YOV are pleas'd to ask my Opinion concerning the time of the Birth and Death of Pythagoras, and of the chief Passages of his Life; and also of the Lives of other famous Men his Contemporaries. I am sure you know these things better than I; and therefore you need not come to me for Information. But if you have only a mind to know my opinion of these matters, I can't deny you that: and in truth that is all I can tell you of that great Philosopher. Not but that I have by me every thing that I observ'd concerning Py­thagoras, when I read the old Greek and Latin Authors; and to satisfie your desire, I have put my Collections in order to draw out a Chronological Account of his Life, if it were possible. But now they are here be­fore me, I know not well what to make of them; they look like Moon-shine in rough Water, all over Discord and Confusion: Out [Page iv] of which I am so far from making out that which I design'd, a perfect Account of his Life, that I must confess, I can't do any thing towards it. There is not in all my Collection, any one certain year in which any thing happen'd to him, or was done by him.

Yet I cannot lament that great Man's mis­fortune in this, nor ours neither: for as he was a perfect Iugler, so his Life, being all fast and loose, I must needs say, is written worthy of himself: and it is not only come intire into our hands, notwithstanding those defects I have mention'd; but with many Improvements by later Writers, who have striven to out-do one another in Stories to his Honour and Praise.

Of those Jonsius de Script. Hist. Phi­los. many eminent Writers that have employ'd their Pens on this Subject, there are three that have given us his History at large; Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry and Jamblichus. These three, I believe, have cull'd out all that was remarkable in any of the rest: and the two last were his great Admirers who would not omit any thing that might make for his Glory.

They describe him as a very extraordina­ry Person, for his Parts and Inventions for the good of Mankind: they tell us what Dis­coveries he made in natural Philosophy: how much he advanced the Mathematical Scien­ces, as well by his Studies as his Travels. But [Page v] above all, they magnifie his knowledge of the Gods, and of the things of Religion.VIII, 2. Laer­tius tells us, he was initiated in all the Sa­cred Rites, as well of the Greeks, as Barba­rians. Those other Writers of his Life take particular notice of this in every Stage of his Travels. And yet Porphyry will not let his Reader be ignorant, that Pythagoras was a Deist, as well as himself; and took both Apollo and Jupiter for no other than deify'd Men, which he shew'd by the Verses that he made in those places where he was to see their Sepulchres. Indeed by those Verses one cannot but think that he despised those made Gods in his Heart: and so did proba­bly those Philosophers that tell us these things; though, according to the latitude of their Principles, they were nevertheless as zea­lous as he was for the propagating of Hea­then Idolatry.

What Notions men have of a Deity, one cannot better judge than by their Morals. For every one that hath any sense of Religion will endeavour to conform himself to the God whom he worships: At least he will avoid any thing that he knows to be contrary to his God. If we judge this way of Pythagoras, according to the accounts they give of him, we have reason to believe, that as the Apostle tells us of them whom the Heathens worship'd) his Gods were no better than Devils. It [Page vi] could be no otherwise, if there be any truth in the stories they tell, of his impudent Di­abolical Fictions, and of the fraudulent ways that he took to make the people admire him: which they also that tell us these things seem to think were no lessening of his Moral Vir­tues.

Particularly, they shew how he persuaded his Hearers to receive that Doctrine of the Transmigration of Souls. That it was ori­ginally an Aegyptian Doctrine we are told by Herodotus. Herod 11. Diod. Sic. Philostr. vit. Apoll. Ty. iii. 6. But if lying Philostratus may be believ'd, the Aegyptians had it from the Bramins. It is agreed, that Pythago­ras was he that first brought it into Greece; and there it seems he had a mind to be thought the first Author of it.Porph. p. 188. To make the people believe this, he told them an impudent Lye, that his Soul was in Euphorbus at the time of the Trojan War; and in the six hundred years between that and his Birth, his Soul had pass'd through several other bodies be­fore it came into his. He faced them down that he knew this by a singular gift of remem­bring all the Stages through which his Soul had pass'd in its Travels.

First, When Euphorbus was kill'd by Me­nelaus, (which was in the year before Christ 1185) then his Soul, as he said, came into Aethalides the Son of Mercury. After his death, it came into Hermotimus: then into [Page vii] one Pyrrhus a Fisherman;Porph. p. 201. and at last it came into Pythagoras. This is Porphyry's way of telling the Story.

But from others we have it,Schol. in Sophoclis Electram. that Pytha­goras himself used to say, That his Soul was in Aethalides before it came into Euphorbus. And for this, they give us the Authorities of them that had reason to know things of him much better than Porphyry; namely, Di­og. Laertius saith it from Heraclides, Diog. La­ert VIII, 4. Schol. in Apoll. Ar­gonaut I. that lived near the time of Pythagoras; and ano­ther from Pherecydes, the mòst intimate Friend of Pythagoras. They tell their sto­ry with particulars worth knowing, if there were any truth in it. As namely, How Py­thagoras came by the gift above-mention'd: They tell us, that Mercury, whose office it was to carry Souls into Hades, gave the Soul of his Son Aethalides in its way thither, the privilege not to drink the Waters of Lethe, the drinking whereof makes Souls forget all that pass'd in this world; and so it is plain,D. Laert. VIII, 4. how, as Pythagoras used to say, Euphorbus remembred his Soul had dwelt formerly in the body of Aethalides and Hermotimus, that his Soul was in both these, and the Fisher­man that his Soul was in those three, and Pythagoras, that his Soul was in them all. They also tell us, how it came to pass, that in six hundred years that Soul of his was on­ly in two bodies, namely, of Hermotimus [Page viii] and the Fisherman: for Mercury, as Py­thagoras himself used also to say, gave the Soul of his Son Aethalides leave to rest some­times in Hades, D Laert. VIII. 14. and at other times to travel above-ground; and so Pythagoras himself said, that after the Fisherman's death, his Soul had rested 207 years in Hades, before it came into that body of his.

But what of all this? The Doctrine of Transmigration of Souls is sufficiently proved, if the Soul of Pythagoras was at any time formerly in the body of Euphorbus. Porph. p. 191. And that, as Porphyry tells us, was positively affirm'd by Pythagoras himself,Jambl. c. 28. and prov'd beyond dispute; as likewise his Scholar Jam­blichus tells us in the very same words. But these Philosophers were wise; they took care to hide that part of their Ware which would haue disgrac'd all the rest.Herod. II. Diog. La­ert from Heracli­des. It was the Ae­gyptian Doctrine, that Souls pass'd out of men into Beasts, and Fishes, and Birds. This also, according to Heraclides, Pytha­goras used to say of himself; that he remem­bred, not only what Men, but what Plants, and what Animals his Soul had pass'd tho­ro [...]gh. And, tho' this was more than Mercu­ry gave to Aethalides, Pythagoras took upon [...] to tell many others how their Souls had lived before they came into their bodies. One particularly that was beating a Dog,Porph. p 191. he de­sir'd to forbear, because in the yelping of [Page ix] that Dog, he heard a Friend's Soul speak to him. So Empedocles, D. Laert. VIII. 36. that lived in the next Age after Pythagoras, and was for a while the Oracle of his Sect, declared of himself, that he had been, first a Boy, then a Girl, then a Plant, then a Bird, then a Fish. Apollonius had the same Impudence, if Philostratus may be believed:Philostr. III. 707. VI. 18. V. 15. who tells us, he own'd that his Soul was formerly in the Master of a Ship; he shew'd one young Man that had in him the Soul of Palamedes, an­other of Telephus, both kill'd at the time of the Trojan War; and in a tame Lion that was carried about for a sight, he said there was the Soul of Amasis King of Egypt. How could such Fictions as these come into Men's heads? There is more than idle Fancy in them. They shew plainly a pernicious De­vilish design, to confound those two Doctrines that have so great an influence into Men's minds, to make them do good, and eschew evil: the Doctrines of the Immortality of the Soul, and of the Resurrection of the Bo­dy. For if those Fictions were true, there would be no difference between the Soul of a Man, and the Soul of a Brute, or a Plant; and there would be many more Bodies than there would be Souls to animate them at the Resurrection. What would not the Devil give to have these things believ'd by all Mankind?

[Page x]For the Tricks they tell us he had to make the People admire him, they are so agreeable to his Character, that his Historian Jambli­chus, with the same Design, Aped him in some of them; unless he is bely'd by Euna­pius the Writer of his Life. They were, as one may properly call them, the Artifices of an Impostor. Mahomet, the greatest that ever was of that sort, when he set up to be a Prophet, though it is not likely that he had ever heard of Pythagoras, yet took the ve­ry same Methods that He did to impose up­on Mankind. This will appear in several of the following Instances, if any one will take the Trouble to compare them with those that are in Mahomet's Life.

The first thing, we read Pythagoras did, to make way for the Authentical publishing of his Doctrines,Diog. La­ert. VIII. 41. from Hermip­pus. was to make himself look like a sort of Demigod to the People. For this purpose, he provided himself a Cell un­der ground; and then, giving out he was dead, he retir'd into that Hole: and there for a long time together, seven Years, as some tell us, he lived unknown to all Man­kind. Only his Mother was in the Secret, for she was to supply him with Necessaries: but of these, he took in no more than just what would keep him alive. Then at last, he came forth like a perfect Skeleton: and shewed himself as one that had been all this while in another World.

[Page xi]He that was so greedy of vain Glory, that he could afford to purchase it at this Rate, would not spare his Pains, or refuse any Help, to get into Possession of his Purchase. And for this, it being requisite he should do things above the Power of any Mortal, there­fore of such things, true or false, they tell us not a few in his Life.

Some of the Fathers have said that he wrought them by Compact with the Devil.Chrysost. Hom. II. in Joh. Cyril. in Julian III. But I see no Necessity of that; for he had other ways by which other Men have obtain­ed the fame of working Miracles. He was doubtless both a natural Philosopher, and a great Mathematician. He understood all the Secrets of the Egyptians and Chaldae­ans. And having many Disciples on those Accounts, it seems very likely that he might act in Confederacy with them. This at least they could do for him; they might help de­vise Stories of the Miracles that he wrought: and then, for their own Credit as well as his, they would be industrious to spread them a­mong the People.

Such Lyes they were, I do not doubt,Porph. p. 193. Jambl. c. 28. that Porphyry and Jamblichus tell us, of his laying Winds, Tempests, and Earthquakes; for of these they do not give any particular Instance, nor are these things mentioned by any other Writers that I remember. So like­wise they tell us of his curing Diseases, whe­ther [Page xii] of Body, or Mind, which, they say, he did with Charms: P. 194. that is, as Cyril saith, he did them by the help of the Devil. For his hearing the Musick of the Spheres, that Porphyry speaks of as a wonderfull Har­mony,Porph. p 191, 192. Jambl. c. 28. now we know this is a Lye framed upon a false Imagination. But if this were true, being an invisible Miracle, and impos­sible to be proved, it could not be made use of to prove any thing else. Many other lying Wonders they tell of him, which seem to have been made only for Talk, being such as could signifie nothing to the good of Man­kind.Porph. ib. & Jambl. c. 13. Jam­bl. c. 28. Porph. p. 190. As namely, how to shew his Compa­ny what he could do, he took up Serpents, that had killed other Men, and handled them, so as that they neither hurt him, nor he them. How for the same purpose, by whistling to an Eagle that happen'd to fly over his Head, he brought her down to his Hand, and then let her go again. Another time seeing some Fisher men at their draught, he foretold them the exact Number of Fishes that their Net should bring up; and when they were told, threw them in again. How by stroaking a Bear, and whispering a Bull in the Ear, he brought them both to the Pythagorean Diet: the Bear to eat no­thing that had life; and the Bull to crop no more Bean-tops. How he spoke to a River that he was passing over with many of his Friends, [Page xiii] and it answer'd him again in all their Hear­ings, Good morrow Pythagoras. But this goes beyond all the rest, if there be any Truth in it; that when Abaris had been all over Greece to beg Money for the Tem­ple of his God Apollo Hyperboreus; at last, in an evil hour for himself, he came to Pythagoras in Italy, where the cunning Philosopher rooked him of his Money, by per­swading the poor Man that he was his God. And to convince him of the Truth of it, they say, That Pythagoras shewed him his golden Thigh; and then, which was worst of all, made him swear the People into a Belief that he was Apollo himself.

If any other Author mentions any of these wonderful Things, he declares that he hath it only from report, or by hearsay, and so leaves the Reader to judge of the Truth of it. But most of these things are posi­tively affi [...]med by Porphyry, and his Scholar Jamblichus: only they vouch nameless Au­thorities for them, to shew they were not of their own devising; which yet one can't forbear to think of as many of them as are not to be found in other Authors. But why should these Philosophers either be so wick­ed to abuse the Faith of Mankind in devi­sing such Stories? Or why should they take the Pains to Collect them, and Pawn their Faith to give them Credit in the World? [Page xiv] Such great Men as they were, had no doubt great Reason for this. But what that should be, deserves a farther Consideration; where­in, if I do a little exceed, I know you will not only Pardon me, but will take the fault upon your self, if these Papers should come to be publisht through your hands.

It is certain that these Men had a vehement Hatred against the Christian Religion; not only through the Prejudices of their Edu­cation, but much more on the account of that way of Philosophy, by which they so much valu'd themselves, and had got so great a Fame in the World. They had no Patience to see that sort of Learning, that had been so long in Possession of Glory among all civi­liz'd Nations, now to be brought in Disgrace by a Religion, which they accounted to be no better than Folly and Nonsense, and yet pretending to Divine Revelation, would shew that they by all their Wisdom knew not God. Their Indignation at this was much the more,1 Cor. I. 21. because th [...]s New Religion sprung up among the Jews, whom they look't upon as much the worst of the barbarous Nations; and the first Teachers of it were justly, as these Phi­losophers thought, both hated and contemn­ed by the Jews, as much as the Jews them­selves were by all other Nations.

That the Author of this Sect, our Lord Iesus Christ himself, bore no greater Fi­gure [Page xv] in the World, than that of a poor Car­penter;Acts IV. 13. and that his Apostles and Followers were unlearned and ignorant Men; this is own'd, to the Glory of God, by those among themselves that writ his History, and their's, in the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. And that these very Books were written by Men of that sort, even by them whose Names they bear, this I think hath not been gain-said by any that lived within some hundred years after Christ: But it hath been acknow­ledged by those learned Heathens that writ against the Christian Religion,V. Hierocl. infra, & Julian. A­post. in Span­heim's E­dition of Cyril. lib. X. p. 327. and especially by Julian, who of all others was best able to inform himself.

But what is it that these Men say of their Master, in the Account they give of him, and of them that were the first Publishers of his Doctrine, how they came to have such Authority in the World? They say he wrought in their Presence an infinite number of Miracles; and particularly, those which they have published for the Proof, as well of his Authority, as of his Doctrine.John XX. 30, 31. They say also of themselves, that, in their Preach­ing of him and his Doctrine, the Lord worked with them confirming their word with Signs following.Mar. XVI. 20.

They laid the chief Stress of their Proof upon his Resurrection from the Dead: Of which, not only his Apostles were Eye-wit­nesses, [Page xvi] but above 500 Persons,1 Cor. XV. 6. most of them then living, when St. Paul appeal'd to their Testimony.V. Uss. An­nal. A. D. 54. & Pearson. Posthum. Act▪ II. 32. IV. 33. V. 32. And that he did, in an Epi­stle which was written within some 20 years after the matter of Fact. The Apostles especially took it on themselves, as their Office, to be Witnesses of his Resurrection. For the faithful Discharge whereof, as they could expect nothing but Sufferings in this Life, so they desir'd nothing more than to finish their Course by dying for it. And they were not deceiv'd in this Expectation; all of them being continually persecuted as long as they liv'd, and many of them suf­fering Death for the Testimony of Christ. They were charged with no other Crime in this World.

As for what they write of his Miracles; and also of their own, which they profest they wrought only by a Power derived from him; the truth of the matters of Fact, we do not find was ever question'd by any that lived in that Age. On the contrary, we see it was acknowledged by the Pharisees, John IX. 47. the most malicious and vigilant Enemies of our Lord Iesus Christ,Acts IV. 16. and of his Holy Apo­stles. No doubt it puzled their Wise heads to think how' such wonderful Works should be wrought by such simple illiterate Men. For one cannot think they could satisfie themselves with the account which they gave others, of [Page xvii] the way that Christ had to cast out Devils, when they said that he did it by the Prince of Devils; for, as he there answer'd them,Mat. IX. 34. XII. 24. it was visibly against the Devil's Interest to do this; the Miracles of Christ being plainly in those Instances to dispossess the Devil of Men's Bodies; and by that, and other be­neficial Works, to oblige them, and others, to receive a Doctrine that would also dis­possess him of their Souls. But besides the absurdity of this, it is plain the Jews did not believe themselves in this Accusation of Christ. For if they had, they would have insisted on this; as being a Capital Crime, not only by their Law, but also the Roman: And therefore to be sure, they would not have been to seek for other Crimes,Mat. XXVI. 59, 60. Luke XXIII. 14. if they had thought they had any Colour to charge him with this.

But that which the Pharisees said then, of that one sort of Miracles; though it was against all Reason, and against their own Conscience; yet, for want of a better Co­lour for their unbelief, the Jews in after times have alledged against all the Mira­cles of Christ, and his Apostles and Followers. This we see in those Objections of the Jews, whom Celsus brings in arguing against the Christian Religion: these Jews, Origen. contra Celsum. I. p. 30, 55. II. p. 93, 94. on this very account, rank our Blessed Saviour with Py­thagoras, of whom enough has been said; [Page xviii] and with such other Heathen Impostors, of whom more will be said afterwards.P. xx, xxv.

But for those Jews whom Celsus produ­ces, since it hath been sufficiently shown that they ought not to be admitted as Accusers in this Cause, therefore they might be dis­missed; but that the same Celsus gives us oc­casion to make use of them as our Witnesses, as to those Matters of Fact which he de­nies, when he comes to speak in his own Person, as a Heathen, and one that was an Epicurean Philosopher. For then he is pleas'd to say,Origen. contra Celsum. III. p. 126, 127. & VIII p. 407. That what things our Scri­ptures tells us of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, are all Fictions and Tales. This he saith more than once: And yet he doth not pretend to prove the Writers of them were Lyers, or to shew any Inconsistence, either in the Miracles themselves, or in the Ac­counts that are given of them. So that he expected Men should take his Authori­ty for this. But why so? He could say no­thing of these matters on his own Knowledge: for he writ in the Emperour Hadrian's time,Origen contra Cels. I. p. 8. or something later; and that was at least 50 years after any of those Miracles that are mention [...]d in our Scriptures. Nor doth he pretend to have any ground to say this, ei­ther upon hear-say, or from what he found in former Writers. If he had referr'd us to other Writers, it would have been very great [Page xix] News. For, of all that have written in the times of Christ and his Apostles, there is none, Iew, or Heathen, that makes any mention of their Miracles: which is a plain sign they knew not what to say against them. Otherwise, they would have spoken as spite­fully of them, as they spared not to do of Christ himself.

But how could Celsus answer this to his own Conscience? that whereas of the Mira­cles wrought by Christians in his own time, he saw there was no denying the matters of fact;Orig. cont. Cels. I. and therefore he affirm [...]d that these Miracles were wrought by Invocation of the Devil; which was the same in effect, that, by his own telling,P. xvii. the Iews said of the Mi­racles that were wrought by Christ and his Apostles: he should nevertheless have the Impudence to say, that these were Fictions and Tales, as if He knew Christ and his A­postles, better than the Iews in whose Coun­try they liv'd, and whose Ancestors were conversant with them; or as if Christ himself could not work as true Miracles, as were done in Celsus's time, and to his own know­ledge, by Christians that wrought their Mi­racles in his name?

This learned man took surely a likelier way to disparage the Miracles of Christ to the unthinking part of Mankind;Origin. contra Cels. III p. 125, 129. by likening the great things that are said of Christ, to [Page xx] those that we read of Aristeas Proconnesi­us, Orig. cont. Cel. III. 125, 129. and of Abaris, in Heathen Writers. But they that Think what they read, will consider, that of the former of these, the first account we have is from Herodotus;Herod. IV. and he tells it only by Hear-say. He says, they say that Aristeas died at Proconnesus, and appear'd there again 7 years after: and having made some Verses, disappear'd: but that, two or three hundred years after, he appear'd again at Metapontum, where, by special direction from Apollo, he was wor­shipped as God.Orig cont. Cels. III. p. 129. Of Abaris, Celsus tells us himself, that he had such a Power or Fa­culty, that he rode about upon an Arrow through the Air, over Mountains and Seas, in his Travels out of Scythia into Greece, and back again into Scythia, as both Por­phyry and Jamblichus tell us at large

These things Celsus tells us without any Censure, as if he believ'd them to be true. And so they are, as much as his Book is a true Discourse, which is the Title he gives it. Whoever considers these Stories, I think will not much regard the Iudgment that He passeth on the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles.

But the Way that he took to bring them in disgrace, by ranking them with those in­credible Fables, this took mightily with the learned Heathens that came after him. And [Page xxi] therefore, I doubt not, it was, that both Philostratus writ the life of Apollonius Ty­aneus, and that Porphyry writ the Life of Pythagoras, which led me into this Digres­sion. They seem to have been written, both of them with this design. I am sure they are both of them made use of to this purpose; to shew, that all the great things that are told of our Saviour in the Gospel, were e­quall'd, if not out-done by these Heathen Philosophers.

As for Porphyry, Holstein de vitâ & scriptis Porph. c. 10. his hatred of the Chri­stian Religion he shew'd sufficiently, in wri­ting 15 Books against it: the Loss whereof, though some of our Deists complain of, yet they may be assur'd for their comfort, they will not want the help of any of our learned men to bring them to light. We want them indeed on many accounts: but especially, to shew them, that as they have Porphyry's malice, so if they had his great Learning too, both these join'd together would not hurt the Christian Religion. We should want his Books the less,Hieron. praef. Dan. if we had any of those An­swers that were written against him by three learned Christians, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris. But,De vit. & scr. Por­phyr c 4. as Holstein well ob­serves, the Roman Empire being turned Christian within very few years after the writing of these Books; as the Emperors took care by their Edicts to keep them from com­ing [Page xxii] into the hands of the Vulgar; so for learn­ed men, they had now no occasion to tran­scribe them, or preserve the copies that were written.

Of the time of Porphyry's writing these Books,Euseb. hist. VI. 19. we have nothing certain, save that we are told they were written when he was in Sicily. And the time of his coming thi­ther, as he tells us himself, w [...]s about the 15th of Galienus the Emperour, that is, a­bout the year of Christ 267.Porph. v. Plotini, p. 4. He acknow­ledgeth that, being in Rome at that time, he had a mind to kill himself: which Ploti­nus discover'd; and upon his chiding him for it, he left him, and went away into Sici­ly. What it was that enraged Porphyry to that degree that he must needs kill himself, he doth not say. Probably it might be out of madness,Euseb. hist. VII. 12. VIII 4. to see That Emperour's favour to Christians, whom his Father Valerian had done all he could to destroy. If that was the reason of this Philosopher's being weary of his life, he had some ease within a few Months in the death of that Emperour, and then a Succession of others that wanted only a fit season for the renewing of the Persecution. And it might be as well to quicken them to that Wo [...]k, as to ease his own passion, that he set himself to the writing of these Books. Wherein, as all that quote from them observe, heHo [...]st ib. c 10 out-did all others in virulent Railing and [Page xxiii] Scoffing at the Christian Religion. As for his Arguments, it cannot be imagined that there was any thing of strength in them more than what Julian the Apostate took into the work that he writ afterwards on that Sub­ject. And to our comfort, as well as the Deists, That work is not lost. It hath been often published, with Cyril's answer to it: but never so much to the Reader's advantage, as now lately in the excellent Spanhelm's E­dition.

Whether it was before, or after these Books, that he writ the life of Pythago­ras, we cannot certainly know: for the life it self is imperfect, both at the beginning, and the end; and the whole Book is but a part of his History of the lives of Philo­sophers. But whereas these lives of his, as Holstein observes, were all made up of Patches taken out of the ancient Writers;De vit. & Scr. Porph. c. 7. and so is this among the rest; yet here, af­ter all the heap of stuff that he hath collect­ed from others concerning the life of Py­thagoras, at last, he brings in those stories of Miracles wrought by him, part of which are in no other Writers, and the rest he hath made his Own by vouching for them, as I have shewn. This I cannot imagine why so wise a man should do,p. xiii. but in pursuance of his malicious design against the Christian Religi­on, by making his reader believe, that the [Page xxiv] Miracles of Christ, upon which the credit of our Religion is built, were of no greater cre­dit themselves, than those which were wrought by Pythagoras. That I am not mistaken in this, the Reader will see in the following instance of Hierocles; who, writing some few years after Porphyry had so highly ad­vanced Pythagoras, set him up in Competi­tion with our Lord Iesus Christ, as I shall presently shew.

Hierocles, being chief Iudge at Nicome­dia in Dioclet [...]an's time,Lact. de Justit. v. 2. was a chief Insti­gator of that bloody Persecution that was then against the innocent Christians. And to justifie this, he writ two Books against the Christian Religion, which he publish'd under the title of [...], a lover of Truth. No doubt by these means he won the heart of the Emperour Galerius, who was the first mover of that Persecution: and therefore by him he was advanced to the most profita­ble Government of Alexandria in Egypt. Lact. de mort. per­fec c 16. Euseb. de Mart. Pa­laest. c. 5. There also he went on in his butcherly Trade; till an end was put to it, by the wonderfull Providence of God, which by Constantine's means brought Christianity to be the Impe­rial Religion. Then Hierocles betook him­self wholly to Philosophy, and among other things, writ his Commentary on the Golden Verses that bear the name of Pythagoras; which I mention, to shew how much he [Page xxv] was addicted to the honour of Porphyry's Saint.

Of his two Books against the Christians,Eus. cont. Hier. it seems that Eusebius saw but One; and of that, he tells us, the most part was stollen out of Celsus; and was long since answer'd by Origen. It appears that in that work of Hierocles, to pull down the honour of Christ, he first set up Aristeas, as Celsus had done: next he sets up Pythagoras;Edit. Ox­on. 8^o. p. 264. and lastly A­pollonius Tyaneus. All this we learn out of that Fragment of Hierocles, which is publish'd in the end of his Works, and also at the end of Eusebius's answer to his Book: though Eusebius medleth only with that part which concerns Apollonius, because that was all that was New in this Controversie. In this piece Hierocles, having magnified Apollonius Tyaneus for the great things that were recorded of him by Philostratus in his life; and having vilified our Lord Iesus Christ, whom the Christians, as he saith on the account of his doing a few [...] call a God; he concludes in these words: ‘It is worth the considering, that those things of Iesus are brag'd of by Peter and Paul, and some others of that sort of men, Li­ars, and Illiterate, and Impostors: but for these things of Apollonius, we have Maximus, and Damis a Philosopher that lived with him, and Philostratus, men [Page xxvi] eminent for their Learning, and lovers of truth.’

What a Lover of Truth Hierocles himself was, we are to judge, not by the title of his Books, but by the things contained in them. And though his Books against the Christians have been lost many Ages since, (as those blas­phemous Books of Porphyry were,) yet here we have a kind of Summary of them in this Fragment. For here we see in short, what he had to say against the Apostles of Christ, and what to say for the Evangelists of Apol­lonius, whom he sets up against him: and it cannot be denied that, on either side, the truth of the matters of fact is to be judged of chiefly by the sufficiency and the honesty of the Witnesses. Therefore knowing what he has to say of them, we know in effect the validity of all that is contained in his Books.

First, In his charge against the Apostles of Christ, to say that Paul was Illiterate, this was certainly an impudent Calumny. For beside his knowledge of the Greek, that was his native Language,Gal. 6.11. wherein also we see he writ a large Epistle with his own hand, and quotes the Greek Poets in several of his Epi­stles; I say, beside this, he had the Hebrew Learning in great perfection, being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, Act. 22.3. a Doctor in great fame among the Iews to this day. And he [Page xxvii] gave such proofs of his Learning before the Roman Governour and King Agrippa, that the Governour said,Act. 26.24. too much learning had made him mad. So far was He from cal­ling him an illiterate Man.

Then to call him and Peter, Liars, and Impostors, what occasion did they give him for this? Only by their Preaching and Wri­ting for the Christian Religion. But did they believe that Religion, or not? If they did, suppose they might err in this, yet they could not be Liars and Impostors; for they both knew, and writ, that all such are in a state of Damnation,Rom. 3.8. 2 Pet. 3.3. according to the rules of their Religion. But if they did not believe it, then indeed they might do wicked things for their Religion, if that would recommend them to the Emperour's favour; and so to get preferment, as Hierocles did. But they were so far from that, the Government be­ing against their Religion, that they could get nothing by it but Dangers and Sufferings. Those they met with in all places wheresoever they preach'd. And they look'd for nothing else in this world, but Sufferings, and those to end in a cruel Death, for Christ's sake.2 Tim 4.6. 2 Pet. 1.14. This both of them declared in the last Epi­ples they writ. And in this we see they were not mistaken. For both of them suffer'd Martyrdom, as Clemens tells us in his E­pistle to the Corinthians, which he writ [Page xxviii] within two or three years after their death, the truth of which Epistle hath never been question'd by any learned man whatsoever.

But what shall we say of a man that was perfectly Blinded, with Prejudice and Malice, or with Ambition and Covetousness? If Hi­erocles had not been so, he could not but have seen that those two Apostles of Christ had nothing about them that would suit with those two ugly characters of Liars and Im­postors. But he had those in his eye that would certainly have been taken by those marks, if there had been a hue and cry af­ter them. I can't think any learned man in his Age, being asked, Of all the Writers, whose Works were then extant, which was the greatest Liar? would name any other than Philostratus. I am sure he could not, if he would speak impartially. And yet this Philostratus, and his two Authors, Maximus, and Damis, known to none but himself, are the men whom Hierocles calleth Learned Men, and Lovers of Truth. And for an Im­postor, if such a one had been enquired for, I know not whom a learned man, that had no design to serve with a Lye, would have na­med before Apollonius Tyaneus: whom yet Hierocles so much admires, that he thinks himself modest for saying only this, He was a Favourite of the Gods; whereas the Chri­stians say, that Christ was God himself, [Page xxix] for those few strange things that are told of him.

First, For Philostratus, on whose single word all the credit of this story of Apolloni­us depends; of what value his word is, must be judged by considering how he was quali­fied for an Historian. To begin with the op­portunities he had to inform himself; it is certain, he could say nothing of his Own know­ledge. For as himself tells us,Philost. VIII. 12. Apollonius died a few weeks after the Emperour Domi­tian: that was in the year of our Lord 96. But Philostratus did not write this till a­bove a hundred years after. How came he then by all the stuff with which he hath filled a large History? He tells us, that while he lived in the Court of Julia, that most infa­mous Empress, the Mother and Wife of that horrible brute Caracalla, the Minutes of Apollonius's Life, written by one Damis, Philost. I. 3. that lived with him, were presented to her by one of Damis's Relations; and she being a Lover of fine Language, delivered them to this Sophist Philostratus, to put them in­to a handsome dress. But that we may not think these Minutes were all that he had for the furnishing of his History, he tells us, he had besides,Ib. an account from one Maxi­mus of Aegae, how Apollonius past his time in that Town, for the two or three years that he lived there, being then about 20 years [Page xxx] of Age, almost a Boy, as Hierocles words it. And this is all the help he had from these two Lovers of Truth, as Hierocles calls them. But there was besides, one Moe­ragenes, [...] Ib. I, 3. that writ IV Books, On or Against Apollonius; but he is not to be heeded, saith Philostratus, because he was igno­rant of many of our Stories; so he lost the Honour of being recorded by Hiero­cles for one of the lovers of Truth. In short, except the little things that hapned in the short time that Apollonius was at Ae­gae; for any thing else of his Life, Philo­stratus doth not pretend to have any Author but Damis. Yet all that he had of Damis, was no more than a Table-book of Minutes, as Philostratus owns. And those might be written by any one else, for ought he knew. For it was a hundred years after Damis's death, before he saw or heard of them. Till then they were not known. And then a Name­less man, pretending to be a relation of Da­mis, brought them, and said they were writ­ten by Damis. Th [...]s is all the Authority we have for Philostratus's Legend.

But he saith in the Chapter before, he had some things from Town-talk, I, 2. in the places where Apollonius had been; and some things he had that other men said of him: and some things from Epistles that Apollonius had written to Kings, &c. As for the Talk of things [Page xxxi] done a hundred years ago, that is very uncer­tain; but of what Authority were these Epi­stles? There may well be a doubt of this. For the Epistles in Diogenes Laertius were gene­rally forged by Sophists.Philostr. Soph. II. p. 617. He writ a book of Love-E­pistles. Suid. And Philostratus being a Sophist, and one that knew how to write to Kings, might be the very man that forged the Epistles now extant. We have reason to like them the worse, for a­greeing too well with his History. But be­sides, he seems to doubt that his Reader might suspect these Epistles, and therefore question his History. To fence against this, he saith,I, 1. he took things that were more certain from the Authors that he names af­terwards: Damis, &c. Of how little credit those Authors were, we have seen. And if things taken out of them were more certain, as he himself tells us, then there is no credit at all to be given to his Epistles.

So much for the Authority: now for the Matters of his History. Some of them, I dare say, were such as Lucian had never heard of, and yet He liv'd mid-way between Apollonius and his Historian. Particularly,IV, 3. I cannot be­lieve he ever heard of that Story of Apollo­nius, how he made the people at Ephe­sus stone an old Beggar; who, as He told them, was a Daemon; and when the Stones had made a Hillock over his body, he bad the people remove the Stones, which they did▪ and found under them, not a man, but [Page xxxii] a Mastiff, as big as the biggest sort of Lion, and foaming at Mouth, as if he had been mad. So likewise he tells how Apollonius being invited, with many other Guests, by his Friend Menippus to his Wedding; he found that the amiable Bride was a She-Devil, IV. 8. Empusa. that was in love with Menippus, and pretending to be a great Fortune, had provided the Wedding Dinner, with a noble Antendance, and all manner of Delicacies: but, upon his telling his Friend what she was, she, together with her Attendance and Dinner, vanisht, leaving Apollonius to make her Excuse to the Bridegroom and his Company. Here were Subjects for Lucian to have bantered upon, beyond any that are in his Book; so that, because they are not There, I say again, one may be sure he never heard of them.

He that could thus descry Devils, might as well ken Souls, one would think, and tell what Bodies they had passed through; especially being a Pythagorean Philosopher. I have shewn Apollonius could do that,P. ix. as well as Pythagoras himself; though Philostratus doth not tell us, that ever his Soul dwelt, as that of Pythagoras did, in the Body of a Son of Mercury, that had that Gift from his Father. But he was not to be measur'd by Pythagoras, being as Philostratus tells us, far the greater Man of the two. He out­did him in many things;C. 1 c. 1. and particularly [Page xxxiii] in this, that he could call up the Souls of any of the Heroes, and entertain himself with them at his Pleasure. Particularly, at the Tomb of Achilles, IV. 3. where that Heroe appear'd sometimes frightfully to others, who therefore warn'd Apollonius not to come near him; he laught at them, and spent a whole Night there in Conversation with Achilles, till the Cocks-crowing, which, it seems, warns the Sprights away.IV. 5. But the next day he told his Company all this; how the Ghost appear'd to him, at first but five Cubits high, but rose up by degrees to be twelve; perhaps swelling with Indignation against his Countrey-men of Thessaly; of whom he bitterly complained, That whereas they used to worship him formerly, now they had this good while left it off. He called Apol­lonius by his Name: And told him, I am glad you are here, for I have long lookt for such a one as you to tell them of this. But for one thing he expostulated with Apo [...]l [...] ­nius too: That he had receiv'd into his Company one Antisthenes, that was of the race of King Priamus, and that used to sing the Praises of Hector; whom, belike, Achil­les hated, even after Dea [...]h. But it seems Apollonius, having done this ignorantly, now he was told of it discarded the young Gentleman. All this, as Philostratus says, was in the minutes of Damis, who was pre­sent at that time.

[Page xxxiv]And with Him I go next to Apollonius's Travels, of which Philostratus tells us ma­ny wonders that he saith Damis saw; among which are the most incredible things that we read in the Travels of Sir John Mande­vill. But he tells us many more and great­er than that Knight has in his Book. Parti­cularly this, which Damis confesseth made him stare.III, 8. When he was among the Bra­mins, they brought him to a Treat: where he saw four Tables, that walked and placed themselves in an apt Figure: each of these was supported by an Image that served them with Drink: Two of these Images pour'd out Wine, and the other two Water, one hot, and one cold, to every Guest according to his drinking: and for Dinner, there came in Dishes of all the best Fruits of the Season; invisible, till they were upon the Table, and there they set themselves in order for ea­ting: then the Earth thrust up heaps of Grass, that were softer than Beds, for the Guests to lie upon. Philostratus saith in­deed, that how they did these things, Apol­lonius neither asked, nor cared to Learn: that is, he took all to be done by Magick. But he liked these Magicians never the worse for it; as appears by the high Praises he gave them at every mention that he made of them afterwards. Which so prick'd the Gymnosophists, when he was with them in [Page xxxv] Aethiopia, that they,VI, 5. to shew him a proof of their skill, made an Elm-tree speak to him. It spoke, he saith, articulately: but it was with a Woman's voice; perhaps be­cause the Greek word for an Elm is of the Feminine Gender. [...]. These are very rank ful­some Lyes: but they are but a small tast of the abundance that Philostratus gives us out of his Damis's Minutes.

What he tells of Apollonius without that Authority, himself, as I have shewn,P. xxxi. doth acknowledge to be very Vncertain. Such he owns those stories to have been that he tells us; of a Choire of Swans, that,I, 4. happening to be in the Meadow where his Mother fell in Labour, Sung him into the World: and also of a Choire of Virgins, that sung him into Heaven;VIII, 12. if the lying Cretans may be be­liev'd, that gave Philostratus the words of their Song. For the distance of time between his Birth and his Death, he owns it to be very uncertain: He saith it was, as some say, 80 years, as some 90, and as some a­bove 100. But therein, as well as in many o­ther things, he shew'd his want of Chronology. For if, as he tells us, Archelaus rebell'd a­gainst the Romans, when Apollonius was at Aegae, being then but 16 years old; then he must have been born in or very near the first year of our Lord:I, 9. for it was certainly A. D. 17, in which Archelaus, Tac [...] Ann. II. 42. after a very short [Page xxxvi] struggle, yielded, and was deposed for his Rebellion.Tac An­nal II, 42. And as I have shewn from Phi­lostratus himself, Apollodorus died A. D. 96.P. xxix. Therefore, according to Philostratus's own account, he died at the Age of 96 or 97 years old; which is none of the years a­bove mention'd. So uncertain was also the place of his death. For, as Philostratus saith, some say he died at Ephesus; some say in the Isle of Candy; VIII, 12. and some in Miner­va's Temple at Lindus. For Philostratus's part, not daring to strain the credit of Da­mis, by making him side with any of them, he declares that D [...]mis said nothing of the manner of his Death. But then, delivering the opinions of others,VIII, 12. he saith, Thus died Apollonius; adding, if he Died at all. O rare Historian! that, having not only assured us he was Born, but having given a particular account, of his Father, and his Mother, and the Green Chamber he was Born in; comes at last to make a Doubt whether he ever Di­ed or no. What would this man have the Reader think of his Apollonius? that he was greater than Apollo? or than Jupiter himself? So it seems. For both these Di­ed, as we have shewn from Pythagoras him­self;P. v. who own'd it was after their Deaths that they were made Gods: and Pythago­ras could not but Know this; for, as this Wri­ter tells us, Pythagoras was Among them [Page xxxvii] sometimes; and Apollo came to him,I, 1, 2. and own'd that it was He that spoke to him. Yet here, Philostratus, that told us all this, though he durst not speak out, that Apollonius did Never die; yet he intimates this was his Opinion, and would incline his Reader to believe it: Cer­tainly your Tzetzes did not exceed in cal­ling him the most lying Philostratus. A­mong all the Writers that I know, there is scarce a greater Liar in the world.

Nor was there a greater Impostor than Apollonius; whom, on the sole credit of Phi­lostratus's History, Hierocles so much ex­tolls, as the great Favourite of the Gods, and fitter to be called a God, than our Bles­sed Saviour. But to shew more particularly what Apollonius was, we must not wholly reject his lying Historian. For, if we do, we are quite in the dark: there being no o­ther that writ of Apollonius within two hun­dred years after his death, Lucian only ex­cepted. And therefore to make the best of what we have in these two Writers, I shall begin with Philostratus, and take the best Information we can get of him.

Now according to this Historian, Apolloni­us was bred up at first among the Pythagore­ans, and always affected to be thought a Phi­losopher of that Sect. For he strictly observed the rules of Pythagoras, though he under­stood not his Doctrine.Euseb. in Hier. But he not only imi­tated, [Page xxxviii] but much out did him in his Travels. And according to the way of that Sect, which was much addicted to the Worship of Dae­mon's, he made it his b [...]siness, wheresoe­ver he went, to restore the Gentile Idola­try, which was then much sunk by the preaching of the Christian Religion. This, no doubt, might entitle him to the Devil's especial Assistance, by which he might do Wonderfull things; and might, as he Boast­ed he did, know more than all the men in the world. That was nothing to him. He would be thought to be a God, and therefore he boasted of things which no Man could know or do.I, [...]3. p. 25. He declared, he knew all the Lan­guages of Men without any teaching; and that he understood, not only their Words, but even their silent Thoughts. Damis, as soon as he heard this, fell down and wor­sh [...]pped him; he could do no less, looking upon him as a Daemon, saith the Historian. Others that saw his Tricks, and heard such things from him, soon found both what he was, and what he would be at. They saw, he was either a Magician or a grand Cheat. This was the common Opinion they had of him,I, 2, 3. according to Philostratus, who notably fenceth against it. They also saw what he drove at, even to be thought a God. Of this he was accused to the Government:VII, 1. and that by Philosophers even by Euphrates the great­est [Page xxxix] of them in his Age. These learned men, no doubt, had seen the Books that he pub­lish'd; namely,III, 13. his four Books of Iudicial Astrology, and his Books of Sacrifices, to shew what sorts of them would best please e­very God. I find no other Books that he writ. And these could not but confirm those Philosophers in their opinion of him. We have these things, and much more of this kind, from Philostratus; whom we have reason to believe in these things, though not in many other; for in these he agrees with him that lived nearest Apollonius's time.

Of all the Writers now extant, the near­est to the time of Apollonius was Lucian, as I have shewn. And what opinion he had of him, we may see in his account of another of the same Trade, one Alexander, a Famous Impostor.Lucian in Pseudo-Mant. p. 476. Lucian tells us of this Alexan­der; that being at first a handsome Youth, he was abused by one of Tyana, that made him his Catamite. This execrable Sodomite, being, as Lucian saith, not only a Countryman of Apollonius, but also one of his Companions, that knew all His way of acting the part of a Philosopher; [...] to make this young man the more passive to his Lust, train'd him up to Magic, and taught him the use of Charms, and made him a great Proficient in all the other arts of Cheat­ing, in which he excell'd. This is all that [Page xl] we have of Apollonius from Lucian. And we had not known so much of him as this, but that Lucian, having occasion to speak of a Companion of his, that set up at his Trade, and took Apprentices at it; thereupon brings him in, as the Master-workman of his Age in all that way of Diabolical Practice.

This was the Reputation he had, as it seems, till above a hundred years after his Death. Then outcomes this Book of his Life; compos'd, as I have shewn, out of unknown Memoirs, P. xxx. brought into the World by an un­known hand. They are said to have been Brought to the Empress Julia, as I have shewn. That might be, though they were first born in her Court.P. xxix. She might as well order the first Devising, as the composing of them in [...]o a History. Philostratus owns that what he did was by Her order. And she was her self a Philosopher,Philost. Soph. II. p. [...] as he tells us: a great Intriguer, all acknowledge. No doubt she had very great reasons for such an extra­ordinary thing as this was, to canonize a Magician a hundred years after his death, and to advance him even to be a God: Whe­ther she had a mind this way to draw off her Son, the young Emperor, from the e­steem he had of the Christians, whom he fa­vour'd on his Nurses account,Eus. hist VI. that was of that Religion: or whether to do honour to a Disciple and in [...]imate Friend of the Magi, Phil. vit. Apol. l. 18, 24. [Page xli] that were Noted to lie with their Mothers;Sext. Em­pir. Pyrth. III, 24. and thereby to countenance her wicked design of drawing her Son to her Bed. These are but Conjectures. But whatsoever the mat­ter was, it was She, as Philostratus owns,I, 3. that set him upon the design of writing the Life of Apollonius; at such a rate, that who­ever believ'd it, could not but look upon him as a fit Rival for our Blessed Saviour. Her,More's Mystery of Godliness, IV, 3, 4. V, 7, 1. and her Son Caracalla, I take to have been the Emperours that order'd him to be wor­shipped, at Tyana where he was born. That Emperors did order this,Phil. VIII. 13. Philostratus tells us in a Chapter which I take to be an addi­tion to the end of his Book. And sure this could not be done by any Emperors before Lucian's time: For if it had, he durst not have writ those things that I have quoted from him. Considering also that her Sister or Neice Mammaea, the Mother of Alex­ander Severus, was a Christian;Eus. hist. VI, 21. I do not wonder at that which Lampridius hath in this Emperors Life. Where he saith,Lampr. A­lex. A. § 29. he had the Images of Christ and Apollonius together in his Lararium. Of his Mother he had his Birth and Education; and it was his Aunt Julia that rais'd him to that Great­ness; in which, being to furnish a Closet for his Devotion, he thought to please them both, in setting up his Aunt's God together with his Mother's.

[Page xlii]As the bigotted Heathens could not but be pleas'd with the Honour done to Apollo­nius, in order to the Lessening of our Blessed Saviour, so no doubt the Devil would pro­mote it what he could. And therefore I am inclin'd to be of Dr. More's opinion;Mystery of Godliness, V, 7, 8. that the Devil might make that appearance to Aurelian, in the name of his Saint Apollo­nius, to perswade that incensed Emperor to spare his City of Tyana for his sake. Tho' otherwise, it is not improbable that Vo­piscus might Invent this part of his History.Vopisc. Divus Au­rel. c. 24. Mr. Dod­well's prae­lect. pro­oem. in hist. Aug. V. 6. For, as my most learned Friend Mr. Dod­well shews, he writ it in the first heat of Diocletian's Persecution, and dedicated it to the Praefectus Urbis, who had the same concern in this matter at Rome, that Hie­rocles had at Nicomedia. And by the high Encomium he gives Apollonius; out of a Greek Book, as he tells us, which could be no other than his Life written by Philostra­tus; it is plain he had the same wicked de­sign with Hierocles, namely, to set up this Magician for a Rival to our Saviour; and thereby to bring Contempt on his holy Religi­on, and on all them that suffer'd and died for it in that Persecution.

But when God [...]s time was come to set up the Kingdom of Christ, three or four Empe­rors that Oppos'd it with the utmost Malice and Rage,V. Lact. de mort. per­fec. were successively taken away by [Page xliii] the visible hand of God; the Iustice whereof two of them at their death did acknowledge. Then the Devil being thrown out of Heaven, all his Angels fell with him. Christianity came to be the establish'd Religion. And Then, (to use the Phrase of a Gentleman that had more Wit than did him good,) Religi­on having taught the people to say Grace, there was no more danger of the crooked Pin in the Pudding: those palpable Lyes of Apollonius would not go down; and so, for ought I find, Hierocles quite lost his la­bour.

Next, Jamblichus, who, as Eunapius saith in his life, was a greater Scholar than his Master Porphyry, and who was no less a Hater of Christians; yet living under Chri­stian Emperors, a she did all the time of his age for writing Books, he durst not write Professedly against the Christian Religion. But taking this to be a safe way, he went on with his Masters design of setting up Py­thagoras to be a Rival to our Saviour. In order to this, he took up all the stuff that Porphyry in his life of Pythagoras had ga­ther'd ready to his hand. He worked it o­ver again his own way, oftentimes making use of Porphyry's words. Then, for far­ther Embellishment, he added out of his own Invention, whatever he thought would either adorn his Subject, or promote the design of [Page xliv] his Writing. His design was plainly to sub­vert the Christian Religion. But so, as not to run himself in any danger on that account: and therefore, without ever mentioning Christ or Christians; which he could not do in this Book without seeming to make some kind of reflection upon them; he only endeavours to make Pythagoras, and those of his Sect, out­shine them in the Lustre that he gives them with his Eloquence, such as it is. Which, together with other Services that he did to the cause of Heathenism against the Christi­an Religion, did so far endear him to Juli­an, that wretched Apostate; that, after he came to shew himself, which was not till he took the Empire upon him,Juliani E­pist xxxiv▪ xl, xli, liii, lx, lxi. he writ more E­pistles to Jamblichus than to any other while He was living: and after his Death never mentioned him but with the highest Encomiums, Juliani O­rat. IV. Crat VII. calling him sometimes the He­ro, sometimes the Divine Jamblichus, and one whom he admired next the Gods. Ib.

Julian, having been sometime a Reader in the Church, might very well understand him as I do in the following instances of his Book; which I take to have been written in a kind of Abusive imitation of the Gospel.Jambl. vit. Pyth c. 2 p. 28. Namely, where he tells us, how the Mother of Pytha­goras, being with Child of him, which was more than her Husband yet knew, was brought by him to the Oracle of Apollo Pythius at [Page xlv] Delphi: and there the Prophetess told him both the first News of his Wife's Conception, and also that the Child she then went with should prove the greatest good to Mankind. Thereupon he saith, her Husband changed his Wife's name from Parthenis to Pythais: and afterwards, when the Child was born, call'd him Pythagoras; as being foretold by Apollo Pythius, for so he saith that name signifies.c. 2. p. 29. Jamblichus will not take upon him to say (as he tells us some Others did) that the Child was of Apollo's own getting: but he saith,Ib. none can doubt it was one of Apollo's Companions in Heaven, that came down to be the Soul of that Child. He should have said rather, one of Pluto's Com­panions in Hell; for the Soul of Pythago­ras came then out of Hades, P. viii. if Pythagoras himself may be believ'd. But Jamblichus was aware that Pythagoras overshot himself sometimes, and did it particularly in his ac­count of the Stages that his Soul pass'd thro' in it's Travels. Therefore Jamblichus takes notice of no other but Euphorbus, in whom that Soul formerly dwelt. He smuggles all the other Names we have mention'd,p. vi, vii, viii. not only from his Master Porphyry, but even from Pythagoras himself.

But however, he saith, it hath been af­firm'd by many, and that with great proba­bility, that Pythagoras was the Son of [Page xlvi] God. Nay, that he was one of the Heaven­ly Gods that then appear'd upon Earth for the Good of Mankind;P. 43. a greater Good than ever did come before, or should ever come after. His Disciples indeed could not a­gree among themselves what God he should be. Some would have it that he was Apol­lo Pythius; c. 27. p. 127. others, that he was Apollo Hyperboreus; others, that he was Aescula­pius; others, that he was one of the Dae­mons that dwelt in the Moon. They that said he was Apollo, seem'd to be the great­est number; and they had the greatest Au­thority on their side,c. 19. p. 94. even his Own; for so Pyth. himself told Abaris (to entitle himself to the Money,P. xiii. as we have shewn) that he was the very God himself: and proved it by shew­ing him his Golden Thigh, such, as it seems Abaris had told him that the Image of his God had in Scythia. But then, lest Aba­ris should ask him what he made Here? Py­thagoras added,c. 19. p. 94. that he put on human Shape, that Men might not be afraid to Converse with him; as they would, if they knew the Excellence of his Person, and so they would deprive themselves of the bene­fit of his Doctrine.

Such stuff as this runs through his Book; which, being written for the deifying of an Impostor, plainly shew'd that the design of it was to Banter the Gospel of Christ. He [Page xlvii] begins like one of the Heathen Poets, with invoking the Gods, and Pythagoras, to assist him in the Work. How he ended it, we cannot tell; for his Book is imperfect. But probably he continu'd it with an account of this Impostor's Disciples, in imitation of the Acts of the Apostles. In short, as well for History, as for Doctrinal matters, from one end to the other, it hath so much of the De­vil in it, that it seems to have been wholly written by his Inspiration.

But all this I do acknowledge to have been a Digression, as well as all the rest of what I have written, that doth not concern the Writers of Pythagoras's Life. For it was my proper business to shew of what credit They are▪ as to matter of History. Now the two chief of these, being Porphyry and Jamblichus, who were great Philosophers themselves, and such great Admirers of Py­thagoras, as they shew in the writing of his Life; one ought to expect they would have taken care to gather all that was True of him out of all the former Historians, and to have mingled nothing with it that was Inconsistent with the truth of History. How well they have perform'd this in other respects, I shall not take upon me to examin. But I shall take account of it only as to matter of Chro­nology. And that I think sufficiently shew­eth how much at random it is that Jambli­chus [Page xlviii] pretends to give the Years of Pytha­goras's Life, and his chief Actions and E­vents: and also how grosly both He, and Por­phyry before him, have abused their Rea­ders in the accounts that they give us of his principal Disciples.

As to the years of Pythagoras's Life, Jamblichus tells us, that it was much about his XVIII year that he set out to Travel: and that after some time,c. 2. p. 31. l. 5. (which I take to be IV years) spent in other Countries, he came into Aegypt, c. 4. p. 36. l. 27. and there he stay'd XXII years. He goes on, and says that the Phi­losopher being taken there by Cambyses's Soldiers, c. 4. end­ing. c. 5. begin­ning. was carry'd to Babylon, and there he stay'd XII years; and then return'd home to Samos, being now about LVI years old. There he stay'd for some time, (it should seem for another IV years) and then in O­lympiad LXII he went into Italy. c. 7. p. 47. l. 23. There, he says, he govern'd his School XL years wanting I, c. 36. p. 220. l. 4. and lived in all very near C years.

So Distinct an account as this is of the years of Pythagoras's Life, whereof there is not the least Item in any of the ancienter Writers, did, I confess, not a little rejoyce me, when I first met with it: and so much the more, because of two Certain Notations of time, by which, if they were true, all those years might be reduced to the like cer­tainty. [Page xlix] There is nothing better known in ancient History, than the year of Camby­ses's conquering Aegypt. We are certain it was in the end of the third year, or the be­ginning of the fourth of Olymp. LXIV. So that according to Jamblichus, this was the very year of Pythagoras's being carry'd to Babylon. And the time of his going into Italy is as certain, according to Jamblichus, who saith it was Olymp. LXII wherein Ery­xias was Victor. There is plainly VI years distance of time between these years that are here mention'd. And the same, one would think, there should be between his being car­ry'd to Babylon and his going into Italy. But that cannot be Jamblichus's meaning. For he saith, it was XII years that Pytha­goras stay'd at Babylon; and then, to make up his life very near C years, as Jamblichus reckons it, there must be three or four years more that he stay'd in Crete, and at Samos, before he went into Italy. Add these to the XII years before mention'd, and they make some XV or XVI years. And yet here Jam­blichus makes his going into Italy to be in Olymp. LXII, that is, to be VI or VII years before the certain time of his being carry'd to Babylon, which must be in the third or fourth year of Olymp. LXIII, if he was car­ry'd thither by the Forces of Cambyses, as Jamblichus tells us. So in short, he brings [Page l] Pythagoras Captive to Babylon some XV or XVI years before his going to Italy; and yet he makes his going into Italy VI or VII years before his being carry'd to Babylon. Here are two of the chief accounts of time in his History which so manifestly contra­dict one another, that to believe him in both is impossible.

Th [...]s is a great disappointment, but it will make us some part of amends, if there be a­ny truth in either of them. To begin with that which he saith of Pythagoras's being taken in Aegypt by the Soldiers of King Cambyses; that must be in the third or fo [...]rth year of Olymp. LXIII, as I have shewn. But as herein he contradicts himself in his o­ther Notation of time, so in this he doth not agree with the ancienter Writers; who ge­nerally speak of Pythagoras's coming from Babylon to Samos, and [...] going from thence in [...]o Italy, before the Reign of Cambyses. Now that he that lived near DCCC years af­ter those times, should presume to publish this to the World, without naming any Author for it, but as if he said it of his own know­ledge; this I cannot look upon as any other than a very imp [...]dent Fiction. As for that which he said of Pythagoras's going into I­taly in Olymp. LXII, it is very likely he had Authors that said something like it. There are enough that say he was there in Olymp. [Page li] LXII; and it is very likely Jamblichus might mistake them, and that might occasion him to say that Pythagoras went thither at that time. This is the best I can say of it. And so in short, I have lost all the joy that I had of both his Discoveries. For having exa­min'd them, I see the last is a mere Blun­der, the former a bold Fiction, and they both contradict one another. What credit can one give to such an Historian?

For his account of the Disciples of Pytha­goras, he takes what he will out of the rude heap that his Master Porphyry had thrown together, and much more he adds very la­vishly out of his own head.

Zamolxis the Lawgiver of the Getes, they will have to be one of Pythagoras's Disciples. Porphyry makes him one of the First. For he saith, that Zamolxis being yet a Boy, was brought out of Thrace by the Father of our Philosopher,c. 30. p. 154. l. 22. who gave him to his Son, and he taught him all mat­ters of Religion. Jamblichus owns he was Slave to Pythagoras; who, as he says, taught, him and then gave him his liberty. And yet he had reckon [...]d him before,c. 23. p. 103▪ l. 15. among the young men, that came to be Disciples to Pythagoras in his old Age. All this is true alike. For Herodotus, Herodot. IV, 56. that liv'd among them who remember'd Pythagoras, saith, [Page lii] Zamolxis was much Ancienter than he. And therefore Jamblichus was once in the right, though perhaps it was through forgetfulness, when he left him out of the Catalogue of Pythagoras's Disciples.

Zaleucus and Charondas he hath in the Catalogue; for which, he hath not only Por­phyry on his side, who tells us from Nico­machus, that by these he gave Laws to their people; but also in Diogenes Laertius there is a mention of them to this purpose.c 23. p. 103. l. 11, 15. But Jamblichus of his own head reckons both these among them that came Young to be Pythagoras's Disciples when he was Old: which is no truer of them than of Zamolxis; for these also were much ancienter than Py­thagoras. Zaleucus lived Olymp. XXIX, according to Eusebius's Chronicon. Of Charondas you have shewn that he was the Scholar of Zaleucus, Dissert. p. 362. or as others say, old­er than he. So that, if these three were Py­thagoras's Disciples, it must have been some time after the Wars of Troy, before his Soul came into that Samian Body of his; which, if it could be made out, would be a wonderfull proof of his Doctrine of Trans­migration.

They reckon three other Disciples of Py­thagoras, on whom he set no ordinary value, if it be true that they tell us of the Names [Page liii] that he gave them. These three were Epi­menides, by him Surnamed Purger; [...]. Empe­docles, call [...]d Wind-charmer; and Abaris, called Sky-rider. [...]. And very fine Stories they tell of the reasons of his giving them these Names: all tending to this,Porph. vit. Pyth. p. 193. that he imparted to them some of those Romantick Powers which these Historians were pleas'd to ascribe to Pythagoras. Jambl. c. 28. p. 127, 128. I indeed call'd them Lyes, but I shall ask their pardon,p. xi. if I do not prove that they belye Pythagoras in what they say of these his Disciples.

First, for Epimenides, whom both Porphy­ry and Jamblichus do reckon among his Dis­ciples;VIII, 3. there is much more probability in what Laertius says, that makes him one of the Ma­sters of Pythagoras. c. 23. p. 103. l. 15. But certainly Jambli­chus over-shot himself, in saying that he also came a young man when Pythagoras was old. And both he and his Master are extravagant in making Pythagoras Teach him to conjure. For Epimenides, as all Writers agree, had purged Athens, whence he had the name [...], before he could see Pythagoras, who, as they say, gave him that Name. And he was a very Old man when he died. And that was either before Pythagoras was born, or not many years after. See my ac­count of him in the year 594 before Christ.

[Page liv]To fetch Empedocles into his School, they seem to stretch hard on the other hand. For, though all agree that he was of the Py­thagorean Sect, yet that ever he was taught by Pythagoras, seems very improbable. That Alcidamas said this,D. Laert. VIII, 56. ibidem. is true: but he makes Empedocles a hearer of Anaxago­ras, either first, or together with Pythago­ras. This could not be; because Pythago­ras was Dead, either before, or a very little after the Birth of Anaxagoras. See my account of him in the year 500 before Christ. But that Empedocles came too late into the World to be at all a Disciple of Pythagoras, it sufficiently appears by the accounts we have of him in D. Laertius. Who saith, that he flourish'd in Olymp. LXXXIV, VIII, 74. and that A­ristotle saith he died at LX years old; tho' others of less credit say he lived LXXVII, or CIX years. But if he was in the flower of his Age in the LXXXIVth Olympiad, that is above LX years after Olymp. LXVIII, 3. in which I place the death of Pythagoras; or placing it in Olymp. LXX, 4. which is but IX years after, and that is the lowest I can go: [...], p. I must needs say, Empedocles was a very young Conjurer, or he flourish'd in a very old Age: or, which I rather believe, there is no credit to be given to these two Historians.

[Page lv]This will farther appear by the account they give of Abaris, whom also they make a great Conjurer, [...]. and train'd up to it by Pythagoras. So much Porphyry had said. But Jamblichus much out-does his Master. For having told us that Abaris came for improvement in knowledge into Greece; he saith, that in his way home from thence, be­ing now well stricken in years, he came to see Pythagoras in Italy. c. 19. p. 92. l. 32. p. 93. l. 10. There he gave Pythagoras the Arrow upon which he used to ride aloft in the Air: though elsewhere he saith Pythagoras took away his Arrow, and kept it till he made him confess all he cared to know of him. When there in Ita­ly they had spent as much time together as Jamblichus pleas'd,c. 28. p. 131. l. 28. then he brings them to Agrigentum in Sicily; and there he sets them to try if they can work any good upon Phalaris. In his 32d Chapter Jamblichus sheweth his Talent in the making of Speeches for them, and of Answers for Phalaris; till they came to be upon ill terms. Then he makes Phalaris resolve to kill them both; and he makes them for prevention set the Peo­ple against him; by whom, he saith, Phala­ris was kill'd the same day that he had de­termin'd to kill both Pythagoras and Aba­ris.

Now this is so fine a Romance, that it [Page lvi] is pity there should be no truth in it; but only that there was such a City, and that there were such Persons. It is civil to grant that in the time of Pythagoras there was such a one as Abaris living, though Au­thors differ much about the time of his com­ing into Greece. For as Harpocration tells us, Hippostratus placed it in Olymp. III, o­thers in Olymp. XXI. Pindar in the time of King Croesus; and Euseb. Chronicon hath it twice, namely there, and in Olymp. LXXXII. But granting that Abaris was in Greece in Croesus's time, which is the only time that consists with Jamblichus's story: Then, according to Euseb. Chronicon, his coming was in Olymp. LIV, 2. that was while Pythagoras was abroad in his Travels, according to Jamblichus's Account, which makes his coming into Italy to be in Olymp. LXII; that is, full XXX years after. By this time Abaris, though he came out of Greece with him, must needs be very well stricken in years: much more, if he came after Py­thagoras was setled in Italy. But what be­comes of Phalaris the mean while? See in my account, 572 before Christ. There it appears, the latest we can bring Phalaris to die, is in Olymp. LVII, 4. that is XVI years before Jamblichus makes Pythagoras come into Ita­ly. After this, Phalaris could neither kill, nor [Page lvii] be kill [...]d, but in a Romance; and I take all this Story of Jamblichus to be no other.

For the rest of the 218 Names of Disci­ples in his Catalogue,c. 36 p. 221, &c. I can bring none of them within the time of Pythagoras's Life, but Milo, and Parmenides, whom I menti­on in my account in the years 539, and 504 before Christ. There are scarce two more of them that ever saw Pythagoras, for ought that appears in any good Author: though here are the names of several more that were Philosophers of the Pythagorean Sect. Yet even these, together with them before men­tion'd, will not make up the odd number of eighteen. For the other two hundred, I take them to be insignificant Names, inven­ted by Jamblichus only out of vain Ostenta­tion.

To conclude, I do not lay any weight at all upon the Testimony of Jamblichus, nor much on that of his Master Porphyry, where he doth not mention his Author. But I quote them sometimes in the follow­ing account, as in a History of the British Kings I would Geoffry of Monmouth. But then naming my Author, for want of a bet­ter, where I think what he says may be true, I should leave all I said from him to the reader, with a perfect indifference whe­ther he believ'd him or not. With the like [Page lviii] indifference, as to every thing but what I have Scripture for, I commit these Papers into your hands; desiring you to take them only as my Opinion, which is all that you ask of,