.

4. But you will farther demand how this Primordial Water, this Hyle consisting of mere Physical Monads, should ever coagulate or cruddle into that consistency of the Æther, which is made up of the globular particles and of that thinner Element, but both much grosser then the first consistency of the Matter. But to this I have nothing to answer, but that that which in the efformation of Animals coagulates the first humid Matter there into such organized consistency of several degrees and uses, the same also coagulated this primordial consistency of the Matter of the World into such different degrees of crassitude as was fit to produce those two Elements of which the Æther does consist: and that though the World be a Machina, yet the Mechanick or Artificer is not Matter, but some other Principle in the World of Life.

Wherefore the Monadical consistency of the Matter being lost in the production of the Æther, and it expresly falling also into two distinct principles, which Cartesius has judiciously taken notice of, the Creation of this Æther or Heaven does naturally come under the character of the Binary, and is fittingly placed in the Second Day.

Nor is it needful to adde how all things will now go on orderly as before, and how this Æther will environ the Physical or Sensible waters that cover the Earths, in which joynt the Literal and Philosophical Cabbala easily fall in together, as they do in the Fifth and Sixth Day's Creation. Nor does it belong to this place to consider, how after the Stygian Darkness of these Primordial Waters, the Matter being coagulated, as was above <143> said, and set upon Vortical Motion, Light dawned out in infinite parts of the World, and the whole Heavens at last glistered bright with innumerable Suns or Stars, this speculation appertaining altogether to the Fourth Day's Work.

5. In the interim, it is plain that this new Interpretation is very passable: and thought the Authority of Plotinus and the Platonists bear strong toward the first, whose suffrage may justly seem the more considerable, they being of the succession in the Philosophick Cabbala; yet that venerable Father of the Church, St Austine, favours this second, and Plato himself calling Matter ἐκμαγεῖον και μητέρα, seems to insinuate that it is more then Metaphysical; as also Plutarch his affirming that both Plato and Aristotle make the Matter σωματοειδῆ. But if this Physical Hyle be not conceived to have been of a Monadical consistence at first, this Interpretation which upon that Hypothesis is so plausible, or rathher unexceptionable, will without it be found intolerable. For this Hyle will then be necessarily devolved to the Binary, or else the Pythagorick Numbers will signify nothing at all. But admitting it to have been of such a consistence at first, all things will follow smoothly and easily, and either Exposition prove fit and rational to any indifferent judgment; but which to prefer I leave to the liberty of the peruser. And yet I cannot abstain from casting in thus much in the behalf of this latter, That Generation is out of that which is more liquid then what is generated; and that there is noting more liquid then the Heavens, unless this Primordial Water of Monadical consistence, this ancient Styx, the solemn Oath of the Gods as you heard out of Aristotle.


1. The Fourth Objection, taken from the preposterous placing the Suns in the Fourth Day and the Earths in the Third. 2. The Answers; First, That the inflexible Order of those Six mystical Numbers of the Creation was intended only as a Repository for memory and concealment, not for a book of accurately-digested Method. 3. Secondly, That the Method is not so reprehensible as is pretended, the Earth rightly following the Æther (which is the Second day's work) as the immediate effect thereof; 4. As does the garnishing of the Earth also (as the first assured effect of the conjunction of the Active Principle with the Æther in the Second Day) but rightly precedes the Fourth day's work, as the End or Object thereof. 5. That it was not needful, nor it may be possible, that one and the same series Text should bear a threefold sense with the same exactness of order in things belonging to each of them.

1. THE Fourth Objection is, That the Order of those things comprised in the Six days creation, according to the Philosophick Cabbala, is harsh and preposterous; the work of the Fourth day being more naturally to be placed in the Third, Suns being before <144> Planets, and Planets before there can be Earths to be garnished with Rivers, Plants and Flowers. And therefore according to the Priority of Nature the Creation of Suns and Planets should have been placed before the garnishing of the Earth with Sea, Rivers and Plants.

2. But I answer, That the Objection is made upon this mistake, as if the external Cortex of the Text of Moses in this order of the Six daies Creation were a Covering of limber silk, not a Cabinet made of hard Materials, and so figured and framed that every part cannot be alike capable of receiving every thing into it. Wherefore the rule of placeing things must be the Cabinet it self, not our desire or phancy that would place them. Just so the case stands in this mystical Repository made up of the six first Numbers, whose natures are immutable and inflexible, and their order not to be transposed or inverted. And therefore those noble Truths of Philosophy that are to be couched or concealed under them, are to be laid in such as are most significative of them, and in such order as the Numbers themselves stand. From whence it was necessary that the garnishing of the Earth should precede the adorning of the Universe with Suns and Planets, because the Number Three precedes the Number Four; and these were the fittest Numeral Boxes, as I may so speak, for the receiving those great Truths hid in the Third and Fourth day's Creation into this mysterious Cabinet: which is only the Repository of memory and mystical concealment, not a Book of natural and accurately-digested Method; but yet not the less serviceable for the occasional imparting these Mysteries to them that were thought worthy of them: which could not be without fuller Converse, wherein all things would be orderly and methodically unfolded.

3. And this Answer I hold so substantial, that I account it superfluous to adde any thing more, though I might also contend that the order of things themselves is not so unnatural as is pretended. For the Second day's work is the Æther or Heaven, which consists of the first and second Element of Des-Cartes, whose third Element, which yet is the effect of the first, is all that of which the Earths consist. In what a natural order therefore does the consideration of the Earth succeed that of the Firmament or Heaven as the effect thereof, and so take place in the Third Day? For though, by reason of some circumstance, as namely of the gathering together of the subtiler part of the Æther by the recession of the Vortex into the form of a Sun, the Earth may be look'd upon as the Third from the Æther in order of production, and for this cause the Ternary be fitly called Τριτογένεια in Pythagoras his School; yet it is also really an immediate product of that subtile principle in the Æther, and which is as much Æther as the other Principle therein. Wherefore the placing the Earth immediately after the Æther is, in this respect, according to natural Order, and may pass for tolerable Method.

4. The Garnishing also thereof with Land and Sea, Trees, Grass and Flowers, is the first assured effect of that Active Principle united with Matter, mentioned in the Second Day's work. So that the Earth with its vegetative Garnishings does orderly enough succeed the Making of the Heaven or Æther, but needs not be said to be created the Third day, be <145> cause an Earth and Primary Planet being all one, it is comprised in the Creation of the Fourth. Wherefore the Earths with their furniture succeed the Second Day's creation as an Effect thereof, but precede the Fourth Day's Creation, as being an Object of those things that are there said to be created. For the Sun, Moon and Stars are made to shine upon the Earth, and send down their influences thereon for the seasonable resuscitations of the Seminal Powers of Plants and Herbs. So that the Earth seems to be the Finis Cui of the Creation of the Luminaries of Heaven as Luminaries, and therefore according to the Priority of Nature rightly enough precedes, whether as the Final Cause or Object of their Influence: As both the Furniture of the Earths and the Luminaries of Heaven precede in order, as Objects of the Senses of Man and other Animals that are said to be created on the Fifth and Sixth daies.

And thus the Order of the whole Six days Creation in the Philosophical sense is natural enough and Logically coherent, though not everywhere under the notion of Causality, nor this Causality every where that of the Efficient.

5. And it had been a needless Miracle, and it may be impossible, to contrive one and the same Text to answer in accurate Order to the popular Appearances of things, to the severity of Philosophick Truth, and the Moral Allegory at once. With all which this Text of Moses is charged, & does to admiration make good the design as to all considerable intents & purposes: but an exact concatenation of the Series of things throughout is more then ought to be expected, no such Accuracy being industriously intended, but only that the Order of Numbers according to their significancy should be a Repository of Notes and Remembrances; but the management of the Cabbala it self, (that is, of the ancient Philosophy of the Jewes,) left to the skill of the Mystagogus, when he was consulted, who would not fail to declare all things in a due and natural Method.


1. The Fifth Objection answered, concerning the pretended Trivialness of the Ffith Day's Work: 2. As also of the work of the Sixth day. 3. An Answer to the Sixth Objection, against that Ὑστερολογία implied in our Interpretation of Paradise; First, in reference to Grammar and Criticism: 4. Secondly, in reference to the nature of things themselves. 5. An Answer to the Last Objection, made against the interpreting the Cherubim and Flaming Sword to be a state that Adam must pass through or into, before he can become immortal. 6. That there was a necessity of so punctually and continuedly fitting a Philosophical sense to Moses his Text, because of the Interruption of the Tradition of the Mosaick Philosophy.


1. AS for the pretended Rrivialness of the Fifth and Sixth Day's work; I think it is apparent from what we have noted on the Fifth Day, that Moses his ranging of Fish and Fowl together is a consideration not vulgar and trivial, but Philosophical. And his Distinctly allotting them a Morning and Evening, that is, an Active and Passive principle, is the pointing at a Truth very weighty, and useful for the giving a timely stop to that dangerous mistake of making mere Matter capable of sense and cogitation; which would be a great prejudice to the belief of the Existence of humane Souls themselves.

2. And for the Sixth day's work, there is yet less reason for such a Detraction. For, first, he is Philosophically judicious in reckoning Man amongst the Mediterraneous Animals, because the conformation of their inward parts especially is nearer one another then to either that of Birds or Fishes: And the external similitude of Mankind with Apes (whose species are many) is so near also, and goes off so by degrees to those that are more throughly Quadrupedal, that it is evident that men and they are held together naturally in one subordinate rank and Series. And then again, that is of very great moment, there being this nearnesse and affinity in outward and inward conformation of parts betwixt Men and Beasts, especially some kind of Apes, so distinctly and expresly to declare that Man notwithstanding is of a condition highly raised above them, and of a nature plainly Divine, being in respect of his Soul the Image and Likeness of God; and (which is remarkable) not less such for her actuating this Terrestrial body as God does the World: as is insinuated in the Cabbala it self, and is so weighty a Philosophical truth, that it is not fit for every mans consideration.

Nor is the mention of their multiplication, which refers to the contrivance of the genital Organs in all Creatures, both in the Fifth and Sixth day, as also of the provision of food, low and trivial, but noble speculations, and the grand pledges of a Divine Providence. So widely are they mistaken that think thus meanly of what is mentioned in the Fifth and Sixth day's Creation.

3. The Sixth Objection is against our going back in our Exposition of the eighth verse of the second Chapter, and fetching things higher then from the Efformation of Adam out of the ground; whenas, according to the order of the Narration, after Adam was made[126], God planted him a Garden to solace himself in, &c. But I answer, that I have done no violence to Grammar at all in this my Exposition that seems thus preposterous. For Vatublus himself reads it, Plantaverat autem Deus, &c. And I only adjoyn, & posuerat illic hominem quem formavit, for his & posuit quem formaverat: For the Preterimperfect, Preterperfect, and Preterpluperfect Tenses are expressed all alike in the Hebrew. And that I have in the Cabbala interserted postea [which afterward he formed into a terrestrial Animal] both the mention immediately preceding of that kind of Efformation and the propriety of the word warrants me to it. For this Terrestrial efformation of Adam was after the planting of Paradise, according to the wiser sort of them that understand the Text only lite <147> rally, who acknowledge that Paradise was made on the Third Day, when God caused the Trees to germinate out of the Earth. And therefore it is not harsh to take the same liberty in our Philosophick Cabbala.

4. But now if we respect the things themselves, and the strict Philosophical sense of them, the order of the Narration according to our Exposition is admirably natural and easie: this History of Paradise and Adam's fall from that Happiness being immediately subjoyned to the repetition of his Terrestrial Efformation, as containing the cause and reason why so noble a Creature as Man should ever appear in this Terrestrial body, whereby he is ranked amongst Brutes. It insinuates therefore that it was not so at first with him, but that God had placed him in a more Heavenly condition, and that by the temptation of the Devil he fell from that state, and sinking by degrees was at last absorpt into Terrestrial generation, and was clad in the skins of Beasts.

And there are of the Jews that interpret this very Paradise of a state before the World was created, reckoning it amongst the seven things that were created before the World. From whence it does plainly follow, that if Adam was placed in this Paradise, he was before he appeared in an Earthly Body. Which is expresly the Opinion of the Jews, as appears from what *[127] Menasseh Ben Israel cites out of Gemara Haguigæ: In cœlo Empyreo esse domicilia vitæ, & pacis, & animarum justorum & Spirituum, atque etiam animarum istarum quæ in Mundum venturæ sunt. And out of Bereshith Rabba he saith, That the wise men of his Nation interpret that of the Psalms, Post & ante me formati, of the creating Adam, that is, mankind, first in the First day, and after in the Sixth.[128]

Adam was therefore created amongst the Angelical Orders part of the First Day's Creation, when God made Heaven or Light. All which Intellectual Orders of Beings then created are called Heaven and Light, because, as I have intimated *[129] before, their first and immediate vestment or Vehicle is lucid or Æthereal, in which they stood Probationers. And it would be no less then a Demonstration that this was their first state, if after the discussion of the darkness of the Chaos, speaking Physically, all the World was either light or diaphanous, I mean either Suns or Æther; as it would naturally be, if the Original of all Planets were the Incrustation of Stars or Suns. But this is an Excursion so wilde or so wide, that I am awakened, as it were with a fright, out of this Reverie or Dream.

5. The seventh and last Objection is against our interpreting the Cherubim and flaming sword (in the close of our Cabbala) to be a State that Adam or Terrestrial Mankind is to enter into, before they can be repossessed of the celestial Paradise and become capable of Eternal Life; whenas the Text seems to import that the Cherubim and flaming sword are not to let in, but to keep out Adam out of Paradise.

But to this I answer, That after God had driven Adam out of Eden to till the ground from whence the Terrestrial Adam is taken, or, if you will, was taken, according as was mentioned before, (for the Argument of the Narration was the Terrestrial Adam, what he had been and how he came to fall) after, I say, that Adam was turned out of Paradise, and that he became Terrestrial and Mortal, God (according to the <148> Text) is only said to place Cherubims and a flaming sword to keep the way of the Tree of Life. Which does not imply an utter prohibition of all passage, but a condition thereof, namely, that there is no passage but through this Fiery Guard. And it is as proper for a Porter or Guard to let in as to keep out. So little incongruity is there in the sense we have given in that respect.

And that these Fiery flaming Cherubims are an Hieroglyphick of a certain State that the Terrestrial man must passe into, before he can come to the enjoyment of a blessed Immortality, this is no private conceit of mine, but has the suffrage of no less then Five several Interpreters on the place; namely, St Ambrose, Origen, Lactantius, Basil, and Rupertus, as Cornelius à Lapide affirms: who sayes, it is the joynt Opinion of them all, grounded upon this Text, to weet, That there is a Fire set before the entrance into Heaven, which all Souls must passe, St Peter and St Paul not excepted, that they may be tried and purged thereby, if there be any impurity in them. So warrantable is it to make these Fiery Cherubims an Emblem of some state or condition of the Soul, that must fit it for the tasting of the Fruit of the Tree of Immortality. But the phancying of this to be the passing through an external flame or Fire, I must confess I think has too much of the Μυθῶδες and Παιδαριῶδες in it to be admitted for the sense of the Philosophick Cabbala.

Wherefore I interpreted it of the Fiery or Æthereal Vehicle, or of the condition of the flaming Cherubims, namely, That we cannot attain to the state of Immortality before we passe into this order of Beings, and become like unto them.

Whereas therefore it is said that these Flaming Cherubims keep the way to the Tree of Life, being placed before the Garden of Eden, it is but in such a sense as when Hesiod sayes, Τῆς ευ' ἀρετῆς ἱδρῶτα θεοὶ προπάροιθεν ἔθηκαν, That God has made Labour the porter of the Gate of Vertue; and in such as Virgil places Grief, and Care, and Sickness, and Old Age at the entrance of Orcus, Vestibulum ante ipsum primisque in faucibus Orci Luctus & ultrices posuere cubilia Curæ, &c. Of which certainly there is no other sense in either place, then that by being laborious a man shall attain unto Vertue, and no otherwaies; and that by being overcharged with Care, Grief, Sickness, or Old age, a man shall be sent packing into the state of the dead. So Spencer, to omit several other instances in him, in making those two grave personages, Humilta and Ignaro, the one the Porter of the House of Holiness, the other of the Castle of Duessa, can understand nothing else thereby but this, That he that would enter into the House of Holiness must be like Humilta, an humble man; and he that can conscienciously passe into the communialty of the imposturous Duessa, must be a very Ignaro.

In like manner, the sense of the placing these flaming Cherubims before Paradise and the gate to the Tree of Life, is only that they may be for an Hieroglyphical Representation, to shew what a one a man must be, or what state or condition he must partake of or pass into, before he can ar <149> rive to a blessed Immortality; namely that he must recover his fiery Vehicle, to be made Angelical, ἰσάγγελος, and enter as it were into the order and condition of the Celestial Angels. Which I think is so easie and unexceptionable a sense, that nothing can be more.

Unless peradventure it may seem still easier, if we superadde also, That the being assimilated to these Cherubick Orders is not without considerable Colluctation and Conflict, the Soul not being able to approach the Angelical nature in her inward advances but with pain and agonie. (Who shall dwell with devouring fire? who shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, he shall dwell on high, &c.) Which Colluctation, or, if you will, Digladiation, may be represented by the flaming sword turning every way: As if the meaning were, That he that would recover the capacity of eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life, must first undergoe the combat with the fiery Angelical nature, through which state he is to pass before he can come to be made partaker of life and immortality. For that external Things and Persons are the Symbols and Hieroglyphicks of internal Dispensations in Holy Scripture, is so trite and obvious, that I need not take notice thereof.

6. I have by this time, I hope, made all smooth and plain in my Philosophical Cabbala, and taken away every imaginable scruple concerning the fitness and concinnity of things and clearness of those grounds I goe on, and have so expressly and articulately in every punctilio fitted a Philosophical sense to the Letter of the Text, that I must confess I do not hold it probable that either Pythagoras or any one else had so particular and minute an account of the Cabbala thereof from any Jewish Priest or Prophet, supposing they had any at all, as my self have given. Not that I am so vain as to imagine with my self, that I have a certainer knowledge of the meaning of the Mosaical Text in this Philosophical way then they had; but because it was not needful for them to insist upon so curiously fitting a sense to every clause thereof as I have done: they being able to perswade their inquisitive Mysta upon the faith of a continued Tradition, that this or that was the Philosophical meaning of Moses; whenas this Tradition being interrupted so many Ages, I was necessitated to find a rational account or meaning of every thing, lest the probability of truth should be doubted in all.

Which if any one think too great a curiosity, as it may be it is, (and yet why should a man conceit he has found any thing fit that was not intended by that Wisdome that prevents all thoughts?) he amy content himself with those more plain and general strokes of the Cabbala, not expecting to find every passage of the Text concerned in such a Philosophical sense: For thus the whole Contexture will be as an Apple of Gold with pictures of Silver, as I have already noted out of Maimonides. But if I have fitted a Philosophical sense to every clause with that unexceptionableness that he can hardly refrain his assent, I hope he has no cause to complain that the Cabbalist has put into hand a Ball of pure and continued Gold.



1. The Cabbalist's Apologie whereby he would clear himself of the imputation of either trifling Curiosity, 2. Rashness in divulging such hidden Mysteries, 3. Or of Inconstancy in judgment. 4. The main Aime of his Philosophick Cabbala. 5. The reason of placing it before the Moral.

1. THus much in Defence of my Philosophick Cabbala. It will not be unseasonable to subjoyn something by way of Apology for the Cabbalist: For I find my self liable to no lesse then three several imputations, viz. of trifling Curiositie, of Rashnesse, and of Inconstancy of Judgement.

And as for the first, I know that men that are more severely Philosophical and rational will condemn me of too much curious pains in applying Natural and Metaphysical Truths to an uncertain and lubricous Text or Letter; whenas they are better known and more fitly conveighed by their proper proof and arguments, then by fancying they are aimed at in such obscure and Ænigmatical Writings.

But I answer, There is that fit and full congruity of the Cabbala with the Text, besides the backing of it with advantages from the History of the first rise of the Pythagorical or Platonical Philosophy, that it ought not to be deemed a fancie, but a very high probability, That there is such a Cabbala as this belonging to the Mosaical Letter: especially if you call but to minde how luckily the nature of Numbers sets off the work of every day, according to the sense of the Cabbala.

And then again, for mine own part, I account no pains either curious or tedious that tend to a common good; and I conceive no smaller a part of mankinde concerned in my labours then the whole Nation of the Jewes and Christendome; to say nothing of the ingenious Persian, nor to despair of the Turk, though he be for the present no friend to Allegories.

Wherefore we have not placed out pains inconsiderately, having recommended so weighty and useful Truths in so religious a manner to so great a part of the world.

2. But for the imputation of Rashness, in making it my businesse to divulge those secrets or mysteries that Moses had so sedulously covered in his obscure Text; I say, it is the privilege of Christianity, the times now more then ever requiring it, to pull off the veil from Moses his face: And that though they be grand Truths that I have discovered, yet they are as useful as sublime, and cannot but highly gratifie every good and holy man that can competently judge of them.

3. Lastly, for Inconstancy of Judgement, which men may suspect me of, having heretofore declared the Scripture does not teach men Philosophy; I say, the change of a mans judgement for the better is no part of Inconstancy, but a Vertue, nay part of that Vertue which is Constancy, it being the constant purpose of a good man to embrace that which is best and truest; whenas to persist in what we find false is nothing but per <151> versnesse and pride. And it will prove no small argument for the truth of this present Cabbala, in that the evidence thereof has fetch'd me out of my former opinion wherein I seemed engaged.

But to say the truth, I am not at all inconsistent with my self; for I am still of opinion, That the Letter of the Scripture teaches not any precept of Philosophy concerning which there can be any controversie amongst men. And when you venture beyond the Literal sense, you are not taught by the Scripture; but what you have learned some other way, you apply thereto. And they ought to be no trash, nor trivial Notions, nor confutable by Reason or more solid Principles of Philosophy, that a man should dare to cast upon so sacred a Text; but such as one is well assured will bear the strictest examination, and that lead to the more full knowledge of God, and do more clearly fit the Phænomena of Nature and external Providence to his most precious Attributes, and tend to the furthering of the holy Life, which I do again professe is the sole end of the Scripture. And he that ventures beyond the Letter without that guide will soon be bewilder'd, and lose himself in his own fancies.

4. Wherefore if this Philosophick Cabbala of mine, amongst those many other advantages I have recited, had not this also added unto it, the aim of advancing the divine Life in the world, I should look upon it as both false and unprofitable, and should have rested satisfied with the Moral Cabbala. For the divine Life is above all Natural and Metaphysical knowledge whatsoever. And that man is a perfect man that is truly righteous and prudent, whom I know I cannot but gratifie with my Moral Cabbala that follows. But if any more zealous pretender to prudence and righteousnesse, wanting either leisure or ability to examine my Philosophick Cabbala to the bottome, shall notwithstanding either condemn it or admire it; he has unbecomingly and indiscreetly ventured out of his own sphere, and I cannot acquit him of Injustice or Folly.

5. Nor did I place my Cabbala's in this order out of more affection and esteem of Philosophy then of true holinesse, but have ranked them thus according to the order of Nature: the holy and divine Life being not at all, or else being easily lost in man, if it be not produc'd and conserv'd by a radicated acknowledgement of those grand Truths in the Philosophick Cabbala, viz. The existence of the Eternal God, and a certain expectation of more consummate happinesse upon the dissolution of this mortal Body. For to pretend to Vertue and Holinesse without reference to God and a life to come, is but to fall into a more dull and flat kind of Stoicism, or to be content to feed our Cattel on this side of Jordan, in a more discreet and religious way of Epicurism, or at least of degenerate Familism.

[1] See Iamblich. de vita Pythag. cap. 1.

[2] Ethic. Nichomach. lib. 7. cap. 1.

[3] De vita Pythag. cap. 3.

[4] See Iamblich. de vita Pythag. cap. 28.

[5] Diogen. Laert. in vita Platon.

[6] See Clem. Alexandrin. Stromat. lib. 1.

[7] Orig. contra Cels. lib. 6.

[8] * In his D{illeg} Historicis G{illeg}cis, lib. 3. Strab. lib. 1.

[9] Exod. 35. 32.

[10] * Denar. Pythagoric. cap. 6.

[11] * See Selden de Diis Syris Syntagm. 2. cap. 1.

[12] * De Cœl. lib. 2. cap. 13.

[13] * Macrob. in Somn. Scip. lib. 1. c. 11.

[14] * Plutarch. De facie in Orbe Lunæ.

[15] See Johan. Meurs. Denar. Pythagoric. cap. 6.

[16] * See also Philo Jud. Περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ προπαιδεύματα σηνοδου.

[17] * Plotin. Ennead. 3. lib. 6, cap. 19.

[18] * In Somn. Scipion. lib. 1. cap. 6.

[19] * Philos. Cabbal. chap. 1. v. 5.

[20] * Plin. Histor. Natural. lib. 34. cap. 6.

[21] * See Chap. 6. sect. 6.

[22] * See Tacit. Annal. lib. 15. sect. 37.

[23] * In Somn. Scipion. lib. 1. cap. 6.

[24] * Metaphys. l. 1. c. 5.

[25] * Plutarch. de Placitis Philos. lib. 2. cap. 12.

[26] * See Paulus Fagius upon the Text.

[27] * De Cœ, l. 2{illeg} cap. 13.

[28] * In vita Numæ.

[29] Nicomach. Gerasen. Arithmet. Theolog. lib. 1.

[30] * In his de Iside & Osiride.

[31] *Denar. Pythagor. cap. 7.

[32] *Ch. 3. sect. 7.

[33] * De cœlo, l. 2. cap. 13.

[34] * See chap. 5. sect. 2. where the Decad is called Θεός.

[35] * Arist. Ethic. lib. 5. c. 6.

[36] * Diogen. Laert. in Vita Pythagoræ.

[37] * Johan. Meurs. Denar. Pythag. cap. 8.

[38] * Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 6.

[39] Nicomach. Gerasen. Arithmetic. Theolog. lib. 2.

[40] * Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 5.

[41] * In his Cosmopœia Mosaica.

[42] Wisd. 1. 14.

[43] See Cab. Philos. ch. 2. v. 2, 3.

[44] * See Cabb. Philosoph. c. 2. v. 3.

[45] * Johan. Meurs. Denar. cap. 12.

[46] * See also chap. 1. sect. 8. and chap. 8. sect. 7.

[47] * Ennead. 2. lib. 2. cap. 10.

[48] * See Phil. Jud. De Somniis.

[49] * See Phil. De Monarchia.

[50] * In his De vita Mosis.

[51] * In his De Monarchia.

[52] * Pomegranates

[53] Phil. de vita Mosis.

[54] Exod. 28. 34.

[55] * Phil. de Monarchia.

[56] * Macrob. Somn. Scipion. lib. 2. c. 1.

[57] * Metaphys. lib. 13. c. 3, 4, 5, 6.

[58] Phil. de vita Mosis.

[59] * See chap. 8. sect. 7, 8.

[60] Baruch. 3. v. 35, 36, 37.

[61] * See Levit. 21, v. 10, 11, 12.

[62] * Phil. de Monarch.

[63] * Μέγιστος μὲν ἀριθμὸς ὁ δέκα κατὰ τοὺν Πυθαγορικοὺς, ὁ τεξακτύς τε ὢν, &c. Apolog. pro Christianis.

[64] Sect. 3.

[65] * Plutarch. de Iside & Osiride.

[66] * See Johan. Meurs. Denar. Pythagor. c. 12.

[67] * Ch. 4. sect. 6.

[68] * De Cœlo, l. 2. cap. 13. Meteorolog. lib. 1. cap. 6.

[69] * Τῶ δ' ἐν μέσῳ ἱδρυμένα, ἑστία Θεῶν, ὅρος τε ὄρφνας καὶ ἡμέρας γίνεται. Tim. Locr. De Anima Mundi.

[70] * Ch. 3. sect. 10.

[71] * See Grot. in Decalog.

[72] * Epistol. ad V. C. sect. 7.

[73] * See chap. 1. sect. 8.

[74] * In vita Numæ.

[75] 1 Macc. ch. 12. v. 21. Jos. Antiquit. Judaic. lib. 13. cap. 11.

[76] Plutarch. in vita Numæ.

[77] * See Vatablus upon the place. Theodotion also renders it Emptiness, and Nothing.

[78] * Histor. lib. 1. cap. 131.

[79] * De lingua Latin. lib. 4.

[80] * Strom. lib. 5.

[81] * Homil. in cap. 1. Geneseos.

[82] * See the two following Chapters, particularly ch. 9. sect. 4.

[83] * In vita Parmenidis.

[84] * Upon vers. 17. chap. 1. Cabbal. Philosoph.

[85] * See Hesych. Illustr. in Pherecydes.

[86] * Judæam enim ad Palæstinam, Samariam & Galilæam ad Phœniciam apud Historicos pertinere. Steph. See also Ortel. Geogr. sacr. tab. 1.

[87] * Sext. Empiric. advers. Mathem. lib. 7.

[88] * Metaphys. l. 1. cap. 5.

[89] * More Nevoch. part. 2. cap. 26.

[90] * De Creat. Probl. 25. sect. 5.

[91] * See Psychozoia Cant. 1. Stanz. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47.

[92] * Immortal. Book 1. ch. 5, and 6.

[93] Æneid. l. 6.

[94] * Lib. 6. cap. 6. & 7.

[95] * Ennead. 6. lib. 1. cap. 28.

[96] * Ennead. 3. lib. 6. cap. 9.

[97] Lib. 6. cap. 7.

[98] * Lib. 1. cap. 28.

[99] * Lib. 4. cap. 11.

[100] * Lib. 6. cap. 14, 15.

[101] * Ennead. 2. lib. 4. cap. 8.

[102] * Lib. 4. cap. 9.

[103] Lib. 6. cap. 6.

[104] * Ennead. 3. lib. 6. cap. 14.

[105] Eccles. 1. 4.

[106] * Lib. 4. c. 5.

[107] * Ennead. 1. lib. 8. cap. 7.

[108] * Lib. 4. c. 10.

[109] * Lib. 6. cap. 7.

[110] Strom. lib. 5.

[111] * Lib. 1. cap. 27.

[112] * Lib. 5. cap. 5.

[113] * Aquinas in 1. qu. 45.

[114] * Plutarch. de Animæ Procreatione.

[115] Ennead. 1. lib. 8. cap. 7.

[116] * See Psychozoia Cant. 1. Stanz. 9, 44, 45.

[117] * Lib. 9. cap. 12.

[118] * Ennead. 3. lib. 2. c. 3.

[119] * Lib. 8. cap. 7.

[120] * Immortal. Book 1. ch. 6. also Pref. sect. 3.

[121] * Plotin. Ennead. 6. lib. 1. c. 28.

[122] * Chap. 8. sect. 2.

[123] * Metaphysic. lib. 1. cap. 3.

[124] Chap. 8. sect. 2.

[125] * Ennead. 2. lib. 4. cap. 8.

[126] Gen. 2. 8.

[127] * De Creat{illeg} Prob. 15. sect. 5.

[128] Psal. 139. 4.

[129] * Chap. 7. sect. 8.

Cite as: Henry More, The Defence of the Threefold Cabbala, 2nd ed., from A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings (1662), pp. 99-151,, accessed 2024-07-12.