The court of gentiles. Part III, The vanity of pagan philosophy demonstrated from its causes, parts, proprieties, and effects, namely pagan idolatrie, Judaic apostasie, gnostic infusions, errors among the Greek fathers, specially Origen, Arianisme, Pelagianisme, and the whole systeme of papisme or antichristianisme : distributed into three parts, mystic, scholastic, and canonic theologie / by Theophilus Gale.

THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. PART III. Of the Vanitie of PAGAN PHIOSOPHIE.

BOOK I. The Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie, from its Causes, Parts and Proprieties.

CHAP. I. The Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie, from its Causes.

The Causes of vain Philosophie; (1.) Ignorance, Act. 17.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2 Pet. 1.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (2.) Human Inventions, Col. 2.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ver. 22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (3.) Curiositie, Col. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 17.21, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 15.32, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The sundry workings of this Curiositie. (4.) Spiritual Pride. Col. 2.18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 8.1, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The Effects of Philosophie Pride. 1 Tim. 3.6, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Psal. 10.4, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (5.) Car∣nal Presumption. Col. 2.18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hab. 2.4, Affected ignorance, the effect of carnal Confidence. Socrates's sense of his

ignorance. (6.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or contentious Logic. 1 Tim. 6.3, 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The verbal contentiose amongst the Philosophers. The effects of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Envie, Strife, Atheisme, &c. 1 Tim. 6.5, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (7.) Opiniatretie and Dogmatising. Col. 2.20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, its origine and vanitie. (8.) Carnal Policie, Psal. 119.113, 118, 163. (9.) Judicial hardnesse, Rom. 1.18, 21, 22, 28, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (10.) Idolatric inclination. (11.) Fabulose imitation.

§. 1. HAving in the former Part contemplated Philosophie in its origine and pro∣gresse,* 1.1 we are now to take view of it in its degenerate, corrupt and deform'd Idea or visage: For though it were in its origine a weak imperfect reflexion of that gloriose Divine Revelation, which shone from the Sun of Righte∣ousnesse on the Jewish Church; yet falling on proud, carnal, indisposed hearts, it did but harden them the more: So that, Holding the truth in unrighteousnesse, they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened: for professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish, as Rom. 1.18, 21, 22. Now to penetrate fully the Cor∣ruptions and Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie, we shal consider it, (1.) In its Causes. (2.) In its Mater and Parts. (3.) In its Forme and Proprieties. (4.) In its Effects.

We shal begin with the Vanitie of Philosophie, as considered in its Causes. And the first prolific seminal cause of al the Va∣nitie and corruption of Philosophie, was the innate congenite darknesse, or the native ignorance of the natural understanding. 1 Cor. 2.14, The natural man, i. e. Nature in its highest Phi∣losophic elevation. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Animal or natural man, we are to understand, not only the brutish, sensual man; but man under the highest raisures of natural or moral endow∣ments, so far as he is void of the Spirit of God, and opposite to the spiritual man, ver. 15. Thus Chrysostome interprets this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who lives after the flesh, not having

his mind illuminated by the Spirit, but clothed only with a natural human intelligence, which the creator hath more or lesse invested the souls of al with. This Dr. Reynolds, in his Conc. ad Clerum, has large∣ly proved. These first Sophists or Philosophers, finding them∣selves in the dark as to the origine and first principes of the Universe; but much more, as to the sublime Mysteries of Di∣vinitie; they considered how they might reduce their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those dark Notices and Remains of natural light, unto a more perfect contemplation of things in their true and genuine Ideas. And in order hereto, that they might the better fo∣ment and emprove these few commun Principes, contemplative and active, they under-took many tedious Travels and Labors; they went far and near, to the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chalde∣ans, but principally to the Hebrews, who were scattered amongst al these Nations; from whom they received immediately, or by the mediation of those neighboring Nations, some fragments and broken traditions of the first origine of things; their Connexions, Causalities, Effects, &c. Also of the first Eternal Being, his Per∣fections, Operations, and Modes of worship, &c. which forrein heavenly Plants of Divine Revelation, they endeavored to trans∣plant into the Garden of their natural Understandings and Phi∣losophie; hoping thereby to cultivate and elevate their own na∣tural Principes. But these Divine Mysteries being too big for their natural Acumen, they soon degenerated into vain imagi∣nations. We find al this set forth to the life by Paul, in his Discourse to the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.27.* 1.2 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If happily they might, by grop∣ing after him, find him, i. e. like blind men, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, primarily and properly signifies, to touch, as they who play on a Music Instrument. But thence, in a more laxe notion, it notes, to grope with the hand, as blind men grope for the Wal: and thence metaphorically, as applied to the mind, it importeth the dark inquiries of blind nature after God and things Super∣natural. This is excellently illustrated, 2 Pet. 1.9, But he that wanteth these things, is blind, and cannot see afar off. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.3 i. e. not able to open his eyes: Or as Beza, Not able to see far. So Aristotle defines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. (according to Bu∣daeus) Myopes are such, who from their birth see things next them, but things remote they cannot see. Or as Beza, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

because they alwaies blink with their eyes. Thus learned Bochart, in his elaborate Book De Animalibus Sacris, part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 31. Where having layd down three interpretations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he addes a fourth, which he closeth with:

I prefer, saies he, the fourth interpretation of them who render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to shut the eyes, to twinkle, to blink with the eyes. So Hesychius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Isa. 6.10. Matt. 13.15. Act. 28.27, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they twinkled with their eyes. Thus also the simple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is often taken: so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, implies no other than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to shut the eyes, as Isa. 33.15. Therefore this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is he who is blind, because he voluntarily shuts his eyes that he may not see, or who seems to see, what he un∣willingly beholds. Such are by Job 24.13, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rebels against the light, John 3.20.

This fully agrees to these Gentile Philosophers,* 1.4 who are said, Rom. 1.18, To hold the truth in unrighteousnesse: i. e. They had some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, commun no∣tions of a Deitie, which they cultivated by studiose Contempla∣tion of the invisible perfections of God in his visible workes, as ver. 19; and farther, by some broken Tradition; borrowed from the Church of God. Yet al this while, the truth being captivated by their dark minds, they could not see afar off: they had only a purblind light, or as Plato cals it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a night-day knowledge of Divine things, which rendered them only skilful in coining vain imaginations, &c. They may be said to hold the truth in unrighteousnesse, on a twofold ac∣count. (1.) As by their unrighteousnesse they captivated the Truth: Their unrighteous lusts were too strong for Truth. Or (2.) As they did captivate Truth unrighteously, against al equi∣tie and justice. Had they given Truth fair play, it would have dealt roundly with them, and made them sensible of their Crimes; but their unrighteous lusts, did against al rules of equitie, un∣righteously captivate Truth, that so it might not disturbe them in their wicked practices.

§. 2. A Second Cause of the Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie,* 1.5 was the human Figments and Inventions of their own, which they mixed with those broken Traditions, they received originally from the Jewish Church; whence the whole of their Philoso∣phie, according to Divine estimation, is judged to be at best but human Invention and Tradition. This is fully laid down,

Col. 2.8, Through philosophie and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, &c.* 1.6 The Apostle seems to strike primarily at the Pytha∣gorean Philosophie, as it appears by the following, vers. 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, which were Pythagorean Doctrines. Thence Grotius, and Hammond out of him, understand this Discourse of the Gnostic Theologie, composed for the most part of Pytha∣gorean Principes. Now here the Apostle exhorces them First, That no man make a prey of them through Philosophie. What the proper import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, we shal hereafter shew. He saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Grotius observes, that here is the figure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one and the same thing signified by two expressions: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Philosophie and vain deceit, availeth as much, as if he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the vain deceit of Philosophie. Thence the A∣postle proves, that it was vain Philosophie, from its Causes, (which is the highest kind of demonstration) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the tradition of men.

Very right: (addes Grotius) for that which these Greek Philosophers taught, proceded, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the most part, from their human ingenie, or own invention. But what true account can we have of God, and of his Decrees, unlesse we are taught of God? Hence therefore those perpetual and inexplicable dissentions amongst the Philosophers: Hence also their industrious labor and stu∣die, in things that were neither in themselves certain, nor yet rendred men better. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the in∣stitution, which came not from Heaven; but from this world: and thence is partly false, partly imperfect.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly sig∣nifies the Elements, which the Philosophers suppose to be the first principes of Natural bodies. Thence in Philosophie the word was used to signifie the first principes, or rudiments of any Science, which have an analogie with the natural elements. So that by rudiments, or elements of this world, is evidently meant those principe, of Philosophie, which had their main origine from the world; that is, the invention of man, though ground∣ed on some Jewish traditions. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not according to Christ: i. e. saies Grotius, Not such rudiments or institutions, which were brought by Christ from Heaven. 'Tis true, much of their Philosophie, its first Rudiments and Elements, descended originally from Heaven by Christ. For, as it hath been proved, the chief principes of al Philosophie were but

corrupt traductions, or broken traditions derived originally from Gods sacred Oracles: Ay, but in as much as the manner of traduction, or conveighance was but human, not according to Gods Ordinance; yea very broken and imperfect; and more∣over, these purblind Philosophers mixed their own figments and inventions with their Jewish Traditions, which they understood not, neither emproved to any other use or end, than a little to elevate their own commun principes; hence the Apostle stiles the whole of their Principes and Philosophie but Tradi∣tions of men, worldly rudiments, which were partly false, partly imperfect; but wholly vain and uselesse as to Divine Institu∣tion and Instruction of men, in the saving knowledge of God in Christ. Not that the Apostle condemnes al Philosophie as vain, because it was of human Invention or Tradition; but his design here, is to preserve these Collossians from the contagious infu∣sions of the Gnostics, and other Heretics, who mixed Pytha∣goric Traditions and Rudiments, with Divine Revelations and In∣stitutions; and so rendred both vain and uselesse. This our A∣postle over and again inculcates,* 1.7 vers. 20.21, 22, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ to the rudiments of the world, &c. i. e. saith Grotius, Christ has delivered you from this human Insti∣tution. He that is dead, is freed from the incommodities of life. Therefore to dye here, is taken in the better part, as Rom. 6.2.* 1.8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rudiments, are every institution, as Gal. 4.3, 9. Where you'l see the reason, why they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rudiments of the world; namely, because they were commun to the Jews with the Gentiles. For there was nothing in these Rites peculiar to the Jews, yea they rather came by Gods per∣mission from the Gentiles to the Jews, than from the Jews to the Gentiles. And indeed it is evident, That these Rudiments or Institutes here mentioned, ver. 21, 22, were not Jewish but Pythagorean, (as Grotius observes) which the Gnostics trans∣planted out of the Pythagorean Philosophie, into their Theolo∣gie. This further appears by what follows, ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject unto ordinances?

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies Grotius, signifies here, Why do you suffer your selves to be thus taught, as though your life were to be composed according to the exemple, not of Christ, but of the World? Or, as Schmidius, Why do you bind your selves, ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the Dogmes, Rites, and Institutes of

men?

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is wel known, is a Philosophic terme, and signifies to impose a Dogme, or Doctrine, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to impose a Law. The Pythagoreans had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dogmes, imposed on al their Sect; so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he said it, was a Law to them. Now, saies the Apostle, Why do you suffer these Pythagorean Dogmes to be imposed on your Consciences, in∣stead of Christs Laws? Why do you subject your Consciences to these worldly Rudiments, or Pythagorean Ordinances, which are vain and uselesse, in point of salvation; as to maters of Faith and worship, &c? Then our Apostle procedes to lay down some of these Pythagorean Dogmes or Ordinances, ver. 21,* 1.9 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That these are no Mosaic Ordinances, is affirm∣ed by Tertullian.

It seems to me (saith Grotius) that he useth words commun, which comprehend both the Jews and the Phi∣losophers, principally the Pythagorist, &c.

Then it follows,* 1.10 ver. 22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the commandements and Doctrines of men. This, saies Grotius, ought to be referred to the remoter, namely to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or∣dinances, ver. 20, which were the inventions of men, not of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are such things as are commanded by mens Laws: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are the Injunctions or Dogmes of the Philosophers. So that we see the sum of our Apostles Discourse, and scope in these forecited places, is, to shew the vanitie and deceit of this Pythagorean Philosophie, which these Gnostics (pretenders to wis∣dome) had foisted into their mystic Divinitie. And this he doth fully demonstrate from its main cause; namely, that al these Pythagoric Principes (which these foolish Gnostics so much doted on) were but mens Traditions and worldly Rudi∣ments, as ver. 8, or Dogmes, Mandates and Doctrines of men; as ver. 20, 22: i. e. Though they might have some origine Idea in, and Tradition from Gods sacred Oracles; yet, in as much as this Tradition was only human, broken and corrupt, and no way apprehended, much lesse rightly improved, but rather a∣bused to vanitie, pride and idolatrie, by these foolish Sophists; hence the whole of their Philosophie, according to Divine estimation, was judged at best but of human. Invention and Tradition; and therefore vain and deceitful, when made the measure of Divine things, or rule of faith and worship, as here it was. And this indeed the wiser of the Philosophers, Pytha∣goras and Plato, seemed sensible of; as also of their need of an

higher and more Divine light, than what they had attained unto by Traditions received, and the improvements of their own natural principes thereon. What else mean those Py∣thagoric Symbols, Look not in a glasse by Candle-light? Dis∣course not of Pythagorean things without light, &c. And Plato gives us many great acknowlegements of his natural ignorance, and of the need he had of a Divine light, to direct him into the knowlege of Divine Mysteries, &c.

§. 3. Another Cause of the corruption and vanitie of Philo∣sophie,* 1.11 was Curiositie, and affectation of Novitie. This is more than hinted in that of the Apostle, Col. 2.18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. (saies Grotius) Penetrating into those things, which he hath not seen or known; claiming a privilege of discoursing concern∣ing things unknown or hidden. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Glossarie, sig∣nifies to dive or pry into. It is placed for the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 19.51. They preferred Angels to what Offices they pleased, coyning Names for them, distributing them into Classes, &c. Schmidius renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Invading, or proudly intruding on things he hath not seen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, properly signifies, to place the foot on somewhat; and thence sometimes, proudly to un∣dertake a mater beyond a mans capacitie. Our Apostle here strikes immediately at the Pythagorising Gnostics, their proud and curiose speculations, concerning the Pythagorean Aeones or Angels; whose Natures, Proprieties, Orders and Offices, they so busily, but vainly pryed into: As after them, the Popish Monkes and Scholemen, who exactly follow the Gnostics and Py∣thagoreans herein; and so are without dout struck at here, by this Apostolic charge. This curiose inquisitive humor was an original sin amongst the Greek Philosophers, specially the Pytha∣goreans; who having had some dark notices of Divine Jewish Mysteries, were greatly inquisitive into them, even beyond so∣brietie and modestie; in so much, that being, as it were, drunk∣en with their own curiose conceits and speculations, they grew extreme vain in al their Imaginations and Philosophie. This sin of curiositie, and affectation of novitie, was that which Luke charged upon the Athenians, as the source of their vain Philosophemes, Act. 17.18, 21. ver. 18, we are told, that he was encountred by certain Philosophers, Epicureans and Stoics, who ver. 20, seem very inquisitive to know what Pauls new Doctrine meant; and ver. 21, Luke gives us the root of al

their Vain Philosophisings, namely, their Curiositie,* 1.12 who spent their time in nothing else but some new thing. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. they were wholly busied, or, they counted their time in nothing else wel spent but in Novities. This humor of Curiositie was that which the Corinthian Sophists or Wise-men were drunken with; for which Paul frequently rebukes them, specially, 1 Cor. 15.32,* 1.13 Awake to righteousnesse, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saies Beza) to awake, properly belongs to persons Drunken, who at length after sleep grow sober. He speaks here of the sobrietie of the mind, to which he exhortes them to returne, who had been, as it were, drunken with their many and curiose speculations. This itch of Curiositie is that which has ever proved noxious (yea, perniciose where it prevails) not only to Pagan Philoso∣phie, but also to Schole-Divinitie; and 'tis like to prove as de∣structive to Sacred Philologie or Scripture-Criticisme, (accord∣ing to the Prophetic fears of Pious Ʋsher) if Critics awake not to righteousnesse. This peccant humor of Curiositie, as Aquinas has wel observed in 2a 2ae, Quaes. 167. is not directly opposed to a thorow disquisition and knowlege of Truth, but to the irregular Appetite thereof, or Studies therein; which Irregu∣laritie may be occasioned several waies. As (1.) when our Curiositie leads us to the studie of Truth only upon some low∣er motive or base ends; namely, to feed our Pride, or grati∣fie Lust. (2.) When our very Appetite or desires and stu∣dies after knowlege are inordinate and excessive. (3.) When the mater of our Studies and Inquiries is irregular, i. e. things secret, and above our capacities: or else things forbidden and sinful. (4.) When the manner of our disquisitions and con∣templations is irregular; which happens sundry waies. [1.] When we are preposterous in our studies, and make that subservient which should be ultimate, and that ultimate which should sub∣serve. [2.] When we violently persue shadows or things lesse useful, and neglect substantials or maters of moment, &c. [3.] When al is done in our own strength and confidence. Al these pieces of Curiositie the Pythagoreans, with the rest of the Philosophers, were greatly guilty of, which rendred their Philosophie exceding vain and degenerate: and the Schole-men have herein followed, if not out-gone them.* 1.14

§. 4. Another great Mother-root of the Vanitie of Philosophie, was Spiritual Pride, which attended and influenced al the Dis∣quisitions

and Contemplations of those Pagan Philosophers. This is sufficiently expressed by our Apostle,* 1.15 in his forecited caution to the Colossians, Chap. 2. ver. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saies Grotius) here is spoken of human Knowlege, not reveled by God. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken, Matt. 16.17. This knowlege swels them like to the wind. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we have 1 Cor. 4.6, 18, 19, &c. They much pleased themselves in vain matters, as Ezech. 13.3. It is most evident, that our Apostle persues his great undertaking begun ver. 8, to prove this Gnostic Theologie, composed for the most part of Pythagorean Philosophie, to be vain and deceitful. He had shewed, in the former part of the Verse, the Vanitie of these their Pythagorean speculations from the Curiositie that attended them: he here procedes to a more pregnant Cause, which had an universal influence both on the Curiositie and Va∣nitie of their Philosophie; and that was their Pride. Vainly puffed up, i. e. swollen with Pride, as an emty Bubble or Blad∣der ful of nothing but Wind; which al procedes originally from their fleshly mind, i. e. as Grotius wel observes, their hu∣man knowlege or Philosophie; which springing from their proud carnal minds tended to no other than the puffing up and ex∣altation of carnal self or fleshly interest: For we know nothing ascends higher than its spring-head and origine: When the proud fleshly mind is the source, proud fleshly self wil be the center or end of al our contemplations.* 1.16 We have the like a∣natomie of Vain Philosophie, 1 Cor. 8.1, 2. Ver. 1, Knowledge puffeth up, but Charitie edifieth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He doth, as some conceive, here also strike at those Pythagorising Gnostics, who were carnal Gospellers, but yet pretended to an high spi∣ritual 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Knowlege; whence they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gnostics: which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sophists or Wise men; whose pretended Wisdome or Theologie was nothing else but a degenerate composition of Judaisme and Pythagorean Philosophie; which puffed them up with a proud, vain, windy conceit of, I know not what, Mystic knowlege. Thence saith the Apostle, Knowledge puffeth up,* 1.17 &c. So it follows, Vers. 2, If any man thinketh he knoweth any thing, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. saies Grotius, if any man pleaseth (or prides) himself in this, That he is ingeniose, that he is learned, that he knows Dialectic Disputations, or is skilled in Philosophie. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here notes one

that fondly conceits, presumes, or arrogantly persuades himself, that he knows something: It importes a proud self flaterie and groundlesse presumtion of what he hath not indeed. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He does in no wise know any thing as he ought to know it. i. e. He is ignorant of the principal thing. That Knowlege is not saving which tends not to love. To know as one ought, is to use his Knowlege for the salvation of himself and others. The sum of al is this, That conceited, windy, emty, speculative Knowlege or Philosophie does but puffe up the mind, and sil it with Pride, Vanitie and Ostentation; which is but conceited Ignorance. And this was an Epidemic Disease and Ʋniversal Contagion, which tainted al Pagan Philosophie and Philosophers, though some had more skil than others to concele their Pride and Vanities under modest Titles and Habits, as Pythagoras, Socrates, and Diogenes the Cy∣nic, &c. Yea this original sin of Pride and Vanitie so much reigned amongst these first Philosophers, as that they themselves could easily discerne it in each other, although they could not or would not see it in themselves. Thus Plato and Diogenes ac∣cuse each other, as Diogenes Laertius, in the Life of Diogenes the Cynic, informs us: Diogenes, saies he, trampled upon Plato's Bed (where he Philosophised) saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I tread upon Plato's vain studie. To whom Plato replies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, O Diogenes, how much Pride dost thou discover, in seeming not to be proud (but to tread on others Pride)? So Antisthenes, seeing the Vessel wherein Plato's Vomit lay, said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I see Plato's Choler, but I don't see his Pride; meaning that Plato's Pride was too deeply rooted to be vomited up. This Spiritual Pride was an universal contagion which infected al the Philo∣sophers: Whence, saies Minutius Faelix, We contemne the proud looks of the Philosophers, whom we know to be Corrupters, and Adul∣terers, and Tyrants, and yet alwaies eloquent against their own vices. We Christians) who boast not of our wisdome by habit, but keep it in our mind, do not speak, but live great things. Now the Pride of these Pagan Philosophers rendred their Philosophie and Imaginations vain in these particulars.* 1.18

1. In that they endeavoured to measure things Reveled and Divine (concerning which they had received some broken no∣tices by Jewish Traditions) by their corrupt, proud, and vain

understandings. Thence, saies Minutius Faelix, It is a piece of the greatest sacrilege to seek that on the ground which thou ought∣est to find above. And indeed there is nothing in the World, that hath been a greater enemy to Gods Word, or Divine Re∣velation, than proud and vain Philosophie: which, albeit it re∣ceived the first rudiments and elements of al its contemplations about God and Divine Mysteries from the sacred Oracles, yet hath it ever rejected, yea opposed the same, endeavoring, by its vain and curiose searches into sacred Mysteries, to compre∣hend and reduce the same to the measure of its proud con∣ceivings.

This, saies Calvin, is the greatest arrogance, not to allow God his secret Reasons, which our Reasons can't fa∣dome.

2. The Pride of their vain Philosophie,* 1.19 appears in their in∣temperate desires of Knowlege, which indeed is of al the worst intemperance. So Seneca: To desire to know more than we ought, is an high degree of intemperance.

3. The Pride and Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie appeared in their busie Disputes and Contemplations about trifles and un∣profitable maters.* 1.20 This Plato himself was sensible of, when he said, (in his Meno,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, We account such mad, whom some count most wise. And Calvin pronounceth universally of such vain Philo∣sophers, Sedulo in hoc omnes incumbunt, ne abs{que} ratione insipere viderentur, They al labor with al their might in this, that they might not seem to play the fool without Reason. We find this proud vain Philosopher notably Characterised by Paul, 1 Tim. 6.4, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He is puffed up (as hydropical bodies, or Toads swollen with poison) with his aerial, proud, vain speculations, without true solid knowlege which humbles, &c. of which hereafter.

4. That which rendred the proud Philosophers so vain in their Disquisitions and Inquiries,* 1.21 was the peculiar curse of God upon them for their Pride. This was observed by some of the so∣berest amongst themselves. For Chilo (as Diogenes Laertius) being asked, what Jupiter did? Answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He casts down the high things, and lifts up the low. This is more fully expressed by the Spirit of God, 1 Tim. 3.6.* 1.22 Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the novice in Christs Schole is dehorted from Pride, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lest being lifted up, or waxing mad,

[So Physitians cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that labors under a Frenzy.] he fals into the condemnation of the Devil i. e. passively, the De∣vils cursed condition, &c. Thus through the Fever of their Pride they lost the understanding of their frail condition. God is said to resist the proud: And thus he did those proud Philo∣sophers, by leaving them to be entangled and ensnared in their own proud Imaginations, and Philosophic Contemplations.

5. Hence this Pride of their hearts caused their Philosophie to determine in Atheisme, Blasphemie, Idolatrie and Sensualitie.* 1.23 For God leaving them in judgement to their own proud Ima∣ginations, they fel first into doutful Disputations, thence into Sceptic Conclusions, and at last arrived unto Atheisme, Blasphe∣mie and Sensualitie: for their Scepticisme ended in Epicurisme, as we shal after shew. And al proceded from the Pride of their hearts, according to that prophetic saying of the Psalmist, Ps. 10.4, The wicked through the pride of his countenance.* 1.24 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is causal, denoting the cause of al their A∣theisme to be Pride. The Countenance is here put as that which is the Index of the heart. The Thargum reads it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his spirit. God is not in al his thoughts, or al his thoughts are, that there is no God. This is the effect of al his proud vain Philo∣sophie, to believe there is no God. It is certain, that Atheisme was the effect of proud Philosophie, as hereafter.

It's a good observation of Senault, that sober Jansenist:

There is no one but knows, that Pride hath alwaies accom∣panied the Sect of the Stoics, who to elevate man, have aba∣sed God; and who oft have made their Wise-man more bles∣sed than their Jupiter.

What greater Pride can there be than this, for a man to say, unlesse he be lest to his own corrupt wil, he wil do nothing? Which was the case of the Stoics, and most Philosophers, who walked in the sparkes of their own fire, pleased themselves in their own abilities, both Contemplative and Active, but had not the least regard to Gods glorie. It was wel observed by Austin, That they who wil ascend to God, must descend in self-abasement and humilitie. The further from Pride, the nearer to God: He that ascends in himself, descends and fals from God. Pride and Vain-glorie are the prime ele∣ments of vain Philosophie; whereas sacred and sound Philoso∣phie is sounded in Humilitie. Ships that are heaviest loden, fail lowest: So a Mind laden with sound Philosophie is most humble.

§. 5. The Vanitie of Philosophie sprang much from the car∣nal presumptions or confidences of these Philosophers in their own wisdome or conceited ignorance.* 1.25 This was another Master-Vice, which originally sprang from the forementioned Pride of their hearts, and had a potent influence on the Vanitie of their Phi∣losophie. This also is implied in Paul's Anatomie of the Pytha∣gorising Gnostics,* 1.26 their proud vain Philosophie, Col. 2.18, Vain∣ly puffed up by their fleshly mind, i. e. by carnal presumtion and confidence on their own fleshly human wisdome. So Hab. 2.4, we read of an heart lifted up, i. e. with its own swel∣ling proud confidences, or self-dependences on its own wisdome and strength;* 1.27 which indeed turnes the best human Knowlege into the worst ignorance: Whence, saies Seneca, (de Tranquil.) I think many might have attained to wisdome, if they had not thought they had already attained to it. Therefore we are un∣willing to learne, because we conceit our selves already learned. If thou desirest to learne, or know any thing with profit, learne first to know thine own ignorance. There is nothing that proud nature more affects, than to be reputed wise; and thence it is most prone to slater it self into a fond presumtion of its own knowlege; and so to aquiesce therein. It's rare, that such as are wise in their own conceit, have so much humilitie as to suffer themselves to be taught by others. Whence it is accounted by wise-men better to have little of knowlege with humilitie, and a teachable heart, than treasures of Sciences with vain self-complacence and confidence. For affected Ignorance is usually the fruit of such presumtuous confidence: When ever a man leanes on his own understanding, he usually fals into some con∣ceited Follie, or vain Imaginations. This Aristotle, Rhet. l. 2. c. 14. makes the cause why young men, or Novices, so often fal into foolish, indeliberate actions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Young men thinke they know althings, and thence are strong in confidences. And as this is usually the crime of Novices in Phi∣losophie, so was it generally of al the Pagan Philosophers; and so the root of much Vanitie in their Philosophie. Man indeed naturally affects a kind of Divinitie: he would fain (with his first Parent Adam) be a God to himself, and thence he makes an Idol of his own wisdome, which is an high piece of Idola∣trie, and therefore provokes the great God, to leave such to al manner of foolish conceits, and vanitie of Imagination. That

this was a main cause of those vain Pagan Philosophisings, is excellently laid open by Owen, Theolog. l. 1. c. 7.

The Philo∣sophers, saies he, being instructed by the advantage of some Revelation in the workes of Creation and Providence, with some notices of the Power and Divinitie of God, endeavor∣ed with al their might to promote their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their own commun principes; and this gave origine to Philosophie, &c.

These their endeavors being grounded only on the presumtion of their own wisdome and parts, proved altogether vain. This Socrates, one of the wisest of them, seems sensible of, as Plato in his Al ibiades brings him in thus Philosophising:* 1.28 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou knowest that errors in practice come from this ignorance, that men thinke they know what they know not, &c. Then he addes, When men are conscious of their own igno∣rance, they are willing to be taught by others. Agen, But believe me and the famose Delphic Oracle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Know thy self. This Plato, in his Charmides, ingenuously confesseth; Many have erred from their scope, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by trusting to their own opinion without judgement. Agen, It is a great piece of temperance for a man to know himself. It would be a great advantage, if none would act beyond their knowlege and strength. We seem to know althings, but indeed we are ignorant of every thing. It is an absurd thing to Philosophise of things we know not: When any attemtes a thing above his strength, he greatly erres. Thus Plato, out of what he had learnt from his Master Socrates. So agen in his Legib. 5. Plato discoursing of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-love; From this, saie he, procedes this great error, that al men estime their ignorance to be wisdome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence knowing nothing, we thinke we know althings. Thence (addes he) not permitting our selves to be taught what we are ignorant of, we fal into great errors. We have indeed a great saying of Plato, in his Epinom. pag. 980. shewing, That we can get no true knowlege of God, but by dependence on, and prayer to him. His words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trusting in the Gods, pray unto them, that thou maiest have right notions of the Gods. Thus it shal be, if God as a Guide shal shew us the way; only help thou with thy Prayers. Had Plato really practised what he here teacheth of Faith,

Dependence, and Prayer to the true God, it's probable his Phi∣losophie had not been so vain as it is. Lastly, Plato, Legib. 4, tels us, That he who is humble and modest wil adhere to Divine Justice: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But he that is lifted up in his own proud confidences, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as though he wanted no Guide or Governer, he is deserted by God; and being deserted disturbes others; and although he may for a while seem some bodie, yet at last he is sufficiently punished by Divine Justice, &c. Which indeed was Plato's own case, as wel as the rest of the Philosophers, whose presumtuous confidences in their own wisdome and reason proved the bane of their Philosophie; as it proved also with the Jews, Rom. 2.17, 18, 19, 20.

§. 6. The Vanitie of Philosophie received a great founda∣tion and improvement from their vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.29 or Litigations about words and trifles. For we must know, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That vain contentiose, mode of disputing, so much adored by the Greke Philosophers, had its foundation in the Italic or Pytha∣goric Schole: For the Eleatic Sect, where it first flourished, was but a branch of the Italic: And Parmenides, with Zeno the E∣leatic, who were the great promoters of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Di∣alectic vain Disputation, did herein, as in other maters, Pytha∣gorise. And the Gnostic Christians sucked in this itching hu∣mor of vain Disputation, together with their other Pythagore∣an Dogmes; which Paul does most professedly set himself to beat down, as that which he, by a Prophetic inspiration, foresaw would prove a mighty Engine to promote Antichrist's throne; as in∣deed it did, when the Schole-Divinitie, which is wholly com∣posed of vain Disputations, came in fashion. Therefore Paul laies in many precautions against this vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Li∣tigiose Dialectic Sophistrie, hatcht in the Pythagorean and Elea∣atic Scholes, and foisted into the Christian Theologie by the Gnostics, and after them by the Scholastic Divines. And the seat of our Apostles Dehortations against this itch of vain Di∣sputation lies manely in his Epistles to Timothie, who, as sup∣posed, was very much infested by those Pythagorising Gnostics. So,* 1.30 1 Tim. 6.3, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If any one bring in any other Doctrine: Which was the designe of the Pythagorising Gno∣stics, who abounded at Ephesus, where Timothie had his resi∣dence, and endeavored to compose a new Mystic Theologie, out of Judaisme and Pythagorean Philosophie, tempered with

some Christian Dogmes. Thence it follows, and consent not to wholesome words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies Grotius, answereth to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is a Temple-Phrase, belonging to such as approche to the Altar, as Lev. 9.7: as if our Apostle had said, These Gospel-Dogmes are sacred things, and ought to be handled with as much reverence as the Jewish Sacreds were. They are indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wholesome words, without any corrupt or poisonous mixtures; not like the Gnostic Infusions, composed of the venimous ingredients of Rabbinical Fables and Pythagorean Philosophie. And to the Doctrine according unto godlinesse; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and, is here as oft elsewhere exegetic: For the words of Christ truely are a Doctrine tending unto godlinesse, whereas those Pythagorean Gnostic contentions tended only to profanenesse and licentiousnesse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. which is both agreable and conducible unto godlinesse, as Tit. 1.1. Then it follows ver. 4. He is proud knowing nothing. i. e. He is as an emty vessel fil∣led with nothing but airy speculations,* 1.31 which conduce nothing to true godlinesse, (as before §. 4, 5;) But doting about que∣stions; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Physic, Dialectic, or Metaphysic Quaesti∣ons and Disputes touching their Aeones, or such-like unintel∣ligible Mysteries, which no way conduce to edification. And strife of words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. saies Grotius, There were many disputations amongst the Philosophers merely about words: namely Aristotle and Plato cal such things as conduce to the wel-being of the Bodie and Life, Goods: The Stoic wil not have them called so, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Conducibles. The Platonist and Aristotelian, say, A wise man hath mercy:* 1.32 The Stoic wil not allow that he hath mercy, but that he spareth. The great∣est part of the Stoic Disputations, saies Cicero, is spent about words. What more vitiose than to intend a controversie merely about Words? We may adde to these the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Pythagoric and Eleatic Scholes, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the probationatory, or problematic disputes in the old Acade∣mie begun by Socrates and Plato: Also Aristotle's Dialectic Di∣sputations, with al the sharpe contentions in the New Academies, and by the Sceptics, &c. which were al but so many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or needlesse strifes about words. See more of this in Plutarch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, concerning the various placites, or opinions of Philosophers.

Whence follows Envy,* 1.33 Strife, Railings, evil Surmisings: These, saies Grotius, were frequent amongst Philosophers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Envy, was the natural product of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or strife about words. What Envyings and Emulations were there betwixt the Italic and Ionic Sect, the Pythagoreans and Eleatics, the Platonics and the Peripatetics, with the other Sects. Hence follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Strife, or Contention: Such was their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Contentiose Logic, in the Eleatic and Megaric Scholes, which was frequently at∣tended with railings; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Blasphemings of each others reputation: al which ended in Evil surmisings. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. saies Grotius, evil opinions or vain Philosophie: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to think. Such were the opinions of Di∣agoras, who held there was no God: Of Epicurus, who assert∣ed that God regarded not human affairs; which also seemeth to be the opinion of Aristotle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Such al∣so were the opinions of the New Academics and Sceptics, who held nothing to be knowable or perceptible; nothing to be in it self shameful, &c. Such were the fruits of this vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we find excellently set forth by Plato in his Repub. 7. from pag. 532, to 539; where discoursing professedly of Dia∣lectic Disputes or Logic, and having opened the nature of it, that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherein we procede from some low∣er Hypothesis, to the first Principes, &c. he procedes to shew the Qualities of a good Logician, and evil fruits of contentiose Litigations. And his general direction is, That men studie not Logic before they are Thirtie years aged: for, saies he, young men engaging in Dialectic Disputes, abuse this Art to contradicti∣ons each of other; and so sometimes overcomming, and sometimes being overcome, at last they come to believe nothing: whereas elder Persons, seeking not childlike glorie but truth, are more moderate and grave; but young men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. being al∣waies used to contradictions, affect, like little Dogs, mutually to overcome each other.* 1.34 Thus Plato. It follows 1 Tim. 6.5, Per∣verse Disputings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Some Copies read it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which to Grotius seems the truest. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly a Philosophic terme, and signifies their more solemne Disputa∣tions: Whence Gellius cals the very place where they dis∣puted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Paul addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which usually in composi∣tion signifies perverse or not right,

as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so Jam. 1.22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deceiving themselves with

a Paralogisme or false dangerous reasoning and dispute. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies a perverse and inane Disputation or Exercitation, a curiose, jejune concertation. It's rendred here by the Syriac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the conflict of the Sons of Man: Or, and the mutual attrition; for those Sophists mutually brought down each other, and by their Scab infected each other. Chry∣sostome, and Theophylact out of him, render it confrications: For those vain Sophists mutually rubbed each other, like scab∣bed Sheep, and by their Philosophic confrications or rubbings mutually infected each other. Thence it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. having their minds altogether averse from pie∣tie, which is the greatest corruption. Such were these Pythago∣rising Gnostics, who albeit they pretended to a sublime mysti∣cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or knowlege, yet were they professed enemies to Pi∣etie, being indeed guilty of unheard-of uncleannesses and wick∣ednesses. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. destitute of al true saving practic knowlege, notwithstanding al their Pytha∣goric Dogmes and Institutes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. making use of the Christian Religion only as a blind, or politic medium to promove their gain and cover over their sen∣sual designes: Their godlinesse lies in gain, here lies their Re∣ligion or measure of good and evil: whereas, saith he, ver. 6,* 1.35 Godlinesse with contentement is great gain to a sincere Christian. This is added to the former by an allusive Antanaclasis, as Glas∣sius; or by an Epanorthosis, as Schmidius. The Pseudo-Chri∣stians estimed Gain Godlinesse, i. e. They by their perverse Philosophic Disputations wrested the Scripture and Religion, so as to make al subserve their private Gain: These Nazian∣zone stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as Hucstered and made Morehandise of Christ. But the Apostle assures us, That godli∣nesse is the best gain, i. e. it brings the best profit to mens souls. Thus we see how Paul does here anatomise this Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or contentiose Logic, as the pregnant cause of their Phi∣losophic Emulations, Contentions, Railings, Evil opinions, and al manner of vain Philosophisings. And indeed nothing more na∣tural than that such perverse Disputings should determine in Scepticisme and Atheisme, as Jansenius hath wel observed of the Scholemens Disputes. Therefore our Apostle, in the end of this Epistle, does further inculcate this his Exhortation against these vain Disputes, 1 Tim. 6.20, O Timothy,* 1.36 keep that which

is committed to thy trust, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being a decomposite of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies a Depositum committed to the trust of another. This Depositum, which Timo∣thy was so charily to keep, was the great Doctrine of the Gospel; which he cals a Depositum, because it is committed by Christ to his Ministers in charge. So 2 Tim. 1.14, we find the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in the same sense, 1 Tim. 1.18. 2 Tim. 2.2. So in the Book called Musar the precepts of the Law are called a Depositum, as some observe. Thence it follows, avoiding profane and vain bablings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the Glossarie, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vain speech. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is either a clamor about vain maters, or of vain words; such as agree not with the forme of sound Doctrine. Chrysostome understands it of novel words and formes of speech introduced. Theophylact here renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vain discourse or Disputation; which is therefore vain, because it's mater, forme, concomitants and effects were al vain and fruitlesse: It was conversant only about vain maters, Ge∣nealogies of the Aeones, &c. and it tended only to vain ends, vain glorie, &c. Further, he saies these bablings were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only vain but profane, i. e. they being foisted into sacred Theologie, not by Gods appointment, but from their own in∣ventions, merely to symbolise with Pagar. Philosophers, &c. they were thence profane. It follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and oppo∣sitions. The Greeks interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Contradicti∣ons. Much of the glorie of these vain Disputers lay in their facultie of contradicting each other. The Peripatetic studies how he might contradict the Academic; the Stoic opposeth both the Peripatetic and the Platonist; the New-Academic and Sceptic al other Sects. Thus were they involved in perpetual contra∣dictions; and the fruit of al these Litigations was no other than a false Science or vain Philosophie. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Science falsly so called: i. e. Of spinose, fri∣volous questions, such as assume the name of Science, but de∣serve not the same.

You see here (saies Grotius) how an∣cient the name of Gnostics was; which these Philosophers mingling with the Christian Churches assumed to themselves, despising al others as rude and ignorant, but boasting of their knowlege falsely so termed. Clement Alex. saies, this Epistle was upon this account rejected by the Gnostics; because they saw

themselves herein described to the life. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, As Pride and vain Opinion hath hurt Philoso∣phie, so false, or falsely so called Knowlege, hath spoiled their Knowlege.

Thence he produceth this Text. True Knowlege is that which profiteth to eternal life. Whence ver. 21 he addes, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith:* 1.37〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. These Pythagorising Gnostics, being swollen with proud conceits, and presumtuose confidences of their own pretended Knowlege and contentiose Philosophie, have deserted the true Orthodoxe Christian Faith. Paul gives us much the same account in 2 Tim. 2.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23. touching these Gnostic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or vain Disputes, of which in the following Chapter. At present we may take notice that our Apostle, though he strike immediately at the Gnostics who abounded then at Ephesus, yet in them he does propheticly strike through the Schole-Divines, who have, by their vain Aristote∣lic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rendred not onely Philosophic but Divinitie also vain and uselesse.

§. 7. Another cause of the Vanitie of al Philosophie,* 1.38 was the Opiniatretie and Dogmatising humor of the Philosophers. This indeed hath an intimate and causal connexion with the fore∣mentioned vain Disputation. For Self-love produceth in us al a fond conceit of, and regard unto our own Phaenomena and Principes: The contradiction of others is as fuel to feed this self-flatering opinion of our own conceived notions. This Self-love or flaterie being engaged to maintain what it hath under∣taken, sets the wits on work to contrive, studie and dispute for the defence of its espoused persuasion: And the effect of al is a fixed Opiniatretie or abounding in our own sense, and stiffe adherence to our own judgements; so that in this case mens stiffenesse in adhereing to their own opinions or persuasions, is not from the force and strength of the reasons on which they are grounded, but rather from the force of their own violent Self-love. For when the strength of adherence to any opinion ariseth from grounded reasons, it wil be either stronger or weaker, according to the force of those Reasons on which our Opinions are grounded: so that if we cannot shew some pro∣per motive or particular reason, as strong as the Opinion we e∣spouse, it is apparent that the said Opinion is founded on assec∣tionate

Opiniatretie rather than on grounded Reason. This was the general fate of those Greek Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans, with whom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he said it, had the force of a first Principe or the most binding Reason. They gene∣rally affected 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be slaves to their own Hypo∣thesis, rather than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to sacrifice to truth. Ari∣stotle gives us a good character of a Philosopher, that he should be a slave to truth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the abandoning his own persuasions: which is quite contrary to this philosophic humor of Dogmatising Opiniatretie, which makes men to abandon Truth for the preservation of their own Phaenomena. This seems struck at by the Apostle in that Col. 2.20,* 1.39 Why are ye subject to ordinances? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Why do you suffer your selves to be imposed on by those Pythagorean Gnostics, who would fain bring you under the yoke and bondage of their Pythagorean Dogmes, ver. 21, 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Graecians signified primarilie a placit, or confirmed, establisht opinion of any Sect; and thence an Institute, Edict, Decree. Whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primarilie importes to give a sentence, to impose an opinion, or tenaciously to adhere to an opinion. Thence it is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to suspend assent, or to hesitate: which kind of Suspension and Hesitation the Academics and Sceptics affected. It was a great question amongst the Philosophers, whether those of the Old Academie, namely Plato and his followers, might be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and it is generally concluded in the affirmative. Yea some would bring in those of the New Academie, who seemed most averse from this humor, under this mode of Dogmatising or Opiniatretie: For, say they, their stiffe and tenacious ad∣hereing to this Persuasion and Dogme, That there is nothing knowable, is a great degree of Dogmatising. Though the Scep∣tics endeavored to avoid this imputation of Dogmatising, by affirming, That they gave not a dogmatic assent to those Sceptic propositions, viz. Nothing is knowable, I assert nothing, &c. Yet certain it is they were too opiniatre, tenacious, and stiffe in re∣nouncing those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, commun notions of a Deitie so deeply engraven on human nature, (for their Sceptisme deter∣mined in Atheisme) which is an hellish piece of Opiniatretie or Dogmatising.

§. 8. Another poisonous root which infected and tainted al Pagan Philosophie,* 1.40 was the carnal policie of their Philosophers;

which appeared many waies. (1.) In their conceling the Au∣thors and origine of those Scriptural Traditions they borrowed from the Jews. (2.) In their clothing these Jewish Traditions with a Grecian fabulose Garbe, thereby to make them seem their own. (3.) In conceling their own Ignorance of those Jewish Dogmes, on which they so boldly Philosophised under mysti∣cal, unintelligible Termes and Fables, like Apollo's Oracles, &c. (4.) In converting al their traditional and invented Philosophie, to a subservience to their carnal Interest or superstitiose Idola∣trical designes, &c. These and such-like were the branches of their Carnal Policie, which rendred their Philosophie so vain and uselesse. We find this Philosophic craft wel described in the Platonic definitions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Craft is an affection whereby he that hath it is enabled to designe and promove his private end.* 1.41 But we have it more fully unbowelled by the Spirit of God, specially Psal. 119.113, I hate vain thoughts. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 French: les Discours, i. e. the vain and fraudulent Discourses of carnal sapience, contrary to the simplicitie of Faith and that obedience due to God. So a∣gen, ver. 118, for their tromperie is falsehood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.42 i. e. their cautelose Artifices, on which they trust, shal in the end deceive themselves, they being not able by al their cun∣ning to avoid thy judgement: or, they are to thee abominable, in as much as in al their train and politic wiles there is nothing but fraud. So agen, vers. 128, Therefore I approve as right 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al thy commandements of al things, but I hate every false way, i. e. al Carnal Policie and shifts. The like ver. 163, I hate and abhorre lying, i. e. politic craft, &c. And the A∣postle seems to strike directly at this Carnal Policie of the Greek Philosophers, 1 Cor. 2.6, Not the wisdome of this world, nor of the Princes of this world, that come to nought.* 1.43 Grotius and De∣odate understand this last clause of false reason of state, or po∣litic prudence of the worlds Grandees, which directly opposeth the Kingdome of Christ, Matt. 11.25. 1 Cor. 2.2. And we need not dout, but that the Apostle here takes in the world∣ly wisdome and politic prudence not only of Statesmen, but also of the Philosophers who passed for Princes and Rulers of this World, specially the Pythagoreans, who were great Statesmen and Politicians as wel as Philosophers. This Carnal Policie was the great engine of the Gnostics, those sensual professors, who,

to symbolise and keep fair both with Jews and Gentiles, com∣posed a politic and flesh-pleasing Theologie of worldly Rudi∣ments and Elements, partly Pythagorean and partly Jewish, as before on Col. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, wherein Antichrist and his Adherents (as in other Institutes) have exactly followed them, as hereafter.

§. 9. The great judicial Cause, which rendred al Pagan Phi∣losophie vain and cursed,* 1.44 was Judiciarie Hardnesse of heart and Blindnesse of mind; or Gods delivering those Pagan Philosophers up to spiritual Occecation, Blindnesse and Hardnesse of heart. This was the effect of al the former causes, and a great cause of al their vain Philosophie, as we find it fully laid down by the Apostle,* 1.45 Rom. 1.18, 21, &c. Vers. 18, he saies, The wrath of God was reveled from heaven, against such as hold the truth in unrighteousnesse. We must know, the Apostle in these Ver∣ses discourseth of the Gentile 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Philosophers, as ver. 22. And I conceive principally of the Pythagoreans, who were of the Italic Sect, and therefore flourished at Rome. Now of these Paul saies, That the wrath of God was reveled against them, because they held the truth in unrighteousnesse, i. e. what-e∣ver knowlege of Divine truth they had acquired either from Jewish Tradition, or from the Improvements of their own com∣mun Principes, by which they were capacitated to contemplate the invisible perfections of God in the visible creatures, it was al captivated by, and made subservient to their lusts; whence God gave them up to their own vain Imaginations and foolish hearts, as vers. 21, Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, i. e. Their knowlege was not active. Neither were thankeful, i. e. They ascribed not the glorie and praise of their Philosophic contemplations unto God, they owned not him as the Sun of righteousnesse, whence al these rayes of human knowlege sprang: but they attributed al their Philosophic attainments to their own parts, Sagacitie and Disquisitions; and so improved al for the greatening and advancing of themselves, their Idol∣wisdome, &c. Whence it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They waxed vain in their Discourses, Reasonings or Philosophisings: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Philosophie terme, the manner of Disputing amongst the Ancients both Jews and Grecians be∣ing by Dialogues. The meaning is, al their Philosophic reason∣ings and disputes proved by Gods secret judicial dereliction and

permission of them vain, yea cursed. And thence it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. (saies Grotius) Such as the sin was, such was the punishment. They shook off the light of Reason and God took away the remainders, as Eph. 4.18. So vers. 22, Professing themselves wise. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. glorying in their wisdome. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they were made fools: God in his righte∣ous judgement befooling them. Which is more fully explained, vers. 28, as they did not like, &c. Here is an elegant Parano∣masia or allusion in the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they repro∣bate or reject God in their knowledge, and God gives them up to a reprobate or drossy mind. So we read of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, reprobate money, i. e. drossy, &c. Justly does God leave such to a reprobate mind who reprobate him.

10. We might mention also,* 1.46 as another fruitful womb of vain Philosophie amongst the Pagans, the universal Inclina∣tion of al, more or lesse, unto Idolatrie and Superstition, as Rom. 1.23, 24, 25, 26, which is, Act. 17.18, applied to their Phi∣losophers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but of this more in the effects of vain Philosophie, B. 2. Chap. 1.

11. Lastly,* 1.47 Mythologic or fabulose imitation of Divine Truths and Mysteries might also be mentioned, as that which had a great influential causalitie on the vanitie of the Pythagorean, as of al other Philosophic: Of which we have already largely treated in the causes of Mythologic Philosophie, Part. 2. B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, &c.

CHAP. II. The Vanitie of Philosophie from its Mater, Parts, &c.

(1.) The Vanitie of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or contentiose Logic, &c. Rom. 1.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Phil. 2.14. 1 Tim. 1.6. Aristotle's Lo∣gic, how it became so Eristic by the Arabians and Scholemen. A general consent of the learned against Eristic Logic, 1 Cor. 14.20. (2.) The vanitie of Physiologie, 1 Cor. 1.20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what. Rom. 1.20. 1 Cor. 2.6. Physiologie the cause of idolatrie, Rom. 21.23, &c. (3.) The vanitie of the Ma∣thematics, its influence on Idolatrie and Atheisme. (4.) The vanitie of Ethics, Eph. 5.6. 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Defects of Ethics, [1.] as to its mater. [2.] As to its ends amongst the Romans and Stoics. [3.] As to its Rule, which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [4.] As to its principe, which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Free∣wil, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Good-nature, or seeds of Virtue. Socrates op∣posed that Stoic Principe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. This Philosophic Free-wil the root of Pelagianisme: No moral virtue but what is supernatural, against the Scholemen. The defects of Philosophic Ethics, as to supernatural principes, Faith, Love, &c. [5.] The Vanitie of their Politics, 1 Cor. 1.20, both comparatively and absolutely, as the root of Atheisme and Idolatrie, &c.

§. 1. WE have hitherto only considered the vanitie of Phi∣losophie in its Causes and Roots;* 1.48 we shal now pro∣cede to demonstrate the said vanitie of Philosophie from its own essential Idea or Nature, Parts, and Proprieties. The es∣sential Idea, Nature, and parts of Philosophie (as of o∣ther things) consist in its Mater and Forme; both of which have great mixture of vanitie in them. As for the mater of Philo∣sophie, it contains Naturals, Morals, and Supernaturals. Na∣tural Philosophie comprehends Logic, Physics, and Mathematics. Concerning Logic, we have no ful mention of the Pythagoreans being much versed herein; yet are we not without some con∣cluding, though indirect Arguments of their skil herein. For Porphyrie tels us, That Pythagoras had, besides his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a plain and familiar way of Philosophising. And we have already shewn, how that Parmenides and Zeno the E∣leatics

(who belonged to the Italic Sect) did much Pythago∣rise, as in other points, so likewise, as we may presume, in this of Logic, of which they are thought to be the first In∣ventors, at least great promotors; as it appears by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that contentiose mode of Disputing, for which Zeno hath been so famose ever since. As for the vanitie of this ancient Dialectic or Logic mode of Philosophising, it hath been already in part demonstrated in the foregoing Chapter, §. 6. But in as much as I find the Spirit of God so much in invectives a∣gainst this piece of vain Philosophie, (foreseeing that it would prove, as abused by Scholastic Divines, a main engine to pul down the Kingdome of Christ, and settle Antichrist upon his Throne;) I shal follow the sacred method herein, by endeavors to give farther demonstration of the vanitie of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contentiose Logic, thereby, if it may be, to open in any degree a dore to some more useful kind of Logic in the Scholes of Christ. And lest I should be thought singular herein, I shal follow the steps of Lud. Vives, Grotius, Jansenius, yea of the Philosophers themselves, in opening the vanitie of this contentiose Logic. We find the Apostle accusing the Sophists, (and I conceive particularly the Pythagoreans) of a vanitie in their reasonings, Rom. 1.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, They became vain in their disputes.* 1.49 For the way of Disputation in the Old Aca∣demie was by Dialogues; which mode, I presume, they tradu∣ced from the Jewish Scholes. And thus Grotius understands these reasonings here:

As the Academics disputed for and a∣gainst every thing.

Thus is truth lost by altercation, Jer. 11.5, by great Essays to act the greatest trifles; such as are not only unprofitable, but damnable to themselves and others, Esa. 41.29. We find the same word used, Phil. 2.14. Disputings.* 1.50

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Grotius, here seems to be bitter railings about maters no way belonging to godlinesse, of which there were many amongst the Philosophers, specially the Aristotelics, where∣of there were many in Macedon, where Philippi stood.

So 1 Tim. 1.6, Paul mentions some who had turned aside,* 1.51 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. to unprofitable dissertation or disputation. They who use such are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tit. 1.10. This, 1 Tim. 6.4, he termes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he opposeth to sound Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.6. We find al this fully laid open and confirmed, 2 Tim. 2.14, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. be thine

Auditors dayly remembrancer of this. The Hebrew expresse it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Paul chargeth him to inculcate this continually on his hearers; yea to charge them as before the Lord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That they strive not about words to no profit. That this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.52 Contentiose Logic, we have proved from 1 Tim. 6.4, 20, Chap. 1. §. 6. He is the more warme in his exhortation against this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it was not only unprofitable, but destru∣ctive to their Christian Faith and Communion. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the subversion of the hearers.

For, saies Grotius, the hearers by such strifes are divided into par∣ties: they lose mutual love. It answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, E∣version, is in the Glossarie, Subversion, Destruction.

This Paul gives as a good Antidote against the contagiose infusions of the Pythagorising Gnostics, who by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and strife about words insinuated much of their poisonous Doctrine, as the Scholemen after them their Antichristian Dogmes. Our Apostle inculcates this caution, ver. 16, calling these strifes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he saies, ver. 17, eat like a gangrene; and ver. 23, foolish and unlearned questions which gender to strife, &c. of which hereafter. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eristic Logic, began, as we have once and agen hinted, in the Italic and Eleatic Scholes, and was improved by those of the Megaric Sect, Euclid, &c. It was also of some use in the Old Academie,* 1.53 passing under the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of great use amongst the New Academies and Sceptics. But none gave so great an advance and perfection to this Dialectic litigiose mode of Philosopising, as A∣ristotle; who having naturally a mighty Logical Acumen, and the same much improved by study and artificial disputes, made it his businesse to carp at al such opinions of his predecessors, as were not parallel with his artificial Scheme or Method of Phi∣lophising. He spared not his own Master Plato, nor any other whose Dogmes were not commensurate with his Phaenomena. And foreseeing that posteritie might with the same censorious Rod strike at him, with which he had struck at his foregoers; to prevent the same, he reduced his Philosophie to the most acurate Method, his Logical head could invent; and withal frames a Logic answerable thereto; which he intended not only as a Key or Organ to open the way to his Philosophie, but also as a Shield or Buckler to preserve the same from such blows

or objections which posteritie might offer against it. And in∣deed (as Learned Owen hath observed in his Praefat. Theolog.) Aristotle, in the whole of his Philosophie, seems to design and studie more how to defend himself from the objections of others, than to evince truth; which rendred his followers more skilful in hatching intricate controversies, subtile nice distinctions, and wrangling Sophistrie, than true solid Philosophie. But yet to give Aristotle his due, I think it may be made evident, that he was not the main Author of this Sophistic kind of Dispu∣tation, which now reigns in our Scholes, but rather the Ara∣bians,* 1.54 Averroes, Avincenna, his Commentators; who, being wholly unacquainted with the Greek Tongue, were fain to de∣pend upon the versions of Aristotle, which being very imper∣fect, left them under great darknesse and ignorance touching Aristotle's mind and sense; whence there sprang a world of unintelligible Termes and Distinctions, with as many Sophistic Disputes and Controversies. These the Scholemen (more barba∣rous than the Arabians) greedily licked up (as the Minor Poets Homers vomit) and incorporated with their Theologie; which filled the Universities of France, (where this Schole Di∣vinitie was first broached) and England (which had continual recourse to Paris for Learning) with nothing but vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or strifes about words, instead of solid Philosophie and Divinitie; far worse than what was to be found in the Pagan Scholes: Which vain itch of Disputation hath proved the Scab of the Church, as Erasmus, Ludovicus Vives, Sir Thomas More, the Lord Bacon, Sir Henry Wotton, Jansenius and Owen, with other Learned men have wel observed. Yea,* 1.55 the vanities of this Dia∣lectic Sophistrie was observed and decried by many of the old Philosophers. Both the Sect of the Cynics and Stoics (as Dio∣genes Laertius observes) took away Dialectic Philosophie as vain, holding that our end is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to live virtuosely; which this wrangling Logic no way conduceth to. Aristo Chius the Sto∣ic (saith Diogenes) compared Dialectic Dissertations to a Spiders Web, which is artificially made but yields no profit. And Plato, Repub. 7. gives us his judgement against this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. It seems to me that there should be no controversie about words amongst such as have so great maters to discourse of. Wiclef was much offended at this kind of Sophistic litigation in maters of Faith: So was

Calvin, who affirmes,

That whoever does pertinaciously strive about words, soments some secret Poison.

But in this age none hath more amply, fully, and learnedly opened the vanitie of this Sophistic, Eristic mode of Disputation, so much Idolised by the Scholemen, than Jansenius, in his August. Tom. 2. Lib. Proaem. Cap. 28, and elsewhere; with Owen, in his Praefat. to his Theolog. also, Lib. 6. Cap. 7. Pag. 512 unto 520. I have insist∣ed the longer on the vanitie and corruption of Sophistic Logic, because it hath been, and stil is greatly abused and noxious in some of our reformed Universities, to the corrupting the minds of many wel-disposed young Students. I must confesse my self to have been too far in love with and entangled in this Snare; which had not the Lord by his sovereign hand of free-grace broken and delivered me from, might have proved the ruine, not only of my Studies, but Soul. Thou'lt therefore, Reader, pardon this invective against the corruption of vain Logic; which designes not the utter Rejection, but Reformation of Logic in Reformed Scholes. We shal conclude this Digression with the Apostles Exhortation, 1 Cor. 14.20, Brethren, be not children in understanding.* 1.56

'Tis, saies Grotius, the propertie of Children to make an ostentation in things unprofitable.

But in under∣standing be men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. like persons adult, Eph. 4.13, who are ashamed to play as Children with baubles and Rattles.

§. 2. The vanitie of Pagan Philosophie discovered it self much in their Physics,* 1.57 which are at best darke and cloudy, but for the most part fabulose, grounded only upon some broken Tra∣ditions, traduced from Moses's description of the Creation, Gen. 1, and Job's Discourses of Meteors, &c. with Solomon's Natural Philosophie of Plants, Animals, &c. which being but imper∣fectly traduced unto, and more imperfectly understood by these blind Philosophers, they turned al these Jewish Traditions of the origine of the Universe, of the first principes of Bodies, of Plants, of Animals, &c. into mere Fables, or unintelligible Spe∣culations and Controversies. This vanitie of their Physics our Apostle seems to strike at (inclusively if not exclusively) 1 Cor. 1.20,* 1.58 Where is the disputer of this world? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:

This (saies Grotius) strikes at the Inquisitor or searcher into the natures of things, which the Hebrews cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this world, i. e. the Physiologist. This studie they are wont to

cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly answers unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Disputation: So Baruch, 3.23, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are Physio∣logists. The Apostle Paul chooseth to cal him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Dis∣puter, rather than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Inquisitor, (as Baruch) because their Physic questions were wont to be ventilated or agitated by many Disputations, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Hence the Syriac Version renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Investigator; and the Arabic by a word that signifies Scrutator: Because such Physiologists spent their whole time in acute Researches and Inquisitions into the Bowels of nature, which afforded infinite vain Disputes. And indeed their Physics did abound with almost as much 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Verbal, Captiose, Sophistic Questions and Controversies, as their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Logic: which made the Cynics, as also the Stoics (who symbolised much in this as in other points) to re∣ject Physics or Natural Philosophie as wel as Logic. Socrates also seems to be much of the same persuasion, who perceiving how much his Predecessors, Thales, &c. (who were generally Physiologists) had abused Physics, addictes himself chiefly to Mo∣ral Philosophie. The like is reported of Padre Paul, that great Venetian, who finding the vanitie of contemplative Philosophie, converted his studies to Active, or Moralitie. But it follows in the same verse 20, Hath not God made foolish the wisdome of this world? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Fool or Mad∣man,* 1.59 answering to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies here to convince of folie, or make to appear as such, according to the import of Verbes in Hiphil amongst the Hebrews; as if he had said: hath not God made al those pompose contemplations of these proud Philosophists (who have pried into the Bowels of Nature for hidden Philosophie) to appear to be foolish and vain? in that they have not as yet, by al their Natural Philosophie, attained to any true notion and discoverie of the first Principe or God of nature, which is the chief end of al natural as wel as other Philosophie? So it follows vers. 21: For after that in the wis∣dome of God the World by wisdome knew not God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

The wisdome of God (saies Grotius) he here cals, That know∣lege of God,

which results from the contemplation of Natures Bowels. This answers to that Rom. 1.20,* 1.60 The visible works of God have impressed upon their natures certain visible stamps or legible Characters of the invisible glories of God, which these purblind Physiologists could not, by al their natural Inqui∣sitions,

come to any serious reverential acknowlegement of. So much is implied in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is used in the same sense, Joh. 1.10, and answereth to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 1.21. Al their anatomisings of Natures bowels could not give them any true Idea or notion of the first Principe or God of Nature. Which gives us an evident de∣monstration, that al their Natural Wisdome was but folie, because it reached not its first Principe and last end. Therefore it follows, It pleased God by the foolishnesse of preaching to save them that be∣lieve.* 1.61 i. e. Our Gospel, which seems folie to these Sophists, or Naturalists, has availed more to the knowlege of God, than al their Physiologic Contemplations. The same v. 27. But God hath cho∣sen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise: i.e. Our Gospel, which seems foolish in the worlds eye, in regard of the discoveries it makes of God, leaves a blush and confusion on al the vain Contemplations and Philosophie of these proud Naturalists. We find the like encomium of Gospel-light and depression of Natu∣ral Philosophie,* 1.62 1 Cor. 2.6, Howbeit we speak wisdome among them that are perfect: Yet not the wisdome of this world. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. (faies Grotius) not that Physic or Natural Philosophie, of which above Chap. 1.20, &c. This great vanitie and folie, which attended the Natural Contemplations or Philosophie of these Pa∣gan Physiologists, proceded not from any defect in the objective wisdome, or light of Nature, but from the subject; the dark∣nesse, pride,* 1.63 lusts, and vanitie of their hearts, as Rom. 1.20, 21. The visible works of God have as wel since, as before the Fal, sensible images, or visible gloriose Ideas of the invisible glories of God, his Wisdome, Power, and Goodnesse stamped on their Beings and Operations; but the most acute Philosophers (like Se∣neca's fool, who went up and down his house complaining the rooms were dark, when as the darknesse lay in her eyes), could but go up and down groping after God, by their Physic contempla∣tions, as Act. 17.27.* 1.64 Yea, the most sharp-sighted of these Hea∣then Philosophers, though by the Divine assistance of some influenti∣al raies of commun illumination, they espied some vestigia or ob∣scure impresses of Gods gloriose Wisdome, Power and Goodnesse shining in created emanations on his Works; yet were they so far from glorifying God as God, and giving thankful acknowlegement of that commun light they had received,* 1.65 (according to Rom. 1.21.) as that they changed the glorie of this incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, &c. Rom. 1.21, 23.

i. e. they idolised those Divine Virtues, Powers and Excelences, which they found in the Creatures. Not that the Philosophers or wiser Heathens made the Creatures the ultimate object of their worship; no, that grosse Idolatrie was peculiar to the Mythologic Poetic Theologie: But the great Idolatrie of these foolish sophists was, that where they espied any eminent Divine Qualitie or Power shining in the creature, they idolised that creature so far, as to make it a Mediator or medium of their worship performed to the great God. This they caled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural Theologie, we rather, Idolatrie, which was the fruit of their Natural Philosophie; of which more hereafter.

§. 3. What hath been discovered of the vanitie,* 1.66 yea Idola∣trie of the Physiologists, is applicable to the Mathematicians, both Pythagorean, as wel as other. Indeed the Mathematics seem to be the soundest, the most pleasant, and most useful piece of their Natural Philosophie; yet it hath not been exemt from much corruption and vanitie. For 1. It had the same cursed effect on their corrupt foolish minds, as that Natural Physiologie before mentioned: namely those blind Mathematici∣ans, by continual Astronomic contemplations of those gloriose Celestial bodies, fel first into deep admiration of them,* 1.67 their excellent composure and perfection, their excellent virtues and powerful influences on al sublunaries, their admirable order and harmonious regular motions. These and such-like eminent qua∣lities, which shone so brightly, could not (and that justly) but fil them with Admiration. And this Admiration, which should have led them to admire infinitely more the Creator and Con∣server of these gloriose creatures, was so far from having such an influence, as that it drew their Idol-framing hearts to set down and terminate their Adoration on these creatures, the Sun, Moon and Stars, &c. And this Idolising these Celestial crea∣tures as Gods opened also a dore to their Judicial Astrologie, or the black Devilish Art of Divination by the Stars, wherein the Pythagoreans pretended to have a more than ordinary skil; which Pythagoras brought with him from the Chaldeans, who were the first that fel into this piece of Idolatrie or Star-wor∣ship, and that from their Astronomic observations and admira∣tions of these Celestial Bodies; as we have afore shewn in the origine of the Chaldean Philosophie, from Job. 31.26, 27. P. 2. B. 1. C. 4. §. 3, 4. Of which more hereafter.

2. Another great Corruption which attended their studie of the Mathematics,* 1.68 was, that it determined in Atheisme, and that two manner of ways; (1) Indirectly and Consequentially, in that it brought them first into Polytheisme, or belief of many Gods; which had this fate attending it, that at last it led them to Atheisme, to believe there was no God: for Polytheisme naturally degenerates into Atheisme. (2) But the studie of the Mathematics has this more direct influence on blind proud hearts to lead them into Atheisme, in that Mathematicians being wholly ver∣sed in Demonstrations, and those for the most part ocular and most evident, they cannot bring their proud minds to stoop or assent to any thing, no not to Divine Revelation, without a Demonstration. This made Aristotle, who had a Mathematic head, to reject al the Oriental Traditions which his Ancestors Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato had gathered up, touching the origine of things and Divine maters; and rather to believe an Eternitie of mater, because those Jewish Traditions were not backed with Demonstrative Arguments. This also made the Epi∣cureans and Stoics reject Paul's new Doctrine, (albeit they seem at first a little tickled with the novilty of it) because his Testi∣monie was not backed with Demonstrative Arguments; though indeed Paul gave them sufficient Demonstrations, had they had eyes to see them, Act. 17.18, to 30. This Mathematic humor was that which made the Grocians generally offended at the Gospel, accounting it but foolishnesse, because it was not proved by Demonstrative Reasons and Arguments, as Paul frequently observes, specially 1 Cor. 1.20, 21. & 2.6. of which before. And indeed this has been the sad fate of some great Mathematicians of this, and of former ages, who being wholly taken up in Demonstrations, expect the same in Divine maters; and not finding that footing their Atheistic hearts expect for their Mathematic phantasies to build upon, in order to a Demonstra∣tion of the Scriptures authoritie, &c. they reject al Divine Revelations, yea al true and found notions of a Deitie and of the Creation, with inclinations rather to believe the Worlds Eternitie, or such like monstrose Phanomena. I wish there were not too many such Mathematic Atheists breathing in Christian air. But of this more hereafter.

§. 4. We procede to shew the vanitie and corruption of Moral Philosophie,* 1.69 as wel amongst the Pythagorean as other

Philosophers. Moral Philosophie (as has been mentioned) regards either single persons, and so it's stiled Ethics; or Corporations and Societies, and so it passeth under the name of Politics. Both of these had great corruptions attending them, both in the Italic and Jonic Scholes. As for Ethics, it's true, the Pythago∣reans with the other Philosophers had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ethic sentences, or Symbolic characters, answering to, and, as I presume, traduced from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Proverbial sayings amongst the Jews: yet we are to remember, that these their Ethic pre∣cepts were at best very imperfect, and not without a great mix∣ture of vanitie and corruption. As for the Pythagorean Ethics they were very mythologic and enigmatic, wrapped up under such dark symbols and figures, as that it was difficult to come to a true understanding of them. The first that reduced Moral Phi∣losophie to a naked familiar dresse was Socrates, who yet was excedeing defective both in his precepts and practice of Mora∣litie; for Incest, Fornication and Sodomie, were things not only allowed, but the later of them practised by him, if he be not belied, on his Minion Alcibiades: and Plato brings in Socrates expressing great affection to Alcibiades, telling him that he loved him for himself, &c. which argued an extreme affection towards him. Grotius informs us, that this sin of Sodomie was generally allowed by the Philosophers. So on Ephes. 5.6,* 1.70 Let no man de∣ceive you with vain words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. with vain Reasonings or Philosophie.

He notes here (saies Grotius) the Philosophers, who taught there was no sin in Incest, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sodomie; and who commended 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, communitie of Wifes, (which Plato did) and who thought that it was lawful for buyers and sellers to circumvent each other.

Whence the Apostle exhorts them, Ver. 15, To walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise;* 1.71 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He does (saies Grotius) by a witty Pa∣ronomasia or allusion cal the Philosophers (those proud Sophists) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unwise, in as much as their Moralitie was but vain and foolish if compared with the Gospel; wherefore he exhorts them, Ver. 14. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,* 1.72 and Christ shal give thee light. Al their Moral Philosophie was but a dreaming, dead, shadowy light; 'twas Christ only that gave them the true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or light. So 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.73 &c. Where is the wise?

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Grotius, amongst the Greeks, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 amongst the Hebrews, were, by way of ex∣cellence,

such as delivered Moral precepts, as those seven Wise-men so famose in Grece, and after them Socrates with others. The meaning is, shew me the Philosophers and Philolo∣gists, who have reduced so many persons to such Probitie and Moralitie, as we have done by the preaching of the Crosse. Their Disciples are but few in comparison of ours; and they continue Fornicators, if not some somewhat worse: They con∣tinue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, emty vessels silled with nothing but vain opinion and ostentation, as Timon said; they remain proud, litigious cursers, &c.

So Grotius on 1 Cor. 2.14. The Greek Philosophers were Fornicators, corruptors of youth, hun∣ters of Vain-glorie, cursers, envious, &c. Thence saith, Minutius Faelix,

We contemne the proud looks of the Philosophers, whom we have known to be corruptors of youth (or Sodomists) and Adulterers, and Tyrants, and alwaies eloquent against their own vices.

And indeed it was just with God to leave the wisest and best of their Moralists to fal into sins against nature, who abused their natural light unto so much pride, presumti∣on and vain ostentation. Yea take Moral Philosophic in its high∣est elevation and refinement, as seated amongst the Stoics, and we shal find it a very poor imperfect vain shadow, if compa∣red with those precepts of Moralitie contained in the Word of God.* 1.74 For first if we consider the mater of al their Philosophic Moralitie, it was verie narrow and far short of those Moral duties taught us in the Word of God. (1) The Philosopher's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, right Reason, which they made the measure and rule of their Moralitie, being but crooked and depraved, allowed them many sins, as Incest, Fornication, Sodomie before mention∣ed, which Gods Law forbids. So Grotius on 1 Cor. 5.2, tels us, that both the Cynics and Stoics judged Incest amongst their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, things indifferent. (2) Neither did it give any convi∣ction or prohibition of the first motions or ebullitions of Origi∣nal Sin. (3) Neither did their Right Reason back its precepts with such forcible promises, motives and threats, from future happinesse or punishment, as the Word of God doth.

2.* 1.75 Neither were the Ethics of the Stoics and other Mora∣lists defective, and so vain in the mater and duties only, but also in the principes, forme, and manner of Moralitie: For (1) The soul and spirit of al Moralitie is placed, and that by the Philo∣sophers themselves, in the End. For, say they, such as the forme

is in Naturals, such is the end in Morals and Spirituals; such as the Principe is in Demonstration, such is the end in Action: Or, the end has the same place in Actives, as the Principe has in Spe∣culatives. The persection of every thing is measured by its end, which is the terme of al actions, as the forme is of productions. Now it is most certain, that the chief, yea the only supreme End of al Moralitie (as wel as of Divinitie) can be no other than the glorifying and enjoying of God; as Augustin long since, and Jan∣senius out of him hath demonstrated, Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 17. pag. 208. And how far these proud Moralists were from this End is ap∣parent to al that are versed in their Ethics.* 1.76 For (1) what was the main End which the ancient Romans (amongst whom the Pythagoreans flourished) proposed as the scope of their Mo∣ralitie? surely nothing but Honor, Renown, or Vain-glorie; arising from the splendor, lustre, or shine of their glittering heroic and seemingly virtuose actions, which rendred al their good works but splendid sins, as Augustin. (2) The Stoics and Peripatetics seem a little more noble and refined in their ends,* 1.77 proposing it as their main design, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to live accor∣ding to virtue; or, to desire virtue for virtues sake. But what was the virtue they aspired unto? it was a virtue spun out of the bowels of their own free-wil: so that they stil make Self the objective mater of their felicitie: they deify and idolife Self, their own home-spun Virtues. Whence Augustin pronounceth universally of these Stoics,

That they lived according to the flesh no lesse than the sensual Epicureans;

for (saith he) to live according to the flesh is to live according to a mans Self, his own Virtues, &c. as Jans. Aug. Tom. 2. l. 4. cap. 14.

2. Hence follows another great spring of vanitie and corrup∣tion in al their Philosophic Moralitie; in that,* 1.78 as they made Self the great standard, measure, and last end, so also the first influential and effective principe of al their good works. They acted al not only for, but also from Self their great God, or Idol, as Nebuchadnezar, Dan. 4.30, BY the might of my power, and FOR the honour of my Majestie. He makes himself his first prin∣cipe and last end, which is the highest Idolatrie. So these proud Moralists they al made self as the last end, so the first spring of Moralitie. For (1) They al supposed those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.79 commun principes, which some called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, presumtions, or presuppo∣sitions of natural light remaining in their corrupt understandings,

to be if managed aright a sufficient Rule or Law to guide them in their Morals. Whence these dark glimmerings of corrupt nature were generally stiled by the Platonists, as also by the Stoics, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, right reason. Though indeed Plato now and then seems a little modest in acknowlegeing his ignorance, yet generally they supposed an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a right reason, which if wel improved might bring them to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or top of their Moralitie. This right reason was in a more particular manner the Stoics (who passe for the greatest Moralists) Diana or God∣desse, as we find it excellently observed by Jansenius, in his Au∣gust. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 205.

The Stoics (saies he) and al other, who thought the offices of Virtue were to be desired for their own honestie and pulchritude, made human reason, to which they thought this was most consentaneous, Judge; and they would that she as Mistresse and Queen should governe al; to whom, as holding the chief supremacie over the other parts of the Soul, al should be obedient. For hence it is they so often crack, that the duties of Virtue are therefore honest and desirable, because they are consentaneous to right reason: But in this mode of desiring Virtue there lies hid the greatest Pride; for that which terminates their appetite is their very Reason, as she is the Queen and Emperesse, and utmost rule of a good life. Whence it comes to passe, that whosoever de∣sireth Virtue in this manner adores his own Reason as the Princesse which he serves, which without al peradventure is the worshipping, and honoring, and taking complacence in him∣self.

Here we may see whence the Scholemen borrowed their Recta ratio, right reason, which they make with the Philoso∣phers to be the Regula esse moralis, the rule of Moral Beings and Actions. So Suarez in his 1a 2ae, or Ethics, touching esse Morale, its rule, &c. Yea indeed the Scholemen herein came much short of many of the more modest Philosophers, namely Socrates and Plato, who make frequent acknowlegements of the imperfection of their Natural light, and therefore by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seem to understand the objective Divine light, or Law of God,* 1.80 of which I dout not but they had received some noti∣ces from Jewish Traditions, as we have proved, Court Gentiles, P. 2. B. 2. c. 10. §. 2. (2.) The Heathen Moralists, both Ro∣mans, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics, supposed there was in men a Good-nature, disposition, seeds of Virtue,

or Moral Free-wil, which if wel improved would raise men to the highest elevation of Virtue. This the Romans, (where the Py∣thagorean Philosophic flourished) called the Elements, or root of Virtue. Some Platonists cal it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Good-nature; The Ari∣stotelics 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Free-wil; The Stoics, the seeds of virtue. And none abounded more in this Idolising of their own Free-wil than the Stoics, whose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, first truth, or according to the Christians Philosophic, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, first lye, was, That it was in the power of a mans own Free-wil to make himself virtuose or wicked, happy or miserable; yea a God if he pleased. So Diogenes Laertius in the life of Zeno tels us, the Stoics held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That virtue was teach∣able, because good men are made of bad. Agen (saies he) because reason is given to reasonable creatures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To live rightly according to reason happens to men naturally. He also tels us, that the Cynics held the same principe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that virtue was teachable. Plutarch has a Book thus titled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that virtue is a thing teachable. Yet we must confesse that some of the more modest Moralists made it a mater of question, Whether virtue were teachable? Plato, or rather Socrates, in Plato's words, utterly denies it: so Meno pag. 89, he brings in Socrates thus speaking,* 1.81〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have often sought if there were any Preceptors of virtue; and doing al I can, I can find none. Whence he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Virtue comes not from nature, neither is it teach∣able, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by a Divine fate it is produced, without the active concurrence of the mind in those where it is. Thus So∣crates in Plato's Meno, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pag. 99. whereby it seems he had some apprehension of the insufficience of corrupt nature, or Free-wil, to afford any spark of true Virtue, and that it must come from some Divine fate. Though what this Divine Fate was, and how Virtue was communicated by him, he was alto∣gether at a losse. Timaeus Locrus the Pythagorean, from whom Plato borrowed the main Ideas of his Physics, asserted seeds of Virtue in corrupt nature. Thus pag. 103, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Principes of these Virtues are from nature, but the middle and end from diligence, with the benefit of Philosophic institution,

which nourish and corroborate virtue, as exercices do the bodie, &c. This Philosophic Dogme of a Moral 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good nature, free-wil, or seminal virtue implanted in corrupt nature is excel∣lently opened to us by Jansenius, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256.

This Dogme, saies he, which asserteth seeds of Virtue to be implanted in men naturally, we admonish that it sprang from the Gentile Philosophie. For the Philosophers, when they observed that there flourished in every mans nature a certain judgement concerning the honestie of many Acts, and a remorse of Conscience following their pravities, &c. they at∣tributed to the human mind seeds of al virtues; which would by good culture and exercitation bud forth and grow up unto ripe Virtue! Hear Tullie attributing the Elements of the more refined Peripatetic and Stoic Virtue to nature it self, Tul. lib. 5. de finibus: Nature brought in the Elements of virtue — but it only began virtue and nothing more.

It's true, (as Jansenius before wel observes) if we consider Virtue only in regard of its office, dutie, or mater, it may not be inconvenient to allow some more noble spirits, some kind of seminal inclinations or radical dispositions to many heroic actions materially good, with which many Noble Romans and Grecians were endowed. But alas! such seminal material dispositions to actions materially good, are but the corps or bodie of Moralitie, or Virtue; it is the Principes specially the End, that is the soul, which spirits and informes eve∣ry good act, and renders it truly virtuose: in which regard to suppose with the Philosophers any seeds of virtue in corrupt nature, is to suppose a contradiction, or an opposite in an appo∣site, i.e. pure nature in corrupt. From this Philosophic Dogme of the seeds of virtue in human nature, the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, Cassianus,* 1.82 &c. drew their Doctrine of Free-wil, which Augustin does so greatly inveigh against. This opinion has been since espoused by the Scholemen, who finding themselves oppo∣sed herein by al Christian Catholics, they invented this new stra∣tageme or blind to salve their Phaenomena, namely by distinguish∣ing Virtues into Natural or Moral and Supernatural or Divine. Whereas indeed there can be no Virtue truly Moral, but what is also Supernatural or Divine;* 1.83 for according to their own Schole-maxime, Bonum constat ex causis integris, malum ex quo∣libet defectu, Good must have al its causes, but evil ariseth from any defect. We find this piece of Scholastic vanitie or cor∣ruption

fully laid open by Jansenius, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256.

On those seeds of Virtue the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians first founded their Heresie; which afterwards the Scholemen brought into the Christian Scholes, to no smal prejudice of Scholastic Doctrine. For these Heretics affirmed, That from these Philosophic Seeds true Virtues might, by the alone power of the human wil, spring; which the Schole∣men perceiving to be manifestly repugnant to the most con∣stant Catholic Doctrine, they framed a double man in one man, a double Charitie, double Virtues, double Workes; the one Natural, the other Supernatural, of which in the whole Doctrine of Augustin, &c. there cannot be found the least Vestigium. As if those very Virtues, which the Philoso∣phers and Scholemen cal Natural, would not have been called by Augustin Vices.

That there is no Virtue natural, or truly moral, but what is supernatural, see Court Gent. Part 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 4. Indeed herein the vanitie and corrupti∣on of the Pelagians and Scholemen excedes that of the Philo∣sophers:* 1.84 for these having no Divine Revelation to measure Vir∣tue by, but only some dark glimmering of Nature's light, could not attain unto any entire or true Idea and notion there∣of, as to its principe and spiritual qualitie, and therefore no won∣der if these poor Philosophers, who by reason of their dark∣nesse accounted the picture, shadow, or mater of a good acti∣on to be Virtue, supposed an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or some seminal dispositi∣ons to the mater of Virtue to be Virtue. But as for the Pe∣lagians and Scholemen, who have a clear rule to judge of Mo∣ral good by, and also confesse, that every good action must consist of al its causes; for such to allow of any seeds of Virtue, or Moral Free-wil in corrupt Nature, is a piece of pride and vanitie far beyond that of the Philosophers.

3. Hence follow many other Essential defects in al the Phi∣losophic Ethics of the Pagan Moralists.* 1.85 (1) We find no one precept in al their Rules of Moralitie, pressing men to spiritual povertie, self-emtinesse, &c. which Christ's Ethics make the foundation of Virtue, Mat. 5.3, 4. But we find the quite con∣trary every-where in the Philosophers Morals, which wholly tends to feed spiritual pride. (2) We find no mention of Christ, and Dependence on Him, which is Essential to every good work. 'Tis true, Socrates bids his Friend, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

depend on God, and pray for assistance to performe good acts: But 'tis most probable he knew not what this Dependence meant, or where to pitch it on its right Object: for if he had, he might have been reckoned a Believer, which we have no ground to believe he was, but the contrary. (3) In al their Philoso∣phic Ethics we find not any one word of performing Virtuose Acts out of Filial love to God, which is part of the spirit, or Essential constitution of Moralitie. Many other defects in their Ethics might be mention'd.

§. 6.* 1.86 A second part of Moral Philosophie is Politics, where∣in the Philosophers were not a little vain and corrupt. So 1 Cor. 1.20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Where is the Scribe? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (saies Groti∣us) according to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hellenistic manner of speaking, signifies him that is skilled in the Law or Historie. So in Baruc. 3.23, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are such as have skil in the Law or Historie. There was a twofold Scribe among the Hebrews, the one Politic, the other Ecclesiastic. The Politic Scribes were, (1) Ministers of State, such as were the King's Privie Counsellers, or persons constituted in some Office of trust. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Officers, Exod. 5.6, is rendred by the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.87 Scribes. So Ezra 4.8, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Scribe, notes civil Dignitie and Office; whence it is rendred in our Mar∣gines, Secretary. (2) There were also among the Hebrews in∣ferior or plebean Scribes, for the making private Contractes, answerable to our public Notaries. The Ecclesiastic Scribe was a Doctor, Expositor, and Interpreter of the Law; whose Office it was to meditate on, expound and vindicate the Law. Scribe here is to be understood chiefly in the last sense, yet not ex∣clusively as to the first notion of it. But we find a more ful ac∣count of the Vanitie of al Philosophic Politics, or Civil Wis∣dome, 1 Cor. 2.6,* 1.88 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nor the wis∣dome of the Princes of this world. He means (saies Grotius) Po∣litic Wisdome, to which belongs Jurisprudence, or skil in Laws and Histories. As if he had said, Take notice, that al these proud Monarchs, notwithstanding al their Politic Laws & Govern∣ment, are come to nought, or spoiled of al their Politic Designes and Interess. For this seems the proper import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that come to nought. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is said (1) Of that which has lost its efficacitie, as Luk. 13.7. (2) Of that which is abolisht and made void. Politic Philosophie has lost its spirits and efficace.

So Grotius. The Empires that now are shal perish, as wel as those figured by Daniel's Image, Dan. 2.44, &c. 1.* 1.89 The Va∣nitie of al Human Politics discovers it self by their imperfection if compared with Divine Politics. Human Politics consist of two parts, Legislation and Administration. Legislative Politics had for their main Institutors Minos the Cretian Legislator, Ly∣curgus who gave Laws to the Lacedemonians, Solon the Athe∣nian Law giver, with Draco. Also amongst the Romans, Numa Pompilius, who gave Laws to Rome; Zaleucus the Locrian Legi∣slator, and Charondas the Thurian, both Pythagoreans. Amongst the Philosophers, who gave an Idea both of Legislative and Ad∣ministrative Politics, we have first Pythagoras, who spent the Afternoon in instructing his Disciples in Politics; besides his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Laertius saies he writ. Also Plato who left be∣hind him an excellent Idea of Politics, both Legislative, in his several Books of Laws, and Administrative, in his Books of a Communwealth. Aristotle likewise has given us a good Idea of Politics. Yet al these Human Politics, both Philosophic, or Con∣templative and Active, if compared with Divine seem but sha∣dows,* 1.90 very imperfect, yea vain: for (1) Al these Human Poli∣tics were but broken imperfect derivations or traditions from the Divine Jewish Politics; as elsewhere. (2) Al Human Po∣litics were very narrow and particular, not general and com∣prehensive of particular circumstances. Therefore Aristotle, lib. 1. Polit. observes wel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Al things are most evident to such as consider particulars, but they who pronounce uni∣versally, deceiving deceive themselves. So Trajan in his directions to Plinie, saies, That nothing could be constituted universally as a certain forme. (3) Hence it follows, that al their general Laws and Politic Precepts, whether Ideal or Practic, were liable to a world of Exceptions, Restrictions, Limitations and Alterations: for their best Idea of Politics was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the most part, not universally true and good; because particu∣lars, the object thereof, are infinite. Hence, saies Aristotle, Rhet. l. 1. c. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no Art considers (or comprehends) particulars, because infinite: which is most true of al their Human Politics, which could not consider or compre∣hend those infinite circumstances which attend Human actions; and therefore such of them as ventured to lay down an univer∣sal

Idea, or general Rules of Politics, discovered much vanitie and imperfection; besides the many Exceptions they were fain to admit: and after al their most possible exactnesse in their Po∣litic Constitutions, they were forced to have recourse to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Law of Equitie, or Court of Chancerie, for the emen∣dation, correction, or supplement of such things as were not ex∣cepted or provided for in their universal Idea of Politics. But now the Divine Politics admit not of such imperfections; be∣cause the Divine Law is the most August, Equal, Ʋniversal, Ade∣quate Rule of al Politics, as wel as Ecclesiastics, as we have co∣piosely proved,* 1.91 Idea Theolog. l. 1. c. 8. 2 These Human Philo∣sophic Politics are not only imperfect and vain comparatively in regard of Divine Politics, but likewise in themselves, in regard of that Corruption, both inherent and subsequent, which attends them.* 1.92 As (1) in regard of their End, in that they made their carnal Interest the only measure of Good and Evil, without the least respect to Divine Interest,* 1.93 or Glorie, as before. (2) The mater of their Politics was very corrupt, in that they allowed many things in themselves evil, and very destructive to Human Societies: as Communitie of Wives, Fornication, Incest, So∣domie, Drunkenesse,* 1.94 &c. (3) But the greatest Corruption in their Human Politics was in regard of their sad effects many waies.* 1.95 [1] In that al their Politics were the mother and nurse of Atheisme: For (1) they made Religion subserve their Po∣litic Interests and Constitutions. So Owen Theol l. 1. c. 8.

These Law-givers, in framing their Politic Theologie, had scarce any thing else in their aime, but how they might so temper Reli∣gion, that thence there might not arise any disturbance or evil in the Civil state.

Such was Numa's Politic Religion with the rest. (2) Their Politics were the mother and nurse of A∣theisme, in that these great Politicians attributed the good or il successe of Human affaires to their Politic wisdome or contrivan∣ces. In which regard they made their Human Prudence their God, or great Idol, unto which al the great occurrences and dispositions of Providence must stoop, which opened the dore to Atheisme,* 1.96 and shut God out of the World. [2] The Philoso∣phic Politics opened the dore also to Idolatrie: for these Politi∣cians had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Politic Religion, which out of compliance with the peoples Idolatrie humor proved a great nurse to Idolatrie, as hereafter.

CHAP. III. The Vanitie of Metaphysics, or Natural Theologie, and Divination.

The Pythagorean Philosophic Theologie of al most vain. (1) In regard of God: [1] They understood not their own notions of God; [2] Nor the Trinitie; [3] Nor their Ideas. (2) The vanitie of their Theologie as to the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Word, and Demon-Doctrines. Col. 2.8, 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. really, essentially, perfectly. Col. 2.10, 18, 19, largely opened. (3) The vanitie of their Daemon-worship. (4) Also of their notions about the Soul. (5) The hellish corruption of their Magic and Divination, which they took up in imitation of the Jewish modes of Revelation. Their Art of Divination part of their Doctrines of Demons. 1 Tim. 4.1. Apollo their great God of Divination, his Origine and Temple at Delphus, &c. The nature of Divination out of Plato, (1) Its origine, Divine afflation. (2) Its instruments, at first Poets, then Philosophers. (3) This mode of Divination usually extatic. (4) Also by Enthusiasme. (5) These Enthusiasts had their Judges, as the Jewish. (6) The End of Divination. (7) The sundry kinds of Divination, by Dreams, Maladies, &c. (8) Divination by Magic: of Apollonius Tyanaeus: 1 Tim. 4.1. (9) Divination by Animals, Plants, Men, Elements, Stars, and things artificial, Glasses, Axes, &c.

§. 1. HAving discoursed of the Vanitie of Philosophie in Na∣turals and Morals, we now procede to the Vanitie of its Metaphysics, or Supernatural Philosophie, which contains Natural Theologie, and Divination. As for the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.97 Natural Theologie, there was none more famose than that of the Pythagoreans, which came the nearest of any to the Scrip∣ture Theologie, and yet was neverthelesse corrupt. Yea indeed there seems to be this peculiar curse on the Pythagorean Natural Theologie, that though it came the nearest of any to Divine Theologie, yet was it the most corrupt of al both in it self, as also in its effects. For none more devoted to Superstition and Idolatrie than the Pythagoreans; none greater Heresiarches, or founders of Heresie in the Christian Church than they. This we may look upon as procedeing from a particular curse of God

upon this, as on al other Human Inventions in Divine Maters, which usually the nearer ressemblance they have with Divine In∣stitutions, the more are they blasted by God, even to the turning aside and subverting such as depend upon them. Thus the case stood with these Pythagoreans, as wel as with the rest of the Philosophers; who finding themselves fallen from that Natural Theologie their first Parents were possessed withal, and which their natures stil retained some Physical and more remote capa∣citie unto, they studied al wayes possible to recover the same: in order whereto having acquired some broken Jewish Traditi∣ons of that new model of Religion God was pleased to vouch∣safe unto his Church, they hoped by the improvement of their own 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, commun principes, on these rudiments or foun∣dations received from the Jewish Church, to erect a new frame or bodie of Natural Divinitie, in lieu of that which they found themselves deprived of. Which designe of theirs proved alto∣gether abortive; yea so far were these blind Philosophers from reaching their End of attaining a new edition of that Natural Theologie they had lost by the Fal, as that al their attemts and studies in order hereto serve only the more effectually to envelop and entangle them in grosser ignorance, Atheisme, Superstiti∣on, and Idolatrie. This has been excellently opened to us by Owen, Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 7. where having laid open the de∣signe of the new Platonists, after the breaking forth of the Gospel to reforme Philosophie, so as to make it a Vicarious Natural Theologie, he addes the same of the Pythagorean Phi∣losophie:

Al that ancient Wisdome (saith he) of Pythagoras consisted in a way for the Institution of Religion. I confesse the whole of that Philosophie savored of Idolatrie superstition; which yet retained some obscure Images and Characters of the Truth. The event therefore answered not this famose attemt; yea by these undertakings Natural Theologie was more corrupted rather than repaired.

Such were the miserable effects of their proud and vain attemts, by which hoping and endeavoring to restore themselves to their ancient inheritance of Natural Theo∣logie, founded on the Covenant of Workes, and possessed by their first Parents in the Golden age of Innocence, they fel into grea∣ter bondage of Superstition and Idolatrie. But to treat more particularly of the corruption of this Philosophic Natural Theo∣logie, we shal consider it (1) In its Ultimate object. (2) In its Mediate object. (3) In its parts.

§. 2. As for the ultimate and supreme Object of their Meta∣physics or Natural Theologie, it was God the first Eternal Being,* 1.98 and last end of althings. And here it cannot be denied but that the Pythagoreans, and Platonists after them, had many good Me∣taphysic Contemplations of God, as the first Being and last End; also of his Divine Perfections and Ideas, as we shal Demon∣strate Part. 4. B. 2. Yet these their Metaphysic notions of God were not without great mixture of vanitie and corruption. For (1) few or none understood their own Philosophic notions touching God, their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.99 &c. but re∣ceiving the foundations of these Metaphysic Contemplations from Scriptural Traditions, as Exod. 3.14. or the like, they Philoso∣phised thereon, without right conception of the things of which they discoursed. This seems more than hinted in Paul's obser∣vation touching the Athenian Altar, To the unknown God, Act. 17.23. That there was a God the wiser of these blind Grecians knew, partly by Tradition, partly by the improvement of their own commun Principes: but what, or who this God was, that was to them a thing unknown; and therefore some suppose Saturne to be this one God, i. e. Adam or Noah: others cal him Jupiter Ham∣mon, i.e. Cham: and others of them could reach no farther than the Sun, whom they supposed to be the most gloriose Creature, and therefore God. The wisest of them knew not where to find, or what to make of this God, on which they thus Philosophised. They only groped after him, as Act. 17.27.* 1.100 So 1 Cor. 1.21, For after that in the wisdome of God the world by wisdome knew not God: i.e. By al their Metaphysic wisdome, whether Traditional or acquired from the improvement of their Natural Principes, they could not come to any right Idea or true notion of God, what he was and where to be found. 'Tis true they had some general speculations of him as the first Be∣ing, self Being, infinite, eternal, and most simple Being, &c. yet they knew him not as the Author and Object of Eternal Life, as Joh. 17.3. whence al their knowlege of him proved altoge∣ther vain and unprofitable. This Grotius makes the import of Paul's declamation against the vain deceit of Philosophie, (prin∣cipally the Pythagoreans,) Col. 2.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, take diligent heed,* 1.101 look wel to it. It notes, that men are very prone to fal into this snare, and therefore ought to take the more heed. That no one spoil you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is interpreted by Hesychius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that

no one strip you naked. Vain Philosophie strips men naked of their best Robes, namely the Righteosenesse of Christ, and saving Knowlege of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a Militarie notion, deduced by Critics from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a prey, or spoil taken in War, (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to spoil) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to lead. Whence it primarily notes, to lead or carry away by an armed power in an hostile manner. Thus many Pythagorising Gnostics seduced and led captive many carnal pro∣fessors, and stript them naked of their Christian Doctrines, by vain Philosophie. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He useth (saith Grotius) the Greek word Philosophie, because it was received; but it truly deceived men: for either it did not promise Eternal Life, or else it shewed not the true and certain way which lea∣deth thither. So that in truth al their fine-spun Metaphysic Con∣templations of God the first Eternal and al-sufficient Being, were as to them altogether vain and uselesse; because they had no regard to God as the Author, Object, Mater and Way to Eter∣nal Life,* 1.102 which they were wholly ignorant of. (2) Much lesse had these Pagan Philosophers any true notions of the Trinitie. This great Mysterie of Trinitie in Ʋnitie, and Ʋnitie in Trinitie was altogether hid from them. I shal not denie, but that these blind Heathens, specially the wiser of them, might have some very dark and imperfect Traditions concerning a Trinitie: whence some conceive that great Oriental maxime,* 1.103 which Py∣thagoras brought with him into Grece touching God, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One and many, was but some broken Jewish Tra∣dition of the Trinitie. We may grant also that the Platonists had some weak corrupt Traditions of three 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hypostases, or Persons, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trinitie; whereof the first was by them named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Self-being; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the good, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Father: The second Person they called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Mind; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Word; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the begotten; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the framer: The third, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Soul of the World. These and such-like poor dim notices of a Trinitie, 'tis likely Pythagoras and Plato after him traduced originally from the Jews, if not immediately, yet mediately by the Phenicians and Egyptians. Of which see more fully, Philos. General. p. 1. l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 1, §. 13. But yet that neither the Grecian, Egyptian, or Phenician Philosophers had any true or sound notion of the Trinitie, I think, wil be sufficiently evident to any sober mind, that shal consider what a world of fables and contradictions

they mixed with these broken discoveries they had received of a Trinitie. This indeed Plato ingenuously confesseth, in saying, That he had received many Mysteries from the Ancients, which he understood not, but expected some Interpreter to unfold them to him. And indeed he never spoke more truth; for both he and Pythagoras before him, having an infinite thirst after Divine Mysteries, to satisfie their inquisitive humor, they would catch at every shadow of Oriental Jewish Antiquitie, though they under∣stood nothing thereof. This seems the true account of their Phi∣losophic Speculations about the Trinitie, which is confirmed by Justinian, on 1 Joh. 1.1, &c. Sect. 52, 53, 54.* 1.104 where having mentioned the many Metaphysic Contemplations of the Pagan Philosophers about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he concludes thus:

Truly many things have been taken out of Moses his Law by the Philo∣sophers and Poets, but depraved, changed, and wrested, as we learn out of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, l. 8. cap. 11. & lib. 18. c. 37. In which manner also perhaps they corrupted such noti∣ons as referred to the origine of the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Word; and taught that those Persons differed in nature, who are on∣ly distinguished in Hypostasis: and so the first Mind they cal∣led Good it self; the second, the Opisicer or Framer of the World; the third, the Soul of the World. From which error some suppose the Arian Impietie to have sprang. Which things being thus, it seems most likely, that these Philosophers, by a certain mag∣nitude of ingenie and assiduous studie and diligence, might come to know something of God; which yet was mixed with many errors: neither yet could they attain in any measure to the Mysterie of the Trinitie, or the Eternal Production of the Divine Word.

The like account I find in Serranus, on Plato's Epist. 6. pag. 323. where Plato speaking of God in these words: God the Imperator of al things that are, or that shal be; and the Fa∣ther of this Principal Cause: [Et illius Principis Causae Patrem.]

These words, saies Serranus, some of our Writers understand as if Plato hereby hinted to us the Mysterie of the Trinitie: so also they understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his Epimon. But away with these madnesses! Plato truly might speak many things, which he traduced from the Phenician Doctrine, but understood not; yea it is not likely that the Phenicians or Egyptians, who were the conservators of these Platonic, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ineffable Doctrines, understood so great a Mysterie as this of the Trinitie.

I find

something also in Sanchoniathon's fragments much like this pas∣sage of Plato: (which confirmes what has been quoted out of Ser∣ranus) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to these was there be∣gotten a certain Eliun. That Eliun is the same with the Scrip∣ture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elohim God, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elion the Most High, is plain; though Sanchoniathon's Fables touching this Eliun argue he un∣derstood not what he said. This may suffice to prove, that al those Metaphysic Contemplations, which peradventure had their origine from some shadowie dark Jewish notices touching the Trinitie, as managed by the Philosophers, were but vain corrupt and unintelligible notions; yea, that they gave foundation to the Arian Heresie, which was hatched in the Schole of Alexandria, where this Pythagorean Platonic Philosophie then flourished, as we shal prove,* 1.105 B. 2. c. 1. §. 9. (3) What we have mention∣ed of the Trinitie holds also true to prove the vanitie and cor∣ruption of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophemes about the Divine Ideas, and Decrees. It's true, Pythagoras, Parmeni∣des, Timaeus the Locrian, and Plato out of them, had some more tolerable Contemplations concerning the Divine Ideas, both of things possible and future, inherent in the Divine mind; yea they seem to assert the Eternitie, Simplicitie, Immutabilitie, absolute Soveraintie and Independence of these Divine Ideas; to the shame and consusion of the Pelagians, Scholemen, and Arminians; as we shal prove, Par. 4. B. 2. c. 5. §. 2. of Divine Ideas. Yet these their Metaphysic notions of Divine Ideas were not without great com∣mixture of vanitie and corruption in themselves, and of much more dangerous influence in the Christian Scholes: for much of the Gnostic Infusions in the primitive Churches, as also of the Monkish Mystic Divinitie, and the Scholastic corrupt specula∣tions about the Decrees of God, received their origine from these Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas, as it may appear hereafter, B. 2.

§. 3.* 1.106 As the Pagan Philosophic Theologie was vain and cor∣rupt as to its ultimate Object, the Divine Being, Persons, and Ideas; so was it much more corrupt in regard of its mediate Object, or the mediums and waies, by which the soul was to be raised up to the knowlege, worship, and enjoyment of this first Eternal Being. 'Tis true, the light of Nature, and those visible Ideas of Gods Wisdome, Power, and Goodnesse impressed on the Book of the Creatures, together with those imperfect

notices traduced from the Jewish Church, gave these Natural Theologists some glimmering notions of the Deitie, his Perfe∣ctions and Operations: but as for Christ the mediate Object, or Mediator betwixt God and Man, Him they seem to have been altogether strangers unto. It's granted they had some fabulose Traditions touching their Sheepherd-God Pan; touching Mi∣nerva the Goddesse of Wisdome, her being produced out of Jupiter's brain; touching Silenus, &c. which some conceive to be but corrupt imitations of and reflexions from the Jewish Messias, his Name and Offices; who is in Scripture called a Sheepherd, Shilo, the Wisdome of God, &c. But yet the many Fables which they mixt with these Traditions, (perhaps originally Jewish) ar∣gue their stupid ignorance of Christ the Savior of the World. We shal hereafter B. 2. C. 1. §. 5. and C. 2. §. 2. §. 3. shew how that al the Phenician Baalim, and Grecian Demons, were but Idolatrie Imitamens or Apes of the true Messias; yet were these blind Heathens so far from gaining any knowledge of the true Messias hereby, as indeed al their Demon-contemplations and worship did but leave them under greater darknesse and distance as to the true Mediator. For this was the great designe of Satan,* 1.107 by these Idol-Demons or Mediators (which he fat up in oppositi∣on to, though in imitation of Christ) to shut the dore against Christ, that so he might detain those blind Sophists in ignorance of, and estrangement from him the way of Life. 'Tis true, these Gentile-Philosophers, the wiser of them, Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato, (who having conversed abroad in the Oriental parts, seem to have had some more awakened thoughts touching the Fal and lost condition of Mankind by reason of Sin) could not but conclude a necessitie of some Satisfaction to be made to Di∣vine Justice; and finding nothing in themselves as a fit Atone∣ment, they found out these new Mediators their Demons, whose Office it was to intercede betwixt Men and the supreme God; conveighing mens sacrifices, supplications, and worship to God; and God's Divine commands, Gifts, and other vouchsafements to men; by which means there was a Communion maintained betwixt the supreme God and Men. This was the substance of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural Theologie, brought in by the Philo∣sophers, in distinction from (if not opposition to) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the fabulose Theologie of the Poets; as also to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Politic Theologie of Statesmen, Priest and People. This Natural

Theologie of the Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, which comprehended this Doctrine of Demons, was not lesse injuriose to Christ, than the fabulose Theologie of the Poets, or the Politic of the Statesmen: For look as in the Christian Church Antichrist sits in the Temple of God, as a counter-Christ; so amongst these Pagans, their Demons were a kind of Gentile-Antichrist, or counter-Messias. Yea, which is more, al Antichrists Apostasie to Saint worship; al his Images, Shrines, Reliques, Canonifations, Invocations, Intercessions, Satis∣factions of Saints, with al his Festivals, Abstinences, &c. were al but branches of this Demon-Worship, as 'tis evident from 1 Tim. 4.1. Act. 17.18. 1 Cor. 10.21. Rev. 9.13. This wil appear in its place, B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, &c. which is a sufficient de∣monstration of the monstrose vanitie and corruption of this Na∣tural Theologie, which these vain Sophists so much prided them∣selves in, as that whereby they hoped and endeavored to restore that Natural Theologie they lost in their first Parents. But at present it shal suffice us to discover, how this piece of their Metaphysic Philosophie, or Natural Theologie, was not only void of, but also Diametrically opposite to Christ as Mediator, and therefore most vain and degenerate. And for the proof hereof I shal have recourse to that great Chapter, wherein Paul seems professedly to set himself against the vanitie of the Pythagorean and other Philosophie.* 1.108 Col. 2.3, he tels them, That in Christ were hid al the treasures of wisdome, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are hid; the similitude seems to be taken from a Chest, wherein men lay up their money, to be taken forth as occasion may serve. Thus the LXX, Dan. 11.43. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the hidden trea∣sures of Gold. What infinite hidden Treasures of Wisdome are there in Christ! The Wisdome of Christ is compared to Trea∣sures, Prov. 8.10, 11, 19. Whence Paul addes, V. 4. And this I say,* 1.109 lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to the Hebraic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for which the LXX place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It signifies primarily, by false Ratioci∣nations, which yet have the color and tincture of truth, to circum∣vent the simple; by sophistic reason to impose on others; by a cap∣tiose fallaciose syllogisme to deceive. Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, by He∣sychius, made Synonymous and equipollent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deceit; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Apostles mind seems this: Let no Py∣thagorising Judaising Christians plunder you of your Christian

Wisdome and Theologie, by the enticing heart-bewitching no∣tions of vain Philosophie. Grotius observes, that there were, even in those dawnings of Christianitie, sowen in Phrygia the Seeds of the Phrygian Heresie, composed of Judaic and Pytha∣goric Dogmes, mixed with Christian Theologie; and those that would not espouse this Heresie were stiled by these Sectaries carnal and illiterate. Whence Vers. 8. he exhortes,* 1.110 that None spoil them of Christs treasures of Wisdome, through Philosophie and vain deceit, after the tradition of men. i.e. (saies Hammond in his Paraphrase on these words,)

And take care that no bodie plunder you of al that you have, your Principes of Christian Knowlege, by that vain, emtie, frothie, pretended knowlege and wisdome which the Gnostics talk of, 1 Tim. 1.4. 1 Tim. 6.20. taken out of the Heathen Pythagorcan Philosophie, to∣gether with the observances of the Mosaic Law, and very di∣stant and contrarie to Christian Divinitie, &c.

It's evident, he opposeth the vain Philosophie of these Pythagorising Gnostics to those Treasures of Wisdome which were hid in, and reveled by Christ the only Mediator, whom these Pythagorean Gnostics en∣deavored to exclude, placing their Aeones and Demons in his room. Whence it follows, Vers. 9. For in him dwelleth al the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, bodily; i.e. (1) really,* 1.111 * 1.112 and that [1] In opposition to al the Jewish Types and Figures, which were but shadows of Christ the substance or bodie; [2] Really, in opposition to al those false Demons or Aeones, which were at first hatcht by the vain Metaphysic Philosophie, or Natural Theologie of the Heathen Philosophers, and now brought into the Christian Theologie by these Pythagorising Gno∣stics, as forerunners of Antichrist. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also essentially, or substantially. Thus Occumenius interprets it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, essentially. So among the Hebrews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies essence as wel as bodie; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ver. 11. denotes essence:* 1.113 and then the meaning is, That the whole Divine Nature or Essence dwels in Christ, so that he is truely and Essentially God, in opposi∣tion to their Philosophic Demons, which were but Idols. (3) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred personally. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Person,* 1.114 Rom. 12.1. 2 Cor. 10.10. So Pindar, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, four Persons: and Sophocles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, My person. The Deitie dwels in the Human Nature of Christ personally, by an Hypostatic personal Union, typified by Gods habitation over the Arke, which was

but the Type of Christs Human Nature.* 1.115 (4) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may sig∣nifie perfectly and eminently; as Christ is said, Ver. 10. to be a complete Head, above al Principalities. (5) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may also denote the perfection of Gospel-revelation delivered by Christ, in opposition to the Typic shadowie Theologie of the Jews, and to the false Natural Theologie of the vain Philosophers, Ver. 8. Thus Hammond in his Paraphrase:

For the whole wil of God (saies he) is by Christ really made known unto us, as his Di∣vinitie really dwels in him; and therefore there is little need of the additions of the Gnostics, which they borrow out of the Heathenish and Jewish Theologie, to supply the defects of the Evan∣gelie Doctrine.

Though this sense seems also included, yet the for∣mer may not be excluded, as it appears by what follows, v. 10. Ye are complete in him, which is the Head of al Principalitie and power.* 1.116 i. e. He is a complete Head, or perfect Mediator, infi∣nitely above al Angelic Principalities and Human Powers, whence those Pythagorean Demons and Aeones had their origine. For al their Demons were but Human powers, or great Heroes deified; and al their Aeones, but Angels of a superior or low∣er degree; al infinitely short of Christ, who is the Head of al Principalities and Powers, and therefore a perfect Mediator in whom you are complete, in opposition to al their Gentile De∣mons or Aeones, &c. I am not ignorant, that Hammond in his Paraphrase on these words, (following the humor of Grotius, who was too much Socinian and against the Deitie of Christ)

interprets this of their being complete in knowlege by the Doctrine of Christ, without such supplies as these, from the Doctrines and Divinitie of the Gnostics about their Aeones, looked on by them as Divine immortal powers.

Which sense, though true and included in the words, yet may it not exclude Christ as the simple object of Faith, or as he is the complete only Mediator, in opposition to al those Philosophic Demons, Aeones, or Idol-Mediators, which these Pythagorising Gnostics then began to foist into the Christian Theologie, and were af∣terward in a more perfect manner established by Antichrist, that great Demon, or Idol set up in God's House. These Pythagore∣an Demons and Aeones, which were the great Mediators in the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural Theologie, and brought into the Christian Theologie first by the Gnostics, and then by Anti∣christ, are again openly struck at by the Apostle, in this cauti∣on

of his to the Colossians, Chap. 2. v. 18, 19. V. 18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.117 Let no man beguile you of your re∣ward in a voluntary humilitie and wil-worship of Angels. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to its origination, signifies an humilitie of mind, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, minding low things. But here it sig∣nifies a superstitiose and servile demission or prostitution of the spirit to false objects of worship, together with an hypocritie shew and studie of humilitie. Here is, saies Grotius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i.e. In an humble Wil-worship performed to Angels; which these Pythagorising Gnostics called Aeones, and worshipped as Mediators to God, distributing them into certain Classes, and allowing them their respective Offices, without any other ground than their own fantiastic imitation of that Natural Theologie a∣mongst the Heathen Philosophers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let no man beguile you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies (1) and properly, to give sentence against any one, whereby he is pronounced unwor∣thy of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the reward given to such as contended for victorie. And so it is an allusion to such as ran in the race, who if they were defective or irregular in their race, were con∣demned by Judges appointed for this purpose to lose the reward; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendred by Phavorinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let no man condemne you, as defective or irregular in your Christian race; beware of losing your reward by an Idolatrie Wil-wor∣ship given to Angels or Men, answerable to the Heathens Natu∣tural Theologie. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praeripere, by craft to cheat men of their crown or reward. So Pausanias, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Jerome saith,

That Paul used this word, accor∣ding to the custome of his own Province, namely, Tarsis and Cilicia; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Cilician tongue notes cunningly to cheat another of his reward.

And then the sense is, let no one, by these Pythagorean Dogmes, craftily cheat you of your re∣ward, by inducing you to bow your souls, in a superstitiose ser∣vile manner, to worship Angels, and thence to reject Christ your Head. So it follows v. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i.e. (saies Grotius)

not keeping close to Christ, whom God has therefore given to be Head of the Church, that so by him our desires may be offered up unto himself.

The sum of these Apostolic exhortations is this: Paul saw the Pagan Demons (which were the main subject of their Natural Theologie) creeping in apace into the Church of God, under the Mystic Theologie of the Py∣thagorising

Gnostics: he foresaw also by the spirit of Prophesie, that Antichrist, the great Christian Demon, would advance the said Demons on Christs throne, by assuming to himself a power of Canonising Saints as Intercessors or Mediators; giving In∣dulgences, making Laws, erecting Images, &c. al which were but branches of the old Pagan Demon worship; which Paul fore∣seeing Antichrist would erect in the room of Christ, he was the more invective against this their Pagan Natural Theologie tou∣ching Demons, &c.

§. 4.* 1.118 Hence it followed that the Natural Theologie of these Pagan Philosophers proved exceding vain, corrupt, and abomi∣nable, as to al those modes or rites of Worship, which they either invented themselves, or traduced from the Jewish Church. It has been acknowleged, that these blind Philosophers, speci∣ally the Pythagoreans, had very many Rites and Modes of Worship by tradition from, and in imitation of the Jewish Rites and Worship, as Part 2. B 2. chap. 2. §. 4. But al these apish Modes of Worship being not received as Divine Institutes, but mixed with their own fantastic Idolatric inventions, and passing through the hands of their Demons, and thence terminating on some Idol-God, proved but a miserable piece of Heathenish Wil-wor∣ship and Idolatrie. It's true, these proud Philosophers aspired, by this their Demon-worship (the fruit of their Natural Theo∣logie) to reduce themselves to a friendship with the great, though unknown God: but al their attemts herein proved vain and successelesse; yea al did but cast them at a greater distance from the true God, into a servile subjection to Satan the God of this World. The Demon-Theologie, or Wil worship of the Pa∣gan Philosophers was brought into the Christian Church first by the Gnostics, and afterward by Antichrist; which the Apo∣stle Paul foreseeing does greatly caution Christians against in the forementioned Epistle, Col. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. speci∣ally v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Also in the 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, of which hereafter, when we come to Antichristian Wil-worship, which was but the effect of this Pagan Demon-worship.

§. 5.* 1.119 Another part of their Metaphysic Philosophie, or Na∣tural Theologie, consistes in some Traditions and Contemplations touching the Human Soul, its Divine Origine, Infusion, Separation, and Immortalitie; concerning which it cannot be denied but that the Philosophers, specially such as had conversation with the

Jews or Jewish Traditions, had very many good speculations and notions, far beyond many atheistic spirits of this age; but yet such as were mixed with many vain corrupt conceptions and grosse superstitions:* 1.120 as (1) They held the Soul to be of Divine extract and origine, according to that citation of Paul, Act. 17.28. Of which see Court Gent. Part 2. B. 3. C. 9. Sect. 3. §. 3. But yet withal they held the eternal simultaneous production and Pre-existence of al Souls: which opinion of theirs Origen, with some other of the Fathers, who did much Pythagorise, are said to have sucked in.* 1.121 (2) The Philosophers also held the Sub∣sistence, yea Immortalitie of the Soul after its disunion from the bodie; but withal they held also a Metempsychosis or Trans∣migration of the Soul into other bodies: which opinion the Jews, specially the Pharisees, dranke in from the Pythagorean Philoso∣phie, if the Pythagoreans had it not from the Jews first.* 1.122 (3) The Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophers asserted some kind of Purgatorie, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Purification of the Soul by fire; whence the Papists had their Purgatorie, as hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 11.

§. 6. But amongst al the pieces of Pagan Metaphysics,* 1.123 or Na∣tural Theologie, none is more corrupt, yea Satanic, than their Magic, or black Art of Divination, wherein the Pythagoreans and other Philosophers were greatly versed. That this Satanic Science of Divination, or Witchcraft, so much in request a∣mongst the wisest of Pagan Philosophers, proceded originally from, and in imitation of the Divine Oracles vouchsafed the Jewish Church, wil be evident to any that shal give himself the trouble of drawing a parallel betwixt the one and t'other. That the Pythagoreans were famose for this Art of Magic, see Jam∣blicus in the Life of Pythagoras, Cap. 29. Pythagoras, as it is supposed, had it from the Chaldeans, or Egyptians, or peradven∣ture immediately from the Jews; amongst whom having obser∣ved a spirit of Prophesie, or Divination vouchsafed them by their God, with which Jeremie, Ezechiel, and Daniel (who li∣ved much about his time, and with whom some think he had converse,) were endowed,* 1.124 he affecting an imitation of them herein, enters into a compact with the Devil his God in or∣der hereto.

The Jews had four kinds of Divine Revelation. (1) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prophetie: which was either [1] by externe Vision; or [2] by

interne Imagination, or mental Vision, vouchsafed either to per∣sons sleeping, and so it was called Dreams; or to such as wa∣ked, and so it was called Ecstasie, Apoc. 1.10. Ezech. 1.12. we have both mentioned, Numb. 12.6. in a Vision and in a Dream. Answerably whereto the Pagan Diviners had their night-Dreams, and day-Visions, whereby they divined things. (2) The Jews had a more gentle and commun kind of Enthusiasme, or Divine Afflation of the Spirit, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Afflate of the holy Spirit, as in Job, Moses, David, and other Penmen of the Sacred Scripture; who had also the spirit of Prophetie, though not in such an Ecstatic mode as some other Prophets, Ezechiel, Daniel, &c. Answerably whereto the Pa∣gan Diviners had also their milder Enthusiasmes, vouchsafed their Poets by Diabolic Inspiration. (3) The Jews had their Ʋrim and Thummim, which was the Oracle by which God vouchsa∣fed Answers to his People. In imitation whereof Pagan Divi∣ners had their Teraphim, which Mede on Deut. 33.8. (Diatr. 2. pag. 368.) saies, was amongst these Idolaters answerable to the Ʋrim and Thummim of the holy Patriarchs. And such also was the Ephod of the Idolatrous Jews, which they consulted as their Responsorie, Jud. 8.27, 33. Answerably whereto the Egyp∣tian Priests (as Elianus and Diodorus write) had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their little image of Saphir; which was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, truth, in imitation of the Jewish Ʋrim and Thummim, as Grotius. (4) The Jews had another kind of Divine Revelation, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the daughter of voice, or vocal revelation, which seems mentioned Numb. 12.8. but was more usual under the second Temple, after the Ʋrim and Thummim ceased, where∣by God reveled himself to his people, as at Christ's Baptisme, Mat. 3.17. Answerable whereto the Gentiles had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aparitions of their Gods, with Vocal tradition or decla∣ration of their minds to men, which gave the first occasion to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pillars of Stone, erected as Memorials of their Gods Aparition, in imitation of the Stone which Jacob erected at Bethel, as a Memorial of God's Aparition and discourse with him. Of which more fully, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 3.

That this black Art of Divination was in much use,* 1.125 not only amongst the Poets and Priests, but also amongst the wisest of the Philosophers, the Pythagoreans and Platonists, is evident by this, that it was a part of that Doctrine of Demons, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Natural Theologie, which did in a more peculiar manner belong to the Philosophers. So Plato, in his Symposium, pag. 202, 203. treating professedly of these Demons, he brings in Socrates demanding of Diotima, what facultie this his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon, had. To which Diotima replies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a facultie of Interpreting the Gods mind, &c. And having discoursed at large of the Offices of this Socratic Demon, he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from this Demon al the Art of Divination procedes. Whence Mercurie the great Egyptian Demon, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an In∣terpreter, as 'tis supposed, from and in imitation of Joseph that great Divine Interpreter. Farther, that this Satanic Art of Divination was part of their Demon-worship, and thence of their Natural Theologie, is evident by what Diogenes Laertius reports of Pythagoras in his Life.

Pythagoras (saies he) affirmed, that the whole air was ful of Souls; which he supposed to be Demons and Heroes, by whom there were infused Dreams and Signes, and Diseases, both into Men and Bestes; from whence arose Lustrations, Expiations, and al Divinations, and Prophe∣ties.

Diog. of Pythag.

The great Oracle to which al their Diviners resorted,* 1.126 was that of the Idol-God Apollo, (whose Temple was erected at Delphus, in imitation of God's at Jerusalem) and al inferior Vates or Diviners were but his Interpreters. This is wel set forth by Plato in his Io, pag. 534. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Vates are nothing else but Interpreters of the Gods. Pag. 536. he gives us the manner how their Idol-Apollo inspi∣red these Diviners; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God, by the endeavor of al these, draws the mind of men where he pleaseth. Plato here (according to his Al∣legoric mode) supposeth a long chain or series of Diviners im∣pelled or drawn by their God Apollo, whom he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the prime and first mover. That this their great Oracle Apollo was no other than the Devil, is most evi∣dent, who is called by the same name in Scripture: as Deut. 32.17. he is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Destroyer;* 1.127 which the Greeks cal most properly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apollo; and so Rev. 9.11. the Devil's name Abaddon, which signifies a Destroyer, is by the Spirit of God rendred Apollyon, which is the same with Apollo.* 1.128 That Apollo was the great God of Divination is asserted by Augu∣stin, de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 11. In Divinations Apollo, &c. where

Lud. Vives on these words observes,

That they supposing this Apollo to be the Sun, i. e. the Eye of the World, easily belie∣ved that he beheld and knew althings, both past, present, and to come; wherefore he was every-where consulted, and gave answers, as in many other places, so specially at Delphus, as Diodorus in the Life of Philip; whose origine he thus relates: In that place, at the entry of the Delphic Temple was a Den of a great and obscure winding, unto which a Goat feeding thereabout ascending, received an Afflation from that subter∣raneous spirit, and began in an unusual manner to dance; which the Pastor admiring, he himself approching to the mouth of the Den was surprised with a Furor, and began to foretel things future. This some others attemted, and were af∣fected in like manner. The mater proceded thus far, that he who would know things future brought some, who thrusting in the head into the mouth of the Den might Divine. Which seeing it could not be done without danger, no, nor with∣out the destruction of many, the Delphics erected a Temple there to their Divining-God Apollo; and appointed a Virgin, who setting in the Machine, might safely receive the Afflation of that Divine spirit, and give answers to such as consulted the Oracle: Which Machine was called from its three Pillars, Tripos, as it were of three feet, much of the same forme with the usual Tripet. The Priest was called Pythia, who in the be∣ginning was a Virgin like to Diana. Afterward a certain Py∣thia being defloured by Echecrates, the Delphics rejecting Vir∣gins appointed a Woman no lesse than fifty years aged; who yet was to use a Virgin habit, that so the old custome might not altogether perish.

Thus Diodorus Siculus, and out of him Ludov. Vives.

§. 7.* 1.129 To treat a little more distinctly of the nature of this Pagan Divination, whereby both its origine and vanitie wil more fully appear. The Greek name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is by some de∣rived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they supposed its cause to be externe, spiritual, and divine. I find no-where a more ful and clear ac∣count hereof than in Plato, who both in his Timeus, Phaedrus, and more professedly in his Io treats of this Subject. 1. As to the origine of Divination, Plato Io, p. 533. saith, That Poetic Enthusiasme comes not by Art, but by a Divine power, like the stone which Euripides called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Magnetem, Loadstone; which

stone doth not only draw iron-rings, but also puts a virtue into them to draw others to them. So Prophetic men are inspired by the Muse.* 1.130 Thence he, in his Io, pag. 534. tels us, That it comes not by Art, but by a divine power: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Prophets utter these things not by Art, but from a divine pow∣er: For (adds he) Art extendes it self to althings under the same kind. So agen pag. 536. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. not by art but by a divine fate, or afflation. And more particularly in his Phae∣drus, pag. 245. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But the third sort of madnesse and transport, surprising the tender and inaccessi∣ble mind is from the Muses, exciting and inspiring it unto Enthu∣siastic Songs and Poems. But he that undertakes this Prophetic Poe∣sie from a confidence on some art, is very imperfect, in comparison of him that is possessed with an Ectastic furor. Wherefore al that Prophetic Poesie, which issues from the mind of a sober temperate man, vanisheth. Truely I could reckon up to thee so many and more illustrious effects of this furor inspired by God. His design is to shew, that al Poetic Prophesie comes from a Divine Enthusiasme or afflation without art. Thence he tels us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This furor is given by the Gods with the greatest felicitie. Whence in the Platonic Definitions we find Divination thus defined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Divination is a science discovering a mater without De∣monstration; i. e. by mere Enthusiasme. 2.* 1.131 The usual Organs or Instruments the Devil (under the name of Apollo) used to de∣liver his Oracles by, were at first the Poets; whence amongst the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Poets and Prophets, were of the same import. So Paul, Tit. 1.12. cals one of their Poets Pro∣phet, and Vates signifies both a Poet and Prophet. Yea the Phi∣losophers (who were many of them Poets also) were not a little guilty of this Satanic Art, specially the Pythagoreans. These Organs, Plato tels us, the God used in delivering his Oracles to men: So Io 534, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wherefore the God whiles he takes from them their mind, useth these ministers as mes∣sengers to deliver his Oracles, and divine Prophets; that we who hear may understand, that it is not they who are thus deprived of their mind, that speak things of so great moment, but that it is

God that speaks them, and by the ministerie of those men speaks to us. Wherein observe, (1) That the Devil under the Title of Apollo, and as an Ape of God, deprived his Prophets of their right mind, and put them into an Ecstatic rapture, thereby to declare unto the World, that his Oracles came not from the exercitation of Reason, or by Art, but by Divine Enthusiasme. (2) That the Prophets were but mere Organs used by this God, to declare his Oracles. Thence he subjoins, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. We have an infallible demonstration hereof in Tynnichus Chalcidensis, who never composed any other Verse worthy of memorie, save that Pean in the honor of Apollo, which is in the mouth of al, and indeed the most excellent of al Poems, which he himself stiles the Invent of the Muses. Now hereby it seems to me that God hath demonstrated, that we may not dout, but that these excellent Poems were in no regard human, or the pro∣duct of mens wits, but divine and coming from God; for the Poets [or Prophets] are no other than Interpreters of God. This descri∣ption which he gives of these false Diviners suits wel with Gods true Prophets,* 1.132 who are but Instruments by which he speaks. (3) Plato tels us that these Organs or Prophets, which the De∣moniac power inspired, were, whilest under this spirit of Divina∣tion, in an Ecstasie or Rapture. So Io 533. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thus therefore the Muse her self by a certain divine spirit doth inspire some; and by the ministrie of such inspired persons there is a series of others inspired aptly connected. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They rage and fome, and are possessed like the Priests of Bacchus. And pag. 534. he saith, that this his Divi∣ner was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Rapt into a divine ecstasie, and mad, neither did he continue in his senses or mind, being moved 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by a divine fate. The meaning is, he was in an ecstatic rapture, not (compos mentis) in a sound mind. This Plato explains yet more fully in his Timaeus, pag. 72. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This is a suffici∣ent signe, that God hath vouchsafed this facultie of Divination to human madnesse: (i.e. to men furiose:) and he gives this reason for it, because God has planted this power of Divining in part of the Liver, &c. Then he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. for no one in his right mind or senses is inspired by this spirit of Divination, but such only whose minds and senses

are bound up by sleep, or disease, or Enthusiasme, &c. Herein also the Devil plaid the Ape, and imitated the Divine mode of Pro∣phetie, which for the most part was by ecstatic raptures and visions. Whence,* 1.133 (4) The usual mode or way by which this their Demoniac spirit inspired or possessed these ecstatic Prophets, was Enthusiasme. So Plato in that fore-mentioned place of Ti∣maeus, pag. 72. None is inspired with this true divine power of Divination continuing in his mind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, But ha∣ving his prudence or reason bound either by sleep, or by a disease, or changed by some Enthusiasme. And then he gives the reason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But it belongs to a prudent man to understand such things as are spoken, or expressed by cer∣tain signes, either by dream or watching, from the Enthusiastic nature. This ecstatic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Enthusiasme, Plato in his Io makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitation of Divine ecstasie or rapture. And indeed it was but a Satanic imitation of Divine Enthusi∣asme, which Divines describe to be a Divine extraordinary im∣mediate Inspiration of God, in the reception whereof the Soul is merely passive, and yet vehemently moved or agitated there∣by, even unto an Ecstasie or Divine Evagation; as the Apostles were inspired after Christ's Ascension. This Demoniac Enthusi∣asme, of which Plato so much treats both in his Timaeus and Io, was but the Ape of the Divine. (5) Hence, saies Plato,* 1.134 these Ecstatic Diviners could not judge of their own Enthusiasme, but had Judges appointed them by the Law. So it follows in that forecited place of Timaeus, pag. 72. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The work of such an ecstatic Enthusiast, whether he re∣main under this Enthusiastic furor, or not, is not to judge of those things he saw or spake. — Hence the Law has appointed a sort of Prophets as Judges over these divine Vaticinations, which some cal Vates, — which name they are worthy of, who are certain In∣terpreters of things uttered in Propheties. Herein also these Demoniac Diviners imitated the Jewish Prophets, amongst whom there were some who had a gift or spirit of discerning touching the Pro∣phetic revelations of others, as 1 Cor. 12.10, Discerning of spi∣rits. 1 Cor. 14.19, Let the other judge.* 1.135 So v. 32. which though

here perhaps it may be meant of ordinary teaching; yet there was the same gift of discerning and judging extraordinary Pro∣phets in the Jewish Church.* 1.136 (6) The main end or designe of this their Demoniae Divination was to bring them into a Reconcili∣ation, and friendship with God. So Plato in his Symposium, pag. 188. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Divination is to breed a friendship between God and men; because it knows those amorose impetuosities that are in men, and tend to pietie or impietie. By which it appears, that the main end or designe of those Natural Theologists in erecting this Demoniac mode of Divination, was to make up those defects that were in their Natural Theologie; thereby to breed a reconcilement and friendship with their Gods: wherein they also affected an imitation of Divine Oracles and Propheties, whose main end was to restore lost man to a friend∣ship with God. And thus far indeed these Demoniac Oracles attained their end, that they brought such as subjected them∣selves to them into a miserable compact and friendship with the Devil, their great Apollo or Soul destroying God.

§. 8.* 1.137 As for the sundry kinds of Divination, the Philosophers (who were sufficiently vain herein) were not yet so vain as the Poets or common Prophets: for Plato in his Timaeus, pag. 7. makes mention only of three sorts of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Enthusiastic Divina∣tion. (1) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by sleep or dreams. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by some di∣sease or frensie. (3) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by some Enthusiasme, pro∣perly so cal'd. These also were the chief of the Pythagorean Di∣vinations, and the effects of their Demon-worship; (as was be∣fore observed) wherein they affected an imitation of Divine Oracles.* 1.138 (1) As for that of Enthusiasme, we have already suf∣ficiently opened it. (2) In their Divination by Dreams they had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Onirocrites, Judge and Interpreter of Dreams, as before out of Plato. Apollonius Attalus writ of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Artemidorus after him. Diogenes Laertius reportes of Diogenes the Cynic,

That when he saw Physicians and Philoso∣phers, he said, Man is the wisest of al creatures; but when he saw Interpreters of Dreams, Conjecturers, Prophets, &c. he said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nothing is to be estimed more vain than man. To some that were affrightned at their Dreams, he said, You consider not the things you do waking, but your imaginary dreams you curiosely examine.

So that we see

some of the Philosophers were not so vain and doting on Dreams as others. Yet were the Pythagoreans greatly vain in this piece of Dreaming-Divination: So Epicharmus, (aliàs Cous) that famose Pythagorean Philosopher, of whom Tertullian in his Book de Anima, cap. 46. speaks thus,

But Epicharmus with Philochore the Athenian, amongst Divinations gave the chiefest place to Dreams.

He makes mention also of Hermippus, who writ five Books of Dreams. (3) Their Divination by Diseases may take in that of Sternutation or Sneesing, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and made use of as an instrument of Divination. This mode of Di∣vination was very ancient. Aristotle, 1. de Animal. saith, That Sternutation was an angural signe, and that the ancients estimed it ominose. Yea Casaubon, ad Athenae, l. 2. c. 15. saith, that they received Sternutament with Adoration; because they not only thought it sacred, as Aristotle, but also a God. Thus Salmasius, among the Letters collected by Beverovicius, Quaest. Epistol. p. 31.

Moreover in al good Omens or Auguries objected to them, they were wont to adore, either God himself, from whom they conceited the Omen came, or the very Omen it self, if it seemed to have any thing of Divinitie. So that of Xenophon, l. 3. de Expedit. Cyr. must be understood; where it's said, That al the Soldiers ha∣ving heard the Sternutation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with one impetus worshipped the God,

i.e. the Sternutament which they e∣stimed as sacred, and God. And as Sternutation was reputed omi∣nose among the ancient Grecians and Romans, so also among the later Jews, who were wont to say to him that sneesed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Good life be to you, i. e. God save you. If any sneesed in prayer they thought it a good Omen, as Buxtorf. Synagog. c. 5. From this Pagan Superstition of saluting such as sneesed, many Chri∣stians in the times of Papal darknesse sucked in the like custome; which continues to this day in France, where generally al sa∣lute such as sneese, and pray, God save; as if it were a thing very ominose. Thus among the Abassines in Africa, when their Negus or Emperor sneeseth, he is saluted by al throughout the Citie with great solemnitie, such as are next him at the Court beginning first, and thence others following. More of Divina∣tion by Sternutation, see Voctius, Disputat. Part 3. p. 132. Agen, the tinkling noise of the ear was by Pagans used as a medium by which they divined. Likewise the salissation or palpitation of any member called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was another mode of their

Divination. Whence Melampos the Hierogrammatist his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. yet extant; and Suidas tels us that Possidonius writ his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in which he expounded what the sudden moti∣on of every Member did indicate. Isidorus, Origin. lib. 8. c. 9. acquaints us, that these Salissators were so called, because when any parts of their Members suffered a palpitation, or leaping, they foretold something prosperous or sad to happen. These three were branches of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

§. 9.* 1.139 They had another kind of Divination strictly called Magic, which was, as they say, the Invention of the Persians, (whence their wise-men were called Magi) wherein the Pythagoreans and other Philosophers were not a little versed; of which Sui∣das gives this account: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Magic truely is the Invocation of the Demons, those be∣nefactors, for the procuring of some good; such were the Predicti∣ons of Apollonius Tyanaeus.* 1.140 Whereby we are informed that Magic was a part of the Demon-worship; which as it's suppo∣sed, Pythagoras brought into Grece. That the Pythagoreans were generally exercised in Magic is a commun opinion. And this Apollonius Tyanaeus, whom Suidas here brings in for a famose Magician, was indeed of the Pythagorean Sect, who by his Ma∣gic and Sorcerie produced many lying wonders; for which he was greatly extolled by the Pythagorising Platonistes, Porphyrie and others; who endeavored to equalise him with Christ in point of Miracles and Divine (or rather Diabolic) Predictions; there∣by to cast a disgrace upon the Christians Redeemer and Reli∣gion, in order to the advancement of their own Natural Theo∣logie or Metaphysics. We have the Life of this Apollonius Tya∣naeus writ by Philostratus, by which it is apparent that al his Predictions and lying wonders were wrought by commerce with the Devil, who was the Philosophers great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon or Diviner. Philostratus having, Chap. 1. shewn how much Apollo∣nius affected an imitation of Pythagoras, procedes Chap. 2. to vindicate him from the Imputation of Magic.

They do, saith he, unjustly condemne Apollonius, who foresaw and foretold many things, as guilty of this crime; as if they should accuse Socrates, who foreknew many things by his Demon; or Anax∣agoras, who knew many things before they happened, &c.

Thence he goes on to give us the Historie of his Life, and the

many Miracles he did. Hierocles out of this Historie of Philo∣stratus, equaliseth this Apollonius, in point of Miracles wrought, to Christ. Eusebius answers Hierocles, and demonstrates, that al Apollonius's Miracles were but Lying wonders, or Magic Delu∣sions, wrought by Diabolic Inspirations. Grotius relates,

That there was a statue of his that spoke, being inspired by some Diabolic spirit, but that his mouth was soon stopped by the power of Christ, and the preaching of the Gospel.

More, in his Mysterie of Godlinesse, B. 5. C. 7. proves, That there is no∣thing in the Historie of Apollonius that can answer to Christ's Resurrection, &c. It is evident that al his Prophetic Predicti∣ons were but Satanic Delusions. Thus Grotius understands that Prophetic prediction of Paul, 1 Tim. 4.1,* 1.141 And the Doctrines of Devils, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

He mainly points out (saies Gro∣tius) the Pythagoreans; of whom the chief were Magi, Magi∣cians, and had commerce with Devils or Demons. Amongst those Apollonius Tyanaeus was very famose, who is here in a more particular manner denoted: for he came to Ephesus while Timothie yet lived.

Though I can no way fal in with Grotius's designe, to interpret this (as he does others) Scrip∣ture chiefly of Apollonius Tyanaeus's Magic Art, thereby to secure Antichrist's Doctrines from the dints of this Prediction; yet thus far I think we may safely allow him, that this Text may have some eye or regard to Apollonius Tyanaeus, and other Pythagorean Philosophers, who were the inventors and promotors of these Doctrines of Demons here mentioned, and so counter-Christs, or Pagan-Antichrists; and therefore be con∣sequence, great promotors of those Antichristian Demons and Doctrines, which (by means of their Philosophie foisted into the Christian Church by the Pythagorising Gnostics) were now gen∣dring. Thus may we safely understand this (and so other) Scrip∣tures of the Pythagorean Demons, and particularly of Apollo∣nius Tyanaeus, (who was famose in that Sect) as he was a Type and forerunner of Antichrist, by reason of his Pythagorean Do∣ctrines of Demons, and Magic Art, which Antichrist atterward was to reassume and practise, according to that 2 Thes 2.9,* 1.142 Lying-wonders. And indeed al Antichrist's Lying-wonders, al his Saints, and Saint-worship, are but Satanic imitamens of the Py∣thagorean Demon Doctrines, Worship and Magic; as hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. So that we may wel allow this Text a collateral ty∣pic

regard to the Pythagoreans, though its principal eye be on Antichrist and his Demon-Doctrines, as Mede observes.

§. 10.* 1.143 There were many other kinds of Satanic Divination, more ordinary and usual amongst the Priests and vulgar people. As (1) Divination by Birds, which principally belonged to the Augures: who were so called by the Romans, as if one should say Avi-geres, because they observed what the Birds did. Now this Bird-Divination was gathered chiefly by the flying, or sing∣ing of Birds. To which also we may refer their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Divination by Cockes,* 1.144 &c. (2) They had also their Divinati∣ons from fourfooted Bestes, specially their Sacrifices, which be∣longed to their Aruspices; who were so called from aras in∣spiciendo, beholding the intrals of the Sacrifice on the Altar. The first inventor of this kind of Divination was, as 'tis said, Tages. There was in like manner mater of Divination taken from the meeting of four-footed Bestes; also from the neighing of Hor∣ses; but specially from any monstrose production in nature, or preternatural motion; as if there were any excesse or defect in Nature.* 1.145 (3) They had likewise their Divinations from Men, as from the lineaments of the Bodie; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chiromantie, from the Hand: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Physiognomie from the Face; also from meeting of Men, from casualties at Festes, and from dead persons, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Necromantie. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 2. speaks thus of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chiromantie, &c.

There is no dout to be made but this Art was most ancient, and had its rise in the East, where that mad studie of Astrologie flourish∣ed. For when they perceived the Influences of the Heavens on these Inferiors, it remained that they shewed the convenance of these Inferiors with the Superiors. Therefore making Man a little World, they reduced each of his parts to the Celestial lineaments. Whence sprang that Discipline called by the Grekes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they distributed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

* 1.146 (4) They had their Divinations from Plants, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.147 practised by Witches. (5) They had their Divinations from Inanimates;* 1.148 as [1] from the Elements: from Water, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Numa, to prove that his Sacred Constitutions came from the Gods, was compelled to make an Hydromantie, affirming that he saw in the Water the Images of the Gods, or rather the Devils, from whom he re∣ceived his Constitutions. And Caesar saies, there were Women

in Germanie, who divined from the course and noise of Waters. They had also their Divination from the Earth, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Fire called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the Smoke called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [2] They had also their Divinations from Celestial Bodies;* 1.149 from the Stars called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Astrologie; wherein the Chalde∣ans were much versed: from Thunder and Lightening, &c. [3] They had likewise their Divinations from things Artificial, as (1) from Glasses; which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.150 (2) From Sieves, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (3) From Keyes, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (4) From Axes, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (5) From Rings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (6) From Phials, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: (7) From Meal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (8) From a Bason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (9) From Lots, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Of these sundry kinds of Divination, see more Lud. Vives, in August. de Civit. l. 7. c. 35. Vossius de Philosophia, p. 1. c. 22. and our Philosoph. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Sect. 9. §. 8. So monstrose and Hel-bred was the Ethnic Divination and Na∣tural Theologie.

CHAP. IV. The Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie from its Forme and Pro∣prieties.

The Corruption of Philosophie from 1. Its Symbolic Forme, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 5, 6, 7, 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the origine of the Jewish Cabala, 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tit. 1.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. From its formal Attributes. (1) Its deficience as to truth, and its clear discoverie. (2) It was only Traditional, Equivo∣cal, and Artificial, not Ʋnivocal, Real, and Intuitive. It con∣templated only Pictures, not native Ideas of things. Col. 2.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Rom. 2.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a shew, &c. (3) 'Twas only General, not Particular and Experimental. (4) It was clou∣dy and obscure, not Evident and Divinct. Heb 11.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. either Natural or Philosophic. (5) 'Twas only Ʋncertain and Opiniative; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Faith is 1 Cor. 2.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gal. 3.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Col. 2.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (6) 'Twas not truely Dia∣noetic or discursive, but Paralogistic. (7) 'Twas not truely Noe∣tic or Intelligent of highest Principes. (8) Twas defective as to Prudence; viz. [1] Soul-reflexion. [2] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [3] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [4] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [5] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (9) 'Twas not Transfor∣mative, 2 Cor. 3.18. Changed. The Philosophers falsly preten∣ded to a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

§. 1.* 1.151 WE have hitherto endeavored a Demonstration of the Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie from its original Cau∣ses and Mater, both Natural, Moral, and Supernatural: We now procede to make good and strengthen the said Demonstra∣tion from the Consideration of that Vanitie which attended the formal nature and proprieties of the same. And herein we shal be∣gin with the Pythagorean, which was the source and most prin∣cipal part of al the Grecian Philosophie; yea, that which had the most cognation with, and ressemblance of the sacred fountains from whence it was, though by very corrupt derivations at first traduced. So that by proving the vanitie of the Pythagorean Phi∣losophie, which was the most noble, and so the measure of al the rest, our Conclusion wil hold much more true of the other

Parts and Sects. The Forme or Mode of Philosophising (as we have frequently observed) amongst the Pythagoreans was Symbolic and Enigmatic: yea indeed this was the usual mode of Philoso∣phising amongst the Ancients before Aristotles time, as he him∣self confesseth; which we no way dout they took up in imi∣tation of the Jewish Church; as it's wel observed by Clemens Alexandr. lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The ancient mode of Philosophising was Hebraic and Enig∣matic: Therefore they embraced short speaking, which is most apt for ad∣monition, and most profitable. That this mode of Symbolic dis∣course was frequent amongst the Jews in Pythagoras's time is apparent from what we find in Ezechiel, (who is thought to be Contemporary with, yea the Instructor of Pythagoras) as Ezech. 17.2. Put forth a riddle and speak a parable, or Symbol. Now albeit this mode of Symbolic Philosophising was originally Di∣vine, and very useful for the infant-state of the world, in that it affordes the phantasie most pleasant and lively colors or ima∣ges of truth; yet was it not without much vanitie and corrup∣tion as made use of by those ancient Philosophers, both Pytha∣goreans and others.* 1.152 And the great principe on which this Sym∣bolic mode of Philosophising was founded, was this: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Things sensible are but Imitamens of things in∣telligible. i. e. There is nothing in this inferior sensible world, but doth ressemble something in the superior Intelligible world: sensible formes are but Symbolic Images of insensible perfecti∣ons. Whence these blind Philosophers (who traded in Oriental Jewish Traditions) were mighty greedy in catching after every sensible forme, corporal image or shadow, whereby Divine Truths were set forth: wherein none abounded more than the Jewish Church, which was the chief seat of al Symbolic Wisdome. Hence therefore those Grecians derived either immediately or mediately the chief of their Symbolic learning, both as to mater and forme: But not understanding the true mind and scope of these Jewish Symbolic Mysteries, they at first amused them∣selves in contemplating the shel, cabinet, or bone only, without ever attaining unto the kernel, jewel, or marrow of Divine Truths. Thence having satiated their phantasies, and glutted their curiositie in their dreaming contemplations of those Jewish Symbols, without any real notion of those Truths which were

wrapt up therein, they coin an infinitie of fables or false ima∣ges, which they mixe with those Jewish Traditions they met with in their travels; and herein their phantasies (which are the greatest Apes in the world) were so skilful and unwearied, as that they soon rendred the whole bodie of their Symbolic Phi∣losophie cloudy, dark, vain and monstrose; no way like its ori∣ginal Idea in the Jewish Church. This Grecian itch and humor of coining, fables (not for the illustration, but to the darkening of truth) the Jews also when they came under the Grecian Mo∣narchie, sucked in to the prejudice of their Religion; wherein they were in like manner followed by those carnal Gospellers the Pythagorising Gnostics in the Christian Church: and al was by the father of Liars made use of as the foundation of Anti∣christs throne, which was founded on Lying-wonders, or fabu∣lose lies, as 2 Thes. 2.9. And this is a good key to open to us those bitter invectives used by the Apostles, specially Paul, a∣gainst those Pythagorean and Jewish fables, which the Gnostics then endeavored, and Antichrist after them, to bring into the Temple of Christ. And it seems there was none more infested with these fable-coining Pythagorising Dreamers, than the Church at Ephesus, where Apollonius Tyanaeus, that great Pythagorean Sorcerer, had been, and as it's thought infused some of his poi∣son about the same time that Timothie resided there. Also there were many Jews at Ephesus, who in this facultie of coi∣ning Fables and Wonders fully jumped with the Pythagoreans; and both joyning their forces had a mighty influence on those many Gnostic Antichristian Fables, which creeped into the Chri∣stians Theologie. Whence we see the ground why Paul in both his Epistles to Timothie, gives such severe censures of and cauti∣ons against this Pythagorising Jewish humor of Fable-framing Philosophie; which he then saw creeping into the Church, and which he foresaw would give a mighty lift to help Antichrist on his throne.* 1.153 So 1 Tim. 1.3, I besought thee to abide stil at Ephesus. Paul saw these Pythagorising Judaising Gnostics creeping into the Church at Ephesus, and by their Pythagorean Jewish Fables laying a foundation for Antichrist; wherefore he be∣sought Timothie to continue at Ephesus, and behave himself there as a stout Soldier of Christ, against those Gnostic Anti∣christian false Teachers. So it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That thou maist charge some that they teach no other

doctrine: i.e. That they do not overthrow the Gospel of Christ by their Pythagorean and Jewish Fables, as he expresseth him∣self v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Neither give heed to fables.* 1.154 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Philosophic notion, and amongst them it signified a Symbol or Fable, whereby they expressed some Philosophic mysterie. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are much of the same import amongst the Phi∣losophers. Thus Plato oft makes mention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Of a Syrian and Phenician Fable; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of an ineffable fable, whereby he understandes some Oriental Hebraic Tradition. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also a feigned Oration, Fable, or fictitious dis∣course: thence it is expounded by Hesychius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vain false speech, representing truth. Thus it is taken in the New Testament, as here, so C. 4. v. 7. 2 Tim. 4.4. Tit. 1.14. 2 Pet. 1.16. of which hereafter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does here also take in the Jewish Fables, which these vain Gnostics so much ad∣dicted themselves unto. So Grotius on this place:

The Apostle treats here (saies he) of such as were converted from Judaisme to Christianisme, and mixed Jewish Fables with Christianitie, as it appears by what follows, also by Tit. 1.14, &c. Such were those Jewish Fables concerning those things which God did be∣fore the beginning of the world; of the first man which God made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (i.e. partly man and partly woman) of his co∣pulation with the bestes, and with Lilith, with the Demons that sprang thence; of Behemoth and Leviathan; of the Pre-exist∣ence of Souls before the Bodie; of Angels their distribution into Stars and Regions; with the like.

These Fables, though they were entertained by the Jews, yet were they many of them of Pythagorean extract; namely that of the first mans be∣ing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which also Plato asserted; likewise the opinion of the Souls Pre-existence; to which we might adde that of the Metempseuchosis, which the Jews also, together with the Pytha∣goreans and Platonistes asserted. It follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.155 and endlesse Genealogies. These Genealogies the Jews cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they supposed successive Productions and Emanations one after another. So Philo Judaeus discourseth much of such Gene∣alogies. The origine of these fabulose Genealogies began with the first Poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, &c. Pherecydes also had his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Pythagoreans after him filled up much of their Theologie with such fictitious Genealogies, whom the Jews followed herein, as also the Gnostics; the most of whose Divini∣tie

consisted of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Conjunctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joining with another begets a third; whence sprang their Aeones or fabulose Gods. So Grotius here:

They feigned Emanations and Productions of one from the o∣ther: for which they would seem more learned than others, and so despised other Christians as more rude; vvhence they assumed the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gnostics.

I do not conceive that they were called Gnostics in the Apostles times, but in the follow∣ing Age, partly from their own Pretensions to a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. an high speculative, mystic knowlege; and partly from those Characters which are given them in Scripture, as hereafter. In∣deed the whole of their Theologie seems to have consisted only of some mystic Fables and Genealogies, borrowed from the Py∣thagorean Philosophie and Cabalistic Traditions. It follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which minister questions rather. i. e. These Pythagorean Jewish Fables, and Genealogies, taken up by these carnal Gnostics, produce nothing but vain Questions, which the Rabbines cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, than edifi∣cation of God in faith. As if he had said, these Pythagorising Gnostics pretend to make use of these their Mystic Fables and Genealogies, as explications of Evangelic Dispensations and My∣steries; but indeed they effect nothing lesse; for the Oecono∣mie of the Gospel holds forth a plain and simple way of be∣lieving in Christ,* 1.156 without such fabulose narrations. So v. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Now the end of the Commandment is Love. i.e. The scope and drift of our Gospel is Divine Love; whereas their pretended 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or fabulose Speculations tend only to foment endlesse disputes and strises about words. Then our Apostle procedes to give us the true Genealogie of Divine Love, in opposition to the fabulose Genealogies of those Py∣thagorising Gnostics: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, out of a pure hears, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeined. Paul (saith Grotius) gives us a short but very useful Genealogie. The Pythagoreans, and Jews after them, make much ado about the Genealogies of Virtues. Philo Judaeus (who did greatly Pythagorise) turnes much of the Historie of the Old Testament into Allegoric Genealogies of Virtues, &c. The Gno∣stics followed in the same pathes: Paul here gives us an easie and familiar Genealogie of true Christian Love, in opposition to all their Mystic Fables, which tended only to turne them aside to

vain janglings. So v. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, From which some having swarved have turned aside to vain jang∣ling.* 1.157 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primarily notes such an one as unhappily erres from his scope or marque: Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, either properly or fi∣guratively, not to reach the marque. These Pythagorising Gnostics aimed at high Speculation and Mystic Notions, but they rea∣ched not their marque or end, but fel into a vain contention and strife about words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were such as busied themselves on∣ly in vain disputes, as Tit. 1.10. or fabulose narrations, as these Gnostics here, who would fain passe for some grand Sophists or Teachers. So v. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.158 desiring to be tea∣chers of the Law. That first notion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is very emphatic, denoting here an ardent desire and ambitiose affectation of a name and repute for Doctors of the Law.

There were (saies Groti∣us) many Jews at Ephesus, some of whom embraced Christia∣nitie, but in shew only, retaining much of Judaisme. Amongst their Jewish Fables they asserted a Colloque of the Law with God before the Creation of the World; they would that the World should have been made for the Law.

Thus fabulose and vain were these Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics, who delighted themselves in nothing more than in unintelligible fables. So it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, under∣standing neither what they say, neither whereof they affirme: i. e. they wholly give up themselves to fabulose Genealogies and Mystic Traditions, which they neither understand, nor yet can affirme any thing positively of, as Tit. 3.8. which Fables are di∣rectly opposite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vers. 10. as also to that great Evangelic Cabala or Divine Tradition touching Christ, v. 15, This is a faithful saying and worthy of al acceptation,* 1.159 that Christ came into the world to save sinners, whereof I am chief. Our Apostle had in ver. 4. given a caution against those Pythagorean Cabalistic Fables and Genealogies, which the carnal Gnostics had sucked in, to the great prejudice of Evangelic Mysteries: in this v. 15. he gives them a Divine Cabala (in opposition to their fabulose Cabala, ver. 4.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and worthy of al acceptation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cabala, unto which our Apostle seems here to allude, as Paulus Fagius has observed on Deut. 5.27.

Our Apostle, saies he, alludes to that Cabalistic mode: as if he had said, If any affect to hear a Ca∣bala, I wil shew unto him the true certain and undouted Ca∣bala,

which is no other than this, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, &c.

* 1.160 For the more ful explication here∣of, we must know that the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Monarchie, imbibed together with many other grosse cor∣ruptions this mythologic fabulose mode of Philosophising, which was so commun amongst the Grecian Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, and indeed proved the bane of the Jewish Reli∣gion, as we shal shew hereafter. For look as Pagan Philoso∣phie was in its origine but a corrupt Imitamen of Sacred Histo∣rie and Mysteries, so the great corruptions which crept into the Jewish Church after the Babylonian Captivitie, had their foundation in some corrupt Imitation of Pagan Philosophie; a∣mongst which this of their Jewish Cabala was one of the worst. For these vain Jews growing weary of the plain and familiar simplicitie of Sacred Revelations, fal in love with that Mytho∣logic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Mystic kind of Philosophising, which they observed amongst the Grecians, specially the Pythagoreans. This fabulose and Mystic mode of Philosophising they make use of in their Commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Cabala, i.e. a reverential reception of their Rab∣bies Traditions: wherein they grew so vain and fabulose, that there was not the most plain, naked, and Historic Text, but they would bring it under some Cabalistic, Enigmatic or Mystic sense: which they caled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the hidden sense, which must be curiosely searcht into. Whence it grew into a commun saying amongst these Cabalists, That there was no Scripture without its Cabalistic or Mystic sense. These Pythagorising Cabalists were at first followed by the licentiose Gnostics, whose whole designe was to compose a flesh-pleasing Theologie out of Pythagorean and Jewish Dogmes and Fables, which were afterward greedily re∣ceived by Antichrist and his Adherents; who glorie much in their Mystic, or rather fabulose sense and interpretation of Scrip∣tures. Yea it cannot be denied but that some of the Fathers, specially Origen (who being of the Alexandrian Schole did much Pythagorise) were too guilty of mixing their Fables, Alle∣gories, or Mystic sense with Divine Revelations. Al this the Spirit of God foresaw; and therefore he abounds the more in his Divine Cautions against such Pythagoric, Cabalistic, Mystic and fabulose mixtures in sacred Theologie.* 1.161 We find the like sa∣cred premonition, 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

But refuse profane and old wives fables. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an old woman, signifies anile, or absurd, ridiculose.

He under∣standes, saith Grotius, the doctrine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Metempseuchose or Transmigration of Souls from one bodie to another, which is the foundation of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, abstinence. These Fables are first profane, because they are bottomed on no Divine Revelation; thence they are old wives fables, i. e. ab∣surd, like such as old wives recite to Children.

That this fable of the Metempseuchose, which Grotius conceives to be here un∣derstood, was indeed of Pythagorean extract, has been at large proved. This and other Fables these Pythagorising Gnostics made the foundation of their Abstinences, wherein they were after∣ward followed by Antichrist, whose Doctrines of Demons were but one great fable or lye; which the Apostle here dehortes al Christians from, under the name of Timothie, whom he exhortes rather to exercise himself to Godlinesse: But exercise thy self rather to Godlinesse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, properly signifies to exercise in the Gymnade. It follows, v. 8, 9, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Of which see hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. S. 3. §. 10. Our Apostle gives the like ex∣hortation to Titus, whom he left in Crete to preserve those Churches from the leven of the Jewish and Gnostic infusions. So Tit. 1.14, Not giving heed to Jewish fables:* 1.162 There were in Crete many Jews, who had sucked in this Grecian humor of coining Fables. They had their Fables concerning Behemoth, Leviathan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Metempseuchosis; also of their Messias his being a tem∣poral Monarch, his War with Gog and Magog, &c. which they took up in imitation of the Grecian Fables. By al this we see how much Vanitie and Corruption ensued upon that Mythologic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Mystic mode of Philosophising, which was at first taken up, in imitation of Sacred Oracles, by the Phe∣nicians and Egyptians, from whom the Grecians derived it; and from these the Jewish Cabalists, after their subjection to the Grecian Monarchie, brought it back again and mixed it with their Divine Oracles and Mysteries, to the great prejudice of their Religion, as also of the Christian: for the Pythagorising Judaising Gnostics, to save themselves from persecution, did here∣in symbolise both with the Jews and Grecians, as also Antichrist and al his adherents, vvho have been as fruitful in fabulose mystic Theologie, as the Grecians, Jews, or Gnostics ever were.

§. 2. Having demonstrated the Vanitie and Corruption of Philosophie,* 1.163 specially Symbolic, from its forme or mode, we now procede to demonstrate the same from its Proprieties. And here∣in we shal only mention such Proprieties, as the Philosophers themselves have made essential to true Philosophie; shewing how defective, yea corrupt their Philosophie was in regard of those very Attributes, which they themselves constituted as essen∣tial thereto.* 1.164 For, 1. The Philosophers generally supposed that Truth was an essential ingredient, yea the spirit of al Philoso∣phie. This Plato largely proves, Repub. 6. pag. 485, &c. where he affirmes, That there could not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, any thing more proper to Wisdome than Truth; whence he addes, that it was impossible that the same nature should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Philosopher and yet a lover of falshood. That truth is an essential Attribute, yea indeed the principal end of al true Phi∣losophie, see Philosoph. General. P. 2. l. 3. c. 1. Sect. 3. §. 1. Now that al the Pagan Philosophie was greatly defective, and thence vain in regard of this Proprietie, is evident in that it was not only for a great part fabulose and false, but wholly shadowy and conjectural only.* 1.165 (1) That a great part of the Ethnic Phi∣losophie was fabulose and false, has been already sufficiently de∣monstrated from its effential parts both Mater and Forme, name∣ly that al Physic Speculations about the origine of the Universe, its first Mater, Forme, and Privation, &c. were but fabulose, and for the most part false Traditions about the first Creation: that their Ethics were but false, or at best imperfect Ideas of Virtues: that their Politics were but carnal, and so false Rea∣sons of State; and therefore stiled in the Scripture, tromperie, deceit and lies, as Psal. 119.113, 118, 128, 163. That the whole of their Theologie, as to their Doctrine of Demons, &c. was most corrupt and Idolatric. We have al summed up, Rom. 1.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. a drossy, spurious, reprobate mind or judgement.* 1.166 (2) That the whole of Pagan Philosophie was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (according to the Platonic notion) a cloudy dark nocturne Philosophie, is most apparent; whence it also follows, that it had little of truth in it: for al true knowlege supposeth ideal ex∣istence or in-being of the Object in the Understanding; also that this existence, which the Object has in us, be agreable to the existence it has in it self, otherwise our conceptions of it cannot be said to be true. For what is knowlege but the Imi∣tamen,

Idea, or Image of a thing impressed on the Mind? how then can any have a true knowlege of a thing, unlesse the sub∣jective Idea in his mind exactly answer to the objective Idea of the thing in it self? Yea, he that Philosophiseth on a thing truely, must have in his formal conceptions the latitude, and other dimensions of the thing; also its Causes, Proprieties, Qua∣lities, Operations and natural effects, al which suppose the inhe∣rence of the thing in the mind, (not Physically, but) in its ideal forme or image, as Digby has at large proved, in his discourse of the Soul. Now how vastly short these poor blind Philosophers came of such true ideas and notions of things is easie to guesse by their own Confessions. Plato ingenuously confesseth, That al men did but as it were dream in their contemplations and notions of things: And this dreaming Philosophie he thus describeth, Repub. 5. p. 476. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To dream, is when a man counts that which is like to another, not like, but the same with that other, to which it is like. So agen, saies he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Men curi∣ose to hear and see are much taken with beautiful, words and co∣lors, and figures, and whatsoever procedeth hence: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but it is im∣possible for the mind of such to see and embrace the nature of beautie it self, (he means God.) Then he addes, That such as judge of good things, but yet cannot judge of good it self, or the first Beautie, can be said only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to live in a sleep or dream. Such he cals, pag. 480. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lo∣vers of opinion rather than lovers of wisdome; which is a true character of al the Philosophers. The like Plato addes, Repub. 7. pag. 534. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Such an one knoweth not either good it self, or any other good; but if he hath attained to some shadow of good, it is rather in opinion than certain knowlege: and thence the life which he now leads is as it were sleepy and bu∣ried in the vain Images of Dreams, until he awake; and so de∣scendes into Hel, there to take an eternal nap. I grant Plato in this and the forementioned citations speakes not universally of al Philosophers, but only of some who rested satisfied in the con∣templation of some lower shadows, pictures, or reflexions of

good, but contemplated not the supreme original Good, Beau∣tie it self, or God: But yet upon the supposition of his Positi∣on, viz. That al true Philosophie leads men unto and terminates on God, the knowlege, love and imitation of him, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Beautie and Good it self; this, I say, being granted, (as it is eternally true) hence our assertion wil neces∣sarily follow, that the wisest of these blind Philosophers were indeed but Dreamers, void of al true practic knowlege of God. But wil you hear Plato speaking Categorically and universally of the whole masse of Mankind plunged in Cimmerian darknesse? Consult then what he laies down in his Repub. 7. pag. 514.

Let us suppose (saies he according to his Allegoric mode) a Subterraneous habitation in the fashion of a Den, whose en∣trance lies open at a great distance; in which there are men even from their infance bound neck and heels together, lying on the ground, and beholding nothing but what lies before them, without being able to turne their heads: Let there be likewise a fire kindled over head behind their backs afar off: Let there be also a way made betwixt the persons bound and the fire, for men to passe up and down, and a wal made some distance from the way, and over-topping it: Then let men walk up and down, carrying statues and vesseles of al sorts, some∣times talking, sometimes silent: Hence let their some shadows of the shining fire fal upon the opposite part of the Den; nei∣ther let these men behold any thing save these shadows: with∣out dout they wil think these shadows to be the things them∣selves, and the truth of the very things: they wil think also the words of the men walking over head to be the words of these shadows. Such is the state of these men lying bound in darknesse: The Den is this World in which we men lie pro∣strate on the ground bound by chaines of native ignorance, so that we cannot turne our heads about, whence we cannot con∣template the true light 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Being, [i. e. God] or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of other Beings; but we can see only the shadows of things, which yet we guesse are the things themselves; and thus we accommodate our words, which are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sym∣bols of things, &c.

Thus Plato ingenuously acknowlegeth mans native ignorance, in words worthy of a Christian. He sayes p. 533. that Human nature is fallen into a gulf of darknesse and ignorance: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The eye

of the soul is immerst in the barbaric mire of Ignorance. Agen he tels us, Rep. 7. p. 521. how the Soul may be delivered from these chains of native ignorance, and that his Philosophie was intended for this use: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To be is the knowlege of the reduction of the Soul from its night-day (or ignorance) to the true knowlege of Being. (or God.) This knowlege of God he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Idea of the chiefest Good: also the Contemplation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of being, not according to o∣pinion, but according to essence. This he terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, true Philosophie; which he and al those of his Tribe were void of. For albeit they pretended to some Metaphysic Contemplati∣ons touching the first Being, yet that they were without any true Idea of God, and so without true Philosophie, I think is evident by what has been said. But the Scripture speakes more fully of the falshood and vanitie of Pagan Philosophie: so in that famose Text, Col. 2.8, Philosophie and vain deceit; i.e. as Grotius, vain and deceitful Philosophie. So 1 Tim. 6.20,* 1.167 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of false knowlege; which Grotius understands of the Pythagorising Gnostics, their Philosophic infusions. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a lie, signifies primarily falsely so called, assuming a name not belonging to it, or, not answering its name. These Py∣thagorising wanton Gnostics affected the name of Mysterious sci∣ence, or knowlege; they would fain passe for knowing men, such as had a deep insight into the most abstruse Mysteries: But Paul assures us, That al their Mystic science was but falsly termed such: their spinose and argute questions were but frivo∣lous and vain, imbibed from the Pythagorean source, and no way deserving the name of true science. So Clemens Alexandr. applying this Scripture to the Gnostics, saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as pride and arrogant opinion spoiled Philosophie, so false knowlege, knowlege, &c. With which that of Plato suites wel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I think no∣thing has done so much hurt to man as false opinion. To all which we may adde that of our Lord, Luk. 11.35, Take heed that the light which is in thee be not darknesse; i.e. content not thy self with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a dark, spurious, false night-Philosophie, &c.

§. 3. A second Proprietie of true Philosophie, according to

the Philosophers themselves,* 1.168 is that it be a contemplation of things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only by phantasmes or imaginations, but according to the nature or essence of the things themselves: i. e. al true Philosophie gives a natural or native Idea of things; it is substantial, solid, real, intuitive knowlege. But now it's apparent, that Pagan Philosophie was but artificial imitamens, traditional emty notions, and aerial speculations about the pictures of things; they never saw nor yet understood the things themselves, more than by some broken corrupt Tradition. And surely this gives us a great demonstration of its vanitie. We have sufficiently proved, that al Pagan Philosophie was no other than traditional imperfect corrupt Imitamens of Jewish Revelations and wisdome. Those blind Philosophers had no sub∣stantial, real, native, intuitive Contemplation of those things about which they Philosophised; they could obtain no more than some artificial pictures, or rather shadows only of the first principes of Nature, of God, and of other Divine Mysteries, which were conveighed to them by some broken oriental Jew∣ish Traditions; these did much please their phantasies, (as pi∣ctures do Children) but gave them no solid, real, intuitive noti∣ces or Ideas of those Divine things they related to. Now we know Pictures or artificial Images give but equivocal,* 1.169 not uni∣vocal or natural representations. Al know what a vast diffe∣rence there is betwixt a real substantial intuitive view of the Sun in the Firmament, and the mere artificial equivocal Contempla∣tion of its picture on a Signe-post: or betwixt the view of a Country with our own eyes, and the viewing of it in a Map, or by Tradition: such is the difference betwixt the Mimic, Tra∣ditional, Artificial Philosophie of the Pagans, and the real, sub∣stantial, native, univocal Wisdome vouchsafed the Jewish Church. That al Pagan Philosophie was but an equivocal image, an arti∣ficial picture, or rather but an imperfect dark traditional shadow of Divine Wisdome and Philosophie, may be easily gathered by their own concessions: so Plato, Repub. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mimes or imitators make only phantasmes or pictures, not things. This he more fully explicates elsewhere, telling us, That imitation is the third degree from truth; for it considers not the things themselves, but their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Idols or pictures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making phantasmes of thing. Agen, Repub. 10. he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

The Mime wil neither know nor think aright of those things he imitates as to good or evil. This he does more fully explain in what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Imitator knows nothing worthy of reason about those things he imi∣tates; but imitation is but a kind of jeast or play, not a serious studie. This he proves in that al imitation is employed only in drawing shadows of things, it reacheth not the things them∣selves. This indeed is an exact character of Pagan Philosophie, which was but an artificial imitation of, or shadow reflected from Jewish Wisdome and Mysteries. These Gentile Philosophers, the most sharp-sighted of them, saw those Divine Mysteries they so boldly Philosophised on in a Mimic broken glasse, or abstract Idea only, conveighed to them by some imperfect corrupt Tra∣dition; they had not any real intuitive vision or contemplation of the things themselves in their own native Idea, Proprieties and Effects. Thus much is acknowleged by Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 476. where speaking of such as were very curiose to hear sweet words, and contemplate beautiful colors and figures, he saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is impossible for the reason of such intuitively to be∣hold and embrace the nature of beautie it self. This which he applies to particulars is universally applicable to the whole tribe of Pagan Philosophers, who received sweet sounds, and saw some beautiful colors, figures, and pictures of Divine things in the broken glasse or abstract of Jewish Tradition, but never had an intuitive contemplation of those Divine Mysteries shining in their own real, native, gloriose Ideas on the glasse of Sa∣cred Revelation in the Jewish Church. Thus much indeed seems acknowleged by Plato himself in the aforesaid place, Repub. 5. pag. 476. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Are there not very few if any who are able to know and contemplate beautie it self, [i.e. God] according to himself? i.e. intuitively. Whence he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Is not this therefore true knowlege, to con∣template the first Being in his native perfections, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as being, under this reduplication? Agen, Repub. 5. pag. 480. Plato concludes thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Such therefore as have embraced this singular self-Being, are to be called Philosophers, not Opiniators, or lovers of

opinion. i. e. None deserve the name of Philosophers, but such as have had a real intuition and contemplation of God; al others are but lovers of phantasmes, pictures, or opinions. And Plato in his Philebus, pag. 40, gives us a more particular 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or dis∣crimination of such Philosophers as had this intuitive, real know∣lege, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Virtuose per∣sons have for the most part true ideas or images engraven on their minds, because they are Theophilists, or beloved of God, but wicked men have for the most part the contrary. These (as he elsewhere addes) contemplate only beautiful colors and pictures, not beautie it self. And if so, we may certainly conclude, that there was not one of those Heathen Philosophers that was truely such as they pretended to be; for they were al wicked men, and there∣fore could not have a real, native, intuitive contemplation of God, who is Beautie it self, which they make to be essential to al true genuine Philosophie.* 1.170 Thus much also our Apostle, in his dis∣course of that vain Pythagorean Philosophie, which was suckt in by the Gnostics, Col. 2.18, 23. v. 18. he speakes of their intru∣ding into things they had not seen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, proudly in∣vading or intruding into things beyond their reach; as before, c. 1. §. 3. i.e. They pretended to an intuitive knowlege of An∣gels, &c. but Paul gives a true character of al their Philoso∣phie, v. 23. which things have indeed a shew of wisdome; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. of some excellent Philosophic Contemplations, or sublime notions, which seem rather to be dropt from Heaven than in∣vented by men: but al this, saies our Apostle, is but a shew. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. saith Erasmus, a species or forme, as 'tis opposed to a thing or substance; they had only a picture and artificial forme of wisdome, or rather a false opinion, or apparent shadow, not a real substantial intuitive contemplation of things. This our Apo∣stle affirmes universally of the Jewish wisdome or Philosophie in its degenerate state,* 1.171 Rom. 2.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a forme of knowlege. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the forme of a thing that is beheld; and being translated to the mind it signifies the impressing or form∣ing of an idea of the thing thereon; but here it seems to import only an abstract forme, or artificial scheme, and picture of truth; so Oecumenius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, manife∣sting that they had not the true knowlege and godlinesse, but an ar∣tificial

image; for they had the scheme of truth, not the substance. Thence Hesychius expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an artificial scheme; and Phavorinus, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a feigned scheme, forme, or picture of true knowlege; how much short were the blind Pagans of any real, solid, substantial knowlege of things Divine? Is not this proper only to the true Church and peo∣ple of God? Thence it's said, Prov. 2.7,* 1.172 He layeth up sound wisdome for the righteous. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies primarily, that which really is essence, substance; thence it notes real, solid, and sub∣stantial wisdome, such as carries with it an essential true Idea of the thing known; which as to things Divine is proper only to the real Christian. The same we find, Prov. 3.21, Keep sound wisdome.

§. 4. Hence it follows, that al Pagan Philosophie is only universal and general, not particular and experimental;* 1.173 which gives us a farther demonstration of its imperfection and vanitie, specially as to Morals and Metaphysics. For Aristotle rightly in∣formes us, that universal knowlege in maters of practice is vain, but particular more true. So Aristot. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In Practic discourses universals are more vain, but particulars more true; for Actions are about singu∣lars. This the Civilian has wel observed:

Then only (as Ari∣stotle saies) we know any thing, when its parts are known and considered by us.

i. e. When its Causes, Effects, Adjuncts, Qualities and Parts are apprehended by us. And it is a recei∣ved opinion in the Scholes,

That to know a thing in universal, as to the thing known, is more imperfect than to know it in particular; though an universal knowlege, as to the medium of knowing, be more perfect than a particular.

Now this was the case of al those Pagan Philosophers, they had only some General Ideas, or loose broken notices of those things they dis∣coursed of; they had not any particular apprehension of the Parts, Qualities, Causes, Influences, and Effects of things, speci∣ally such as depended on Divine Revelation: They had only some general rumors, or traditional notions of God, his Divine Perfections, Operations and Effects of Providence; they had only some traditional fragments of the first Origine of the Universe, the state of Innocence, the Fal of Man, &c. but al their Philosophi∣sings

on, or notions of these things were only general, and so very imperfect and vain. Yet the main of their vanitie in this regard lay not so much in Naturals as in Morals and Superna∣turals: For it cannot be denied, but that many of the Pagan Philosophers had very particular, experimental, and curiose Con∣templations about Natural things; they were very exact in anatomising the bowels of Nature, and gathering up a Systeme of Natural Experiments, which is the choisest part of Natural Philosophie, as it appears by Aristotle's excellent Historie of Animals, and Theophrastus his Discourse of Plants; wherein they have excelled most of this later age. But yet as to Ethics and Metaphysics their Philosophie was only traditional, general, and notional, not particular and experimental; and therefore very vain and uselesse. This also may be demonstrated out of Plato's own Concessions; for in his Theaetetus he laies down this as his opinion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It seems to me, that he who knows any thing has a sensate cognition of what he knows; for, as it now appears, science is nothing else than sensation, or a particu∣lar experimental feeling knowlege. So Timaeus, pag. 103. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wisdome is a good sense of soul. So Plato in his Gorgias, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Experience makes our life to passe away according to rules of art, but Inexperience casually. Agen he addes, That an experimental Philosopher only can judge prudently of things; for, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, persons unexperienced of the truth and other maters, have no sound opinions of pleasure and sorrow. Now that none of these blind Philosophers had this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good sensation, or experimental particular knowlege of good and evil, pleasure or sorrow, is most evident; because they had not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good ha∣bitude of soul, which they themselves make essentially requisite to this spiritual good sensation or experimental Philosophie. So Aristotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A virtuose man judgeth truely of what is good, but a wicked man casually: as it is in bodies, such as are wel-disposed can judge truely of things that are wholesome, or con∣ducing to health; but those who are sick, otherwise; for to these

bitter and sweet have the same relish. This indeed was the very case of al these Pagan Philosophers, they had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an il habi∣tude of soul; and so were void of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, right sensation, or experimental knowlege; they had not those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 5.14. which rendred al their Morals and Metaphy∣sics vain.

§. 5. Whence it follows, That al Pagan Philosophie is but clou¦dy, obscure, and confused, not evident, clear, and distinct:* 1.174 for it is a commun and true maxime, that in Ʋniversals and Generals there lies much Ambiguitie, Obscuritie, and Confusion; al clear, evi∣dent, distinct judgement procedes from the consideration of par∣ticulars. And that the evident, clear, distinct contemplation of things is essential to al genuine Philosophie may be easily ga∣thered from the Philosophers themselves, their own acknowlege∣ments. Plato, Epinom. pag. 976. makes mention of an admirable facultie of discerning, which belongs to a Philosopher; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Which many cal nature ra∣ther than wisdome; and it is conversant in this, that a man does with facilitie and dexteritie learne a thing, and having learned it, commit it to a faithful and firme memorie, and recals it with cele∣ritie as occasion serves. This some cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wisdome; others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nature; others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sagacitie of nature. This na∣tural Sagacitie is thus described, Platon. definit. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sagacitie is a good disposition of soul, whereby he that has it is enabled to discerne what becomes every one; or more briefly in what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an a∣cumen of judgement. This, saies Plato Repub. 2. pag. 376. Dogs are in some sense endowed with, which have a natural sagacitie to discerne their friend from their foe, only by the countenance. This Repub. 7 pag. 537. he makes a character of his Logician, that he be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that can accurately look into and distinguish things. And in his Repub. 9. he makes a Philosopher to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a diacritic or very critic instrument; for look as the eye is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an accurate critic of bodies, such should the Philosophers mind be of good and evil. He tels us also in the same Repub. 9. whence this critic judgement springs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a critic judgement is made by Experience and Prudence, and Reason or Discourse. And Seneca Epist. 71. tels us,

That Socrates, who reduced al Philo∣sophie to Morals, affirmed, that this was the highest wisdome;

to distinguish betwixt good and evil.

By al which it is evident how little of true wisdome these Pagan Philosophers had: For how could they distinguish aright betwixt Good and Evil with∣out spiritual senses exercised, as Heb. 5.15? This Intellectual Sa∣gacitie is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dexteritie; which according to the Platonic definition, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an habit of choo∣sing what is best; which al wil grant these Pagan Philosophers were void of. And indeed Plato ingenuously confesseth, That this facultie of distinguishing or discerning what was best, was not commun, but peculiar to the judgement of Jupiter. And Aristotle seems sensible of this, that there was much difficultie in distin∣guishing betwixt truth and falshood; because there was so much falshood like to truth. So Rhet. l. 1. c. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for it belongs to the same facultie to judge of truth, and that which is like unto truth. Which facultie he and the rest of his Tribe were greatly void of; for how often does a falshood, if like to truth, passe with them for truth? so confused and indistinct were they in al their Philoso∣phemes. This is excellently set forth by Aristotle, Ethic. l. 3. c. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for a righteous man judgeth rightly of althings, &c. Then he addes, that this righteous or virtuose man doth accurately difference things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being as it were the canon, rule, and measure of althings: i.e. (saith Lambinus) not that truth dependes upon the judgement of a vir∣tuose man, but that his judgement is conformed to truth. But then Aristotle concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most of men seem to be under deceit by reason of pleasure, &c. This indeed was the case of al those poor Philosophers; their foolish hearts were darkened and deceived by lust, which ren∣dred their Philosophie, specially in Morals and Supernaturals, ex∣treme confused and cloudy. It is Faith only, according to Heb. 11.1. that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an evidence of things not seen, i.e. Supernatural.* 1.175 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is either (1) a natural evidence; as the light is the evidence of it self and althings else. (2) A Philoso∣phic evidence, as first principes are in themselves most evident, and give evidence to al other lower principes; or as a demon∣strative argument is evident, and gives evidence to the conclu∣sion. (3) Legal evidence; which is either of Right or Fact. (4) Supernatural evidence; such is Faith of things naturally and rationally invisible.

§. 6. Another Adjunct,* 1.176 which the Philosophers made essen∣tial to their Philosophie, is Stabilitie and Certaintie of Assent. For, saies Plato, Repub. 5. such as content themselves with fluid weak Opinions, are not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philosophers, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lovers of Opi∣nions. So agen in his Phaedrus, pag. 262. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He that knows not the truth, but hunts after Opinions, wil exhibit only a ri∣diculose and inartificial Art. But Repub. 6. pag. 506. more fully thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, What then? doest thou not know that Opinions without science are base, the best of which are but blind? or do they seem to thee to differ any thing from blind men, who, though going on in a right way, have only some opinions about truth without understanding? surely nothing. Whence he con∣cludes, That it is not lawful to contemplate base and blind Opini∣ons, when things more certain are before us. And in his Meno he gives us the privilege of a certain knowlege above opinion; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He that has science or certain knowlege alwaies reach∣eth what he aimes at; but he that has only a right opinion some∣times attaines his end, sometimes not. Now that these Pagan Phi¦losophers had not this Scientific or certain knowlege of things, (excepting some of their Mathematic Demonstrations) but only some weak fluid dark opinions, is very evident. For according to their own principes, science or certain knowlege is the re∣sult of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonstration, which supposeth a clear, stedfast knowlege of the Causes, and their causal connexion with the Ef∣fect; which the Pagan Philosophie was, in its chiefest parts, wholly destitute of. For what jejune and slender notices had these purblind Sophists touching God, the first Cause of althings, his great Productive Acts of Creation and Providence? The cer∣tain knowlege hereof dependes wholly on Divine Revelation, the proper object of Faith, according to Heb. 11.3, Through faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God. By which it's evident, that there can be no certain unmoveable assent or knowlege touching the first origine of things, (which comprehends a great part of Pagan Philosophie) but what pro∣cedes from Faith assenting unto Divine Revelation. Whence

the Spirits act in working this assent is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.177 1 Cor. 2.4. Demonstration, i.e. The assent wrought by the Spirit of God is as certain, as assent wrought by Mathematic ocular Demonstration. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Mathematic notion, noting a most potent and essica∣cious conviction of the mind, which leaves no place for douting; and so it's opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies a dark Adum∣bration, or rude draught, like the first lines in a demonstration; whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a complete scientific certain assent. The Pagan Philosophers had some kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dark adumbration, or shadowy description of the first principes of na∣ture, &c. which they received by some broken Traditions from the Jews; but they had not this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonstration, or cer∣tain assent touching the Worlds origine: this is peculiar to Di∣vine Faith, bottomed on Sacred Revelation, as Heb. 11.3. Yea, Divine Faith has according to its Sacred character,* 1.178 Col. 2.2. an objective 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. a ful, stable, certain persuasion of the ve∣racitie or truth of its Object; the Metaphor being taken from a Ship carried with ful sails.* 1.179 The like Luk. 1.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of those things which are fully and certainly assented unto by us. Every Believer has a direct, adhesive plerophorie, or certain assent touching the certaintie of the things contained in the Word of God; albeit he has not a reflexe plerophorie, or cor∣tain assurance of his own proprietie and interest therein. Thence Gal. 3.1,* 1.180 Before whose eyes Christ has been evidently set forth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, painted forth, or drawn to the life; they had as cer∣tain and stedfast a vision of Christ by faith, as they had who stood by the Crosse and saw him crucified. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is opposed to Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dark adumbration, or opinionative knowlege. The Divine Faith of Jews and Christians gives them a ful, sted∣fast, certain, spiritual vision of things invisible as to sense or rea∣son, Heb. 11.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But now the wisest of the Pagan Philosophers had only the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dark shadowy notices of these Divine Revelations from Jewish Traditions. The Schole-men tel us, that the certaintie of Divine Faith, as bottomed on Divine Autoritie, is more infallible than that of human Science bottomed on Demonstration. But this the most quick-sighted of these Pagan Philosophers were void of, and therefore could not attain to that certain knowlege of the principes of Philosophie which they pretended unto. We have for this a great acknow∣legement by Plutarch, one of the wisest moderne Philosophers,

who in the life of Coriolanus speaketh thus:

Many times we think we hear what we do not hear, and we imagine we see what we see not; yet notwithstanding such as are piously bent, and zelosely given to think on heavenly things, so as they can be no waies drawn from believing that which is spoken of them, they have this reason to ground the foundation of their belief on; that is, the Omnipotence of God, which is wonder∣ful, and hath no manner of ressemblance or likenesse of proportion unto ours, but is altogether contrary, as touching our nature, our moving, our art, and our force; and therefore if he do any thing impossible unto us, or doth bring forth and devise things above man's commun reach and understanding, we must not therefore think it impossible at al. For if in other things he is contrary to us, much more in his workes and operations he far surpasseth al the rest.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Many of the Divine ma∣ters are (according to Heraclitus) by reason of our unbelief hidden from our knowlege. Thus Plutarch ingenuously acknowlegeth their ignorance of Divine affairs, as also the root of al, which he makes to be unbelief. This incertaintie of Pagan Philosophie gives us a farther Demonstration of its vanitie.

§. 7. Philosophers give this as a proprietie of true Philoso∣phie,* 1.181 that it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dianoetic, Dia∣logistic, and Dialectic or Discursive. i. e. originally springing from, and ultimately determining in some necessary first Princi∣pes. Thence Philosophie is described in the Platonic definitions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a true and unerring Ratioci∣nation in the Dianoetic judgement. Thence Plato under the terme of Dialectic or Logic seems to comprehend the whole of his Philosophie. So in his Repub. 7. pag. 533. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Dialectic method procedes this way only, namely that removing the Hypotheses it may arrive to the first principe, and lay a firme foundation for assent — using other arts as auxiliarie aides. Agen in the same Repub. 7. he de∣fines his Logician thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou callest a Dialectic one who considers the reason of every Being; for he that accurately discerneth things is a Dialectic. Yea indeed he makes nothing true Logic or discourse but what determines in the knowlege of

God, the first Principe, who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Plato∣nists speak, the sum and comprehension of al reason or discourse. By which it is apparent, that al Pagan Philosophie was not true∣ly Logistic or discursive, but rather paralogistic and sophistic. For indeed most of their Disputes were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contentiose Ratiocinations, vain both in their Principes and Conclusions. This Paul takes notice of in Rom. 1.21.* 1.182 Vain in their imagina∣tions. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In their disputes, or Dialogistic Ratioci∣nations: for their ancient way of disputing was by Dialogues, or Interrogations and Answers, agreable to the Judaic Argumen∣tation, as we have shewen, Court Gent. P. 2. B. 3. C. 8. §. 2. Al their Disputes both Mental and Verbal were vain. So 1 Cor. 1.20. Where is the disputer of this world? i.e. Al their Philosophic Disputations could not bring them to the knowlege of God the first Principe.* 1.183 So 1 Tim. 6.4. Doting about questions; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which, as he addes, were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strifes about words no way conducing to edification. Or, as he addes v. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very busie, but perverse discourses about trifles. So that indeed al their Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, disputes, were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, per∣verse or false reasonings no way conducing to clear up truth or any first principes, as has been observed Chap. 1. §. 6.

§. 8. Another Attribute,* 1.184 or if you wil, formal part of Pa∣gan Philosophie is, that it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Noetic or Intelligent; i.e. comprehensive of the first and highest Principes. This part of Philosophie they usually stile 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Intelligence; which they make to be a comprehension of the first Principes of Science; and so distinguish it from Dianoetic Philosophie, which is the assent to Conclusions by discourse from first principes; as also from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sapience, which they take to be the knowlege of the most ex∣cellent Being, God, &c. But Plato seems to make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Intelli∣gence, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wisdome, to be the same, and so at present we shal consider them. This Intelligence or Sapience Plato makes to be the supreme and most perfect of al Sciences. So Repub. 6. pag. 511. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Intelligence in the highest place; which afterward he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most perfect of al; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the end of al Disciplines: unto which al o∣ther Arts ought to be subservient. So in his Phileb. pag. 58. he termes it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the principal Science; because it pre∣scribeth mea2ure, weight, and rules to al other Sciences. And the original ground why this Intelligence or Sapience is so excellent

a Science Plato laies down, Repub. 7. pag. 513.

Where he makes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Intelligence to be the highest of Sciences; because it is em∣ployed in the contemplation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Being, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Beautie, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, namely from firme and eternal principles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, proceding by discourse to that which is singular; having cast off the ministerie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Idols: it quits not this contemplation until 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it comprehendes by its Intelligence that which is good it self.

This he explains more fully in his Theaetetus, pag. 140. where he saies, this Intelligence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the returne of the soul from its night-day to the true light of Being; i. e. of God. Whence he addes, pag. 176. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The knowlege of this first Being is true sapience and virtue, but the ig∣norance of him the worst rudenesse and evil. So Alcibiad. 2. pag. 146. he saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the knowlege of other sciences, without the knowlege of that which is best, is little advantageous. This gives us a farther demonstration of the vanitie of al Pagan Philosophie; which notwithstanding al its pretensions, was altogether void of this Divine Intelligence or Sapience. Thus much indeed Plato acknowlegeth in his Phileb. saying, that the knowlege of the one infinite Being was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a gift of God to men: which in his Theages, he saies, God gives to none but such as are his friends. And Plato, Repub. 6. p. 483. gives us a large Ana∣logie, or proportion, 'twixt the light of the Sun and this know∣lege of God; shewing, that as the eye cannot contemplate the Sun but by its own light, so neither can the mind contemplate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Being it self; i.e. God, unlesse there be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some Idea or beam of this chiefest Good; which, saies he, is the cause of al truth in every intelligent facultie, without which there can be no science. Now that the wisest of these Pagan Philosophers were altogether void of this infused Divine Intelligence or light, I suppose no Christian wil denie.

§. 9. Another formal Attribute or part they give Philoso∣phie is, that it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prudential. Of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prudence,* 1.185 they make several parts. (1) Self-reflexion, or the knowlege of our selves, specially our Souls. So Plato, in his Alcibiad. 1. pag. 133. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

If the soul wilknow it self, must it not reflect upon it self? — And to know himself, we confesse is wisdome. And he addes, that such as know not them∣selves know not either their goods or their ils, or any thing else that belongs unto them, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Therefore this part thereof seems to be most like to the Divinitie; and if any reflect thereon, and behold al that is Divine, and God, and Sapience, he shal thus mostly know himself. By which he in∣structs us, that by knowing the Divine part of the soul we come to understand what is Divine, both God, and Wisdome, and our selves. So de legib. 1. pag. 650. he saith, It is the most profitable of al Sciences to know,* 1.186 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the dispositions and habits of the souls. (2) A part of this Prudence they cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Providence; which the Platonists thus define, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Providence is a Preparation for something future. Whence say they it is the part of prudent persons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to foresee difficulties. And because they estimed no∣thing more difficult than to die wel, thence Pythagoras, Plato, and Tullie define Philosophie,* 1.187 the Contemplation of Death. (3) The chiefest part of the Philosophers Prudence consisted in the framing of happinesse. So in the Platonic definitions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prudence is a science effective of happinesse. So Stobaeus, Serm. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prudence is the science of Happinesse as to life. So Aristo∣tle.* 1.188 (4) As to present affaires, they make this Prudence to con∣sist in the right disposing and ordering of althings with subser∣vience to our last end. So Pittachus makes Prudence to lie in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the right management of what is before us. And Socrates makes a young mans Wisdome to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the do∣ing nothing rashly. This Plato cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good consultation. So Rep. 4. pag. 428. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Aristotle makes Prudence to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a consultation what is to be done,* 1.189 and what not. (5) More particularly the Philosophers made Prudence to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a knowlege of good and of evil. i.e. [1] Rightly to distinguish betwixt good and evil. [2] To imitate what is best: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lay up what is best, and those things do thou imitate, Stob. Serm. 3. [3] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To use things con∣ducing to this life wel, as Plato Charm. [4] To preserve the recti∣tude

of the wil, and regular order in the affections, &c. By al which Descriptions of Prudence it is apparent these blind Phi∣losophers were altogether void of it. For (1) How seldome or never did they reflect on their actions, souls, and state? (2) How little foresight of, but much lesse preparation for a future state, had they? (3) How little influential on future happinesse was al their Prudence? (4) How little practic or directive as to present affaires was their Prudence? (5) Much lesse could they attain to any true virtue by al their Prudence. Indeed al their human Wisdome or Prudence was but carnal policie, according to the Platonic definition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Craft is an affection, whereby he that has it is enabled to designe his private interest; which is the greatest solie, accor∣ding to Eccles. 10.3. His wisdome faileth him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his heart, or his Prudence.

§. 10. The last Proprietie ascribed to Pagan Philosophie is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a plastic, efformative, or transforming virtue:* 1.190 So Plato, Repub. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Philosopher conversing with what is Divine and excellent, becomes also, so far as its possible for a man, Divine and excellent: by imi∣tating these Divine things we become like to them. Agen, Gorgias, p. 460. he tels us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He that studies any thing is wrought by his science into the likenesse of that which he studies, — and he that studies righteousnesse becomes righteous. But he speaks more fully, Repub. 6. p. 501. where shewing how Philo∣sophers by their institutes do forme men according to the Divine Exemplar: This Divine Product in men (saies he) Homer cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deiforme, or little God in man. The like Rep. 9. p. 592. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, But there is placed in Heaven a most ex∣act exemplar for any that wil to contemplate, and by contemplating conforme himself unto it. Agen, Theaetet. p. 176. he tels us, That the Soul's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. assimilation unto God, so far as 'tis possible in righteousnesse and holinesse, is the product of Wisdome, or Philosophie. But this Divine Metamorphose, or Transformation is peculiar to Divine and saving Faith, accor∣ding to 2 Cor. 3.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are transformed;* 1.191 i.e. by beholding the gloriose Ideas of Divine Wisdome and Grace, re∣flected

from the face of Christ on the glasse of the Gospel, we are by the efficaciose concurrence of the Spirit changed into the same gloriose image of Christ. This Pagan Philosophie could never reach: al its transformative virtue was to change mens minds and conversations into the image of Satan. Such was its Vanitie and Insufficience to reach those ends, which those blind Philosophers proposed to themselves. But this may suffice to shew the Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie from its Formal nature, Attributes or Adjuncts.

BOOK II. The Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie, in regard of its Effects.

CHAP. I. Pagan Philosophie the Cause of Pagan Idolatrie, Judaic Apostasie, and Errors in the Primitive Churches of Christ.

Pagan Philosophie vain, (1) as to its end, Eccles. 10.2, 3. (2) As it causeth Soul-deceit, Ephes. 4.14. Ephes. 5.6. Col. 2.4, 8, 18. (3) As productive of Idolatrie, specially Demon-worship, Ima∣ges, &c. As to Atheisme, which was the product of Physics, Mathematics, Politics and Eristic Philosphie. (4) Jewish A∣postasie from Pagan Philosophie; [1] The Jewish Baalim, or Demons. [2] The Aposasie of the Jews after the Captivitie from Pagan Philosophie. The Jewish Cabala from Pythagorean Symbolic Philosophie. So likewise their Talmud. (5) Pagan Phi∣losophie the cause of the great Errors in the Primitive Churches, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (1) The Gnostic Errors from Pagan Philosophie; their Mystic Theologie from Mythologic, Sym∣bolic Philosophie, [1] Their Aeones from Philosophic Ideas and Demons, 1 Joh. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [2] Their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Pythagorean Institutes. [3] Forbidding Mariages, 1 Tim. 4.3. [4] Abstinences. [5] Sorceie. [6] Sensualitie. [7] Expi∣ations. [8] Allegoric Resurrection. (2) Pagan Philosophie the cause of many Errors amongst the Fathers, specially those of the Scholes of Alexandria. (3) The Errors of Samosetanus and Ari∣us had their rise in the Schole of Alexandria, from the Platonic Contemplations about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. (4) Pagan Philosophie the cause of Pelagianisme, which was founded by Origen and the Orige∣nists, with other Greek Fathers, who did too much symbolise with Pagan Philosophers herein. A Summarie of Pelagianisme and Augustin's zele against it.

§. 1. WE have discoursed of the Vanitie of Pagan Philoso∣phie from its Causes, Essential Partes, and Attri∣butes; we now procede to demonstrate the same from its Ef∣fects; wherein there appeares much more Vanitie than in the former. The many vain Effects of Pagan Philosophie may be re∣duced to these commun Heads. (1) They are more general, such as regard both Pagans and the People of God. (2) They are more particular and peculiar, [1] To the Jewish Church: [2] To the Christian Churches, both primitive or purer, and later under Antichristian Apostasie.* 1.192 We are to begin with the cor∣rupt Effects of vain Philosophie in general, as relating both to Pagans and the Professing People of God. And amongst these we may reckon, (1) as one great piece of its Vanitie, that it reached not that end which it proposed: For a thing is said to be vain, when it attains not its proposed End. Now the End which these vain Philosophers proposed was by their Philoso∣phie to reduce the Soul to that natural state of knowing and enjoying God, which it was possessed of in Innocence. So Philo∣sophie is defined by Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The reduction of the soul from its night-day to the true sight of Being, i.e. God. Agen, he cals Philosophie the contemplation, love, and imitation of God. But now how far al Pagan Philosophie came short of this End, is evident by what has been laid down in the foregoing Discourses. Yea take Phi∣losophie in its zenith or meridian glorie, and it was but a mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Theorie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, likenesse, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Rom. 2.20, forme of knowledge. It gave not the least 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Me∣tamorphose to the Soul, as Faith is said to do, 2 Cor. 3.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Solomon gives an excellent character of al the Pagan Philosophers,* 1.193 Prov. 7.7, And beheld amongst the simple ones — a young man void of understanding. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of an heart: i.e. Practic understanding.* 1.194 So Eccles. 10.2, 3, we have an excellent antithese betwixt a true Philosopher and the vain: we find the true Phi∣losopher characterised thus, v. 2, A wise mans heart is at his right; i.e. his Philosophie or Wisdome is practic and directive, he can make use of it on al occasions. But a fools heart is at his left; i.e. his Philosophie is no way practic or operative. So it follows, v. 3, Yea also when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdome [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his heart] faileth him. i.e. Al his Philosophic

Contemplations, when they come to maters of Practice or Di∣rection, fail him. Whence it follows: [and he saith to every one that he is a fool,] i.e. his actions bespeak him to be a mere fool, void of an heart or practic judgement, notwithstanding al his pretensions to Philosophic Wisdome. Such wise fools were Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, &c. who, notwithstan∣ding al their Philosophic Speculations, were void of an heart or true pactic directive Wisdome.

§. 2. Pagan Philosophie has not only come short of its End which was proposed, but also proved a great snare, delusion,* 1.195 and cloke for al manner of wickednesse, which is an effect worse than the former. This our Apostle Paul seems to give some hints of, 1 Cor. 3.1. He cals them Babes.* 1.196 They had much car∣nal wisdome, being seated in the eye of Grece, yet he looks upon them as Babes as to Divine Wisdome.* 1.197 Ver. 10, &c. he gives cautions against building Hay and stubble, i.e. Human Philo∣sophic Inventions on the Gospels foundation. Then v. 18,* 1.198 he gives a particular caution against this self-deceiving, vain Phi∣losophie, Let no man deceive himself; if any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let no man deceive himself; i.e. with vain Philosophie, &c. So Grotius on this Text: Al Philosophie (saies he) repugnant to the Go∣spel is deceit, 2 Thes. 2.3. Thence it follows v. 19,* 1.199 For the wis∣dome of this world is foolishnesse with God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their Metaphy∣sic Sapience, or Philosophie. He notes the most sublime Contem∣plations and Philosophemes among the Philosophers. Thence he addes, He takes the wise in their own craftinesse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies al manner of Calliditie, or Dexteritie to cheat and deceive; an art of cheating; wherein many Corinthian So∣phistes or Gnostics were much versed. So agen v. 20,* 1.200 The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Philosophic Reasonings or Disputes of the Sophists; they are both Philosophic termes. These Philosphic reasonings are said to be vain, in that they deceived those who trusted to them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primarily notes, to confer among themselves by Questions and Responsions or Answers; which was the ancient mode of disputing both among the Jews and Grecians. Thus Mat. 21.25. Luk. 12.17. Mark 2.6, 8. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signi∣fies a Disceptation or Ratiocination either Mental or Oral. Some∣times it signifies the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, inane concertation or

dispute of words about things of no moment.* 1.201 So Phil. 2.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, saith Grotius, seems to be those bitter contentions about things no way conducing to pietie: whereof there were many among the Philosophers, specially the Aristo∣teleans, who abounded in Macedonia where Philippi stood. Our Apostle seems also to strike at this soul-deceit of vain Philoso∣phie in his Epistle to the Ephesians, amongst whom there lived many Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics.* 1.202 So Ephes. 4.14, That we be no more henceforth children tossed to and fro. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. fluctuating up and down like the waves of the Sea, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men.* 1.203 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Amongst the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified a Dice, and because the cast of a Dice was most casual and incertain as to its event, as also that whereby crafty Gamesters circumvented the more simple; thence the word was by them translted from its primitive notion to signifie, (1) any casual and uncertain event; and this signification here, though metaphoric and borrowed, is very emphatic, and lively, setting forth the skipping levitie and inconstance of mens minds, more uncertain than the cast of the Dice. Thus Beza understands the word here. But yet (2) we must take in also the second notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it notes crafty circumvention of the more simple. There were at Ephesus many Pythagorising Gnostics, who, by their sublime speculations and sub∣tile fraudulent distinctions, circumvented the more simple pro∣fessors as wel as themselves. Thence our Apostle procedes to give a further account of the root of al: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by cunning crafti∣nesse. It is the same with that before mentioned, 1 Cor. 3.19, whereby he seems to paint forth the Philosophic sophisterie of those Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics, who lay in wait to be∣guile and ensnare poor silly professors. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. i.e. By their cunning crafty Philosophisings. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, method, is a com∣pendiose and artificial way of handling simple Themes, Pro∣positions, or Sciences. Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes a certain Art of cheating or deceiving, comprehended under certain general rules. Thus Chrysostome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to lie in wait to deceive, is artificiosely to circumvent some one, and by a compendiary way to reduce him under his power. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lying in wait to deceive, i.e. Preparing a persuasive discourse,

and using artifices to cover the cheat. Which course these Pytha∣gorising Gnostics took. Our Apostle inculcates this exhorta∣torie caution, Ephes. 5.6, Let no man deceive you with vain words.* 1.204〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He markes out, saies Grotius, the Philosophers who asserted there was no evil in Incestes, Communitie of Wives, over-reaching of one the other in buyings and sellings, &c. whose vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. reasonings or Philosophisings the Pythagorising Gnostics made use of, to color over their grosse wickednesses, and so to deceive the more simple Christians. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signifie Phi∣losophic Arguments or reasonings as wel as words. This our Apostle does yet more professedly discourse of, and against, in his Epistle to the Colossians, who were very sorely infested, at least assaulted, by the Pythagorising Gnostics. So Col. 2.4,* 1.205 And this I say lest any one should beguile you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. De∣ceive you by Sophistic disputes of vain Philosophie. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to impose a sophistic and fallacious argument, which yet has the color and shew of a good argument, thereby to circumvent the credulous and simple; which is the main work of a Sophister. It answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Seventy interpret by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to cheat and deceive. Hence Hesychius expli∣cates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Paralogisme, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deceit; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Paralogist, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Deceiver or Cheater. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies properly by false ratiocination to deceive, by so∣phistic reason, or captiose syllogisme to impose on others, or on our selves; and so it's opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to dis∣pute regularly.* 1.206 Hence Jam. 1.22. Such as content themselves with mere Philosophic reason, or notional knowledge, are brought in as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imposing a Paralogisme, or fallacious argument on themselves. Indeed for men to acquiesce in mere Phi∣losophic or speculative Wisdome, is the worst of Paralogismes, and Sophisterie; for it is self-deceit, it is soul deceit: Therefore the Apostle gives the more severe caution against it. Then it follows, Col. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with entising words.* 1.207 Here we have the mater of their Paralogistic fallacious Philosophisings; which was fair plausible pretextes of Reason, probable or persuasive Discourses, Artificially and Philosophically composed, thereby the more effectually to deceive: so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 importes. This our Apostle does more fully explaine, v. 8,* 1.208 Beware lest any spoil you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This terme is militarie, signifying the carrying away a prey. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes a prey or spoil taken in war,

and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to carry away. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth properly, in an ho∣stile manner, and by an armed power to plunder and carrie away: whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is by Hesychius interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, plundering, or stripping naked: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As if the Apostle had said:

Let no man plunder and strip you naked of your Christian Dogmes, which are your highest or∣naments, by vain Pythagorean or other Philosophie.

Thence follows the great engine by which this was accomplished: By Philosophie and vain deceit, here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one and the same thing under a double expression; as if he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the vain deceit of Philosophie. So Grotius. The like he addes v. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.209 Let no one de∣ceive you of your brabium, or reward. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to mo∣derate as a Judge in the Grecian Games, and so it is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, jus dicere, to judge and passe sentence; whence the Judges were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Reward 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies (1) and properly to give sentence against any one as unworthy of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Reward. So Phavorinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Beza here understands it, Let no man act the part of a Judge against you. But (2) Jerome tels us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Cilician tongue, wherein Paul was instituted being of Tarsis, signifies to spoil or rob one of his reward. Thus here it signifies in a borrowed notion, to beguile of the reward. And the medium by which they did it, was Pythagorean Philo∣sophie. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pede inferens. These Gnostics having sucked in the Pythagorean infusions about Angels and Demon-worship, they thence coined many curiose mystic speculations about these Philosophic Mysteries, which had v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a pretext or shew of wisdome, which deceived the simpler sort of profes∣sors; but al this vain Philosophie was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a foolish de∣ceitful wisd me, as hereafter. This gives us a sufficient general account of those monstrose Soul-deceits which ensued upon the spreading of Pagan Philosophie, and its infusions in the Chur∣ches of God. But to descend to Particulars.

§. 3. Another cursed Effect of vain Pagan Philosophie was Idolatric.* 1.210 It's granted that the Philosophers, the wisest of them, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, renounced the Mythologic Theologie of the Poets, as also Politic in use amongst the Statesmen, Priests, and people, assuming a new Divinitie or Re∣ligion of their own inventing, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural The∣ologie:

which though it were lesse fabulose,* 1.211 and more suited to corrupt reason than either the Poetic or Politic Theologie, yet was it no way lesse subject to Superstition and Idolatrie: For though in this their Natural Theologie they owned one eternal supreme God, yet they withal asserted an insinitie of Demons, or petty Gods, which they made to be Mediators betwixt this one supreme God and Men. Thence Plato stiles them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made and visible Gods: also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Idols and Images of the great God. Agen he saies, they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made by, but under the great God. It's true he cals them also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, immortal; but then he tels us, they had only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a framed Immortalitie, at the pleasure of the great God. In brief, they were but certain Heroes or noble Personages dei∣fied after their Death, whom they supposed to have their chief residence in the Stars; whence they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deastri. So Tullie saies of Julius Caesar, that he was turned into a Star, &c. As they presumed the chief God to have his main residence in the Sun, whom the Phenicians called Moloch, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Grecians, Saturne, Apollo, Jupiter, as their phantasies inclin'd them; hence Julian's Oration to the Sun, which he makes the supreme God: So these Demons they placed in Dignitie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Co-rulers with the great God, as Plato, Polit. pag. 251. The Romans called them semi-Gods, and Medioxumi, or midling Gods, from their office; because they were to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God. Such were Ro∣mulus, Hercules, Aesculapius, Tyndarides, as Lud. Vives in August. Civ. l. 2. c. 16. Plutarch, in his Discourse of the cessation of Ora∣cles, does greatly extol

such as invented these Demons or mid∣ling sort of Gods, and made them Mediators betwixt the su∣preme God and Men; which some attribute to Orpheus, or some other Phrygian, others to the Egyptians. The office they give them is to be as Mediators betwixt the supreme God and Men: Homer (addes he) promiscuously useth the names of Gods and Demons. Hesiod was the first who distinguished the four orders of Rational Nature into Gods, Demons, Heroes, and men: out of these later Demons and Heroes were made.

But none gives us a more clear and ful account of the origine, Nature, Office, and Worship of these Demons than Plato, whom we have elsewhere quoted to this purpose; to which we may adde, what he mentions of them in his Cratylus, pag. 397. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

&c. Knowest thou therefore whom Hesiod makes these Demons to be? that he saies they were men who lived in the first golden age. Then he addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they were wise and knowing men, he called them Demons. Whence he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Every good man dying gains a great fate and honor, and is made a Demon, according to the name of wisdome. Here Plato gives us a true account of the origine of these Demons; who were indeed at first men famose for Wisdome and Heroic At∣chievements; of whom some think Joseph (whom the Egyptians worshipped as God under their Idol Apis, &c.) to be the first; others make Belus King of Tyre a Phenician (distinct from the Assyrian Belus) to be one of the first of these Demons; who were thence called by the Phenicians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baalim. So Virgil tels us, That Belus or Baal was a deified Phenician King. These Baalim (who were nothing else but the Souls of deceased Worthies deified) were brought into Israel by Jezebel, the daughter of Eth baal King of Tyre, which laid the foundation of the Jewish Idolatrie, as hereafter. And that these Demons were not only Mediators, but also Objects of Worship, even amongst the Philosphers themselves, is evident, by what we find in Plato, Repub. 5.468, 469.

In these things, saies he, we follow the authoritie of Homer. For we in our Sacrifices and such like Assemblies, honor good and valiant men so far as their merits require it, with Hymnes and Honorable seats, and flesh sacrifi∣ces, and ful cups, or drink-offerings. — For he that after many noble atchievements dies in War, shal we not say that he belongs to the Golden age? — Let us consult therefore Gods Oracle, in what rank those blessed and divine men are to be placed, and with what Ensignes they are to be honored; and we shal performe to them such honors as he shal prescribe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and for the future we shal serve them as Demons, and worship their Sepulchres, or Shrines.

Thus Plato, wherein we have the origine and sundry modes of this Demon-Worship.* 1.212 (1) As for the manner how these Demon-Gods were worshipped, and as it were brought to the lure of men, when they had occasion to make use of them, it was transacted by Images, Statues, Pil∣lars,

&c. which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These the Phi∣losophers themselves made use of and worshipped; not that they looked upon them as their Gods, but only as visible bo∣dies, unto which they supposed their Gods or Demons vouch∣safed their presence and influence, answerable to Jeroboams Calves, which he erected at Dan and Bethel, supposing that God would have yielded his presence to them. We have this mysterie laid open to us by Plotinus and Hermes Trismegistus, who tel us,

That Images were made as bodies to be informed by Ghosts as with Souls: for an Image was as a trap to catch Demons, and a device to tye them to a place, and keep them from departing away.

Of which see August. Civit. lib. 8. c. 23. (2) Another way whereby they worshipped these their De∣mons,* 1.213 was by Religiose Sepulchres and Shrines: for there they hoped to find their Ghost-Gods in a peculiar manner. And indeed it was not unusual for the Devil, their great Demon, to frequent Sepulchres and Tombes; as we find him in our Savior's time amongst the Tombes. And these Gentiles supposing some peculiar presences and influences of their Demons at their Sepul∣chres, hence therefore it was their custome to build Shrines and Temples at such places, where the bodies or ashes of their Ghost-Demons lay entombed; whence the Primitive Christians and Fathers upbraid the Gentiles, that their Temples were but the Sepulchres of dead men; which custome notwithstanding the Christians themselves, when Antichrist began to get head, took up, building their Churches by the Graves of some Saint. (3) Moreover in the worship of their Demons they used cut∣tings,* 1.214 and lancings of their flesh, as 1 King. 18.28. For their De∣mons being the Deified Ghosts of men deceased, they made use of these Funeral rites in the worship of them, in token that they were men deceased.* 1.215 Thence Deut. 14.1. and Lev. 19.28. God forbids his People this Funeral rite of cutting and lancing; be∣cause abused to Demon-Idolatrie: yet did some transgresse, as Jer. 41.5. (4) Agen,* 1.216 in the Demon-worship they had many other rites; as worshipping of Columnes, Templing of Reliques, Funeral-Orations, Festivals, Abstinences, sacred Vestments, &c. which were al assumed by Antichrist, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. as hereafter, C. 2. S. 3. §. 1, &c. We have the whole of this Demon∣worship set forth by Sacrifices to the dead, Psal. 106.28, compared with Numb. 25.2, 3. and Deut. 32.17. as Mede Diatr. 3. In short,

it's evident both from the Pythagorean Scholes, as also from what is mentioned of the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.16. that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon worship and Superstition flourished most there where Philosphie flourished most, and that the for∣mer was but a Satanic effect of the later. Thus pregnant was Pagan Philosophie for the conception and improvement of De∣mon-worship; which was in some regard the worst of al Gentile Idolatrie, in that creeping into the Churches of God, it caused the greatest Apostasie that ever was, (1) in the Jewish Church, which under Ahab and his successors fel to this Demon, or Baal-worship brought in by Jezebel. (2) In the Christian Chur∣ches under Antichrist, who brought in al these Demon-doctrines and worship, applying the same to his Saints, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. as hereafter,* 1.217 C. 2. c. 3.

And as Pagan Philosophie had this Demon-Idolatrie contai∣ned formally in the very bowels of its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural Theologie; so had it also a great causal Influence upon al other both Poetic and Politic Idolatrie.* 1.218 For, as we afore observed, al Idolatrie had its origine from superstitiose Admiration grounded on Philosophic Contemplations of those eminent qualities, hidden virtues and influences, or excellent Beauties and Glories that shone in the Creatures. So the Astronomers, by frequent con∣templations of those Celestial Bodies, their excellent structure, Beautie, and Glorie, their regular Motions, powerful Influen∣ces and Governments, were ravisht into great Admiration of them, and thence were enticed to Idolatric Adoration, &c. So the Physiologist, or Natural Philosopher, observing many hidden qualities and mystic Impresses or characters of Divine Wisdome, Power, and Goodnesse in several partes of Nature, was so far ra∣visht herewith, as that he adored the Creature instead of its Creator; which was frequent amongst the Egyptians, who, as Plutarch observes, adored every Creature wherein they percei∣ved any Divine qualitie to sparkle. Thus likewise the Politicians idolised human Wisdome and Valor where-ever they found it in any eminent degree: as the Stoics adored Moral Virtue, and command of Passions, as their God, &c. Yea that this Philoso∣phic contemplation gave the first origine to Superstition and Ido∣latrie, is that which Plato long since observed, and makes men∣tion of in his Cratylus: where he saies,

That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [the Gods] had their origination 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from contemplation; because

men being ravished with the contemplation of that heavenly Machine, decked and adorned with so many gloriose Bodies, whose admirable Power, Efficace, and Influence, they had dai∣ly experience of, hence they called the Stars 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods; gi∣ving them the names of Saturne, Jupiter, &c.

This originati∣on, which Plato gives to these Pagan Gods and their worship, seems most true: For certain it is, that their first Idol-Gods were the Celestial Bodies, called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the names of God) the Heaven, the Sun, &c. which the Scripture termes the Host of Heaven. And it is also gene∣rally confessed, that this Star-worship began amongst the Chal∣deans, who were great Astronomers, called Zabii; whence this piece of Idolatrie was called Zabaisme, as before, P. 2. Book 1. Ch. 4. And that Idolatrie was indeed the product of Pagan Phi∣losophie seems more than probable by what is mentioned,* 1.219 Rom. 1.20, &c. For the invisible things, &c. They contemplated the invisible Glories and Beauties of the Deitie in his visible workes. But v. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they became vain in their Philosophisings or reasonings. And he gives you the mode or manner of their vain reasonings, v. 23,* 1.220 And changed the Glorie of God into an image, &c. i.e. they contemplated those eminent Divine qualities shining in the Creatures so long, til they fel to the adoring and Idolising of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And changed. They changed the Glorie of the incorruptible God in the coined image of a corruptible man, &c. i.e. For the gloriose incorruptible God they worshipped the Idols of corruptible men, &c. Schmidius distinguisheth here between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to change somewhat into somewhat, whereby the subject, into which somewhat is transmuted, is noted; as ver. 26. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to change somewhat in somewhat, which notes the mode and medium of the change. So here, they changed the Glorie of the incorruptible God, in the framed image of corruptible man, &c. i.e. whiles they wor∣shipped the image of a corruptible man, or beste, for the true and gloriose God. Not that the wiser of them made these Crea∣tures the ultimate object of their worship; no, that was too grosse for such pretenders to Wisdome: but they represented, according to their phantasies, the glorise God under the figures and shapes of these vile creatures; to which they attributed the service and honor due to the great God. So Plutarch saies of the Egyptians, That they worshipped not those several Crea∣tures

they met with simply as Gods, but those Divine qualities they observed in those Creatures: as the Jews thought they worship∣ped Jehovah under their Golden Calf. Thus much for the influ∣ence Pagan Philosophie has on Idolatrie. We might adde to this Divination, which is but a piece of Idolatrie, and was the effect of Pagan Philosophie, as before, Chap. 3. §. 7, 8, 9.

§. 4. Another monstrose Effect of vain Pagan Philosophie is Atheisme,* 1.221 which may justly challenge the Philosophers for its Parents; and that upon sundry accounts and regards. 1. Pa∣gan Philosophie had a mighty influence on Atheisme, in that it was a dore and inlet to Superstition and Idolatrie. For there is (as has been observed) a very great cognation or affinitie be∣twixt superstitiose Idolatrie and Atheisme. Idolatrie at first open∣ed the dore unto, and since has very much advanced Atheisme: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Atheist be∣lieves there are no Gods, and the superstitiose person wisheth there were none. We have in what foregoes shewen, that the Philo∣sophers Natural Theologie and Religion was but a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a superstitiose Demon-fear or worship. This was the Religion of the Athenian Philosophers,* 1.222 Act. 17.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So v. 27. i.e. as being possessed with a dreadful apprehension of your Demon-Gods, and so wholly addicted to a superstitiose fear and worship of them. Al their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-fear and Reli∣gion, arose from slavish false apprehensions of an angry sin-reven∣ging Deitie, whom though they flatered with their lips, yet they hated in their hearts, and therefore really wished he were not. Thus did their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prepare the way to Atheisme: yea not only so, but it opened an effectual dore thereto by bringing in a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Polytheisme or Multiplicitie of Gods. For he that has power to believe a pluralitie of Gods, is the next dore unto Atheisme, or a belief that there is no God: To multiplie the Deitie is to destroie it, as Gaches l' Atheisme con∣sondu, pag. 5. This indeed proved too true by the event: for the first apparence that we find of Atheisme, was when this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, superstitiose Demon-fear or Religion, invented by the Philosophers most flourished in Grece; namely when those Scep∣tic wits, Democritus, Epicurus, &c. could not find any rational 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Apparences of reason, for those multitudes of Demon-Gods which were brought into Grece, they set their wits on work to salve the Phaenomena of nature without the supposition

of these or any other Deities. Thus did Philosophic Polytheisme, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, make way to Atheisme.

2. Pagan Philosophie had also a formal Efficience on Atheisme,* 1.223 in that it made the Creature an Independent, self-sufficient, prime Agent and Mover in natural Productions and Motions; and so left no room for, or necessitie of a Deitie. This indeed is an epi∣demic contagion, which has more or lesse infected every part of Pagan Philosophie, and laid open a broad gate to Atheisme. It's confessed, true sane Philosophie, such as Adam had in Inno∣cence, gives a ful demonstration of the Deitie from his visible workes, Rom. 1.19, 20. Ay but Pagan vain Philosophie in al its contemplations on the Creature, was apt to leave out the Crea∣tor and acquiesce in the sensible objects it contemplated, as in the first moving influential cause. Whence that great observa∣tion of Sir Francis Bacon, That a little Philosophie makes men Atheists, though a great deal would cure them of Atheisme. And this indeed Plato takes notice of, as the great crime of many Philosophers in his age, whom he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mere sophisters; who, by reason of their Impietie, abused their Astronomic and other Philosophic Sciences unto Atheisme. So Plato, Leg. 12. pag. 967. disputes against such impious Philosophers, who, from their Astronomic Philosophisings, conceiving that things depended not on the Providence of God, but on the necessary concatenation and connexion of second causes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, became Atheists. Whereas, saies he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is the Divine Mind that disposeth every thing: for he that considereth these things not impiously nor foolishly, wil never become an A∣theist. But his and al other Pagan Philosophie was utterly void of such a serious solid consideration of the visible workes of God. Al their vain Philosophisings were so much taken up in the ad∣miration of those few raies of Divine Wisdome, Beautie, and Order, which they observed in the Creatures, as that they at first neglected, and then rejected the Creator of al, as one that was invisible and unknowne to their carnal Minds. This was long since observed by Augustin, de Civit. l. 5. cap. 2.

What the Physician believed to belong to the like temper of health, this the Philosopher and Astrologer ascribe to that Influence and constitution of the Stars, which was at the conception and birth of every one.

But we shal a little run thorough the

chief parts of Pagan Philosophie, and shew how much each con∣tributes to Atheisme.

1. Pagan Physiologie,* 1.224 or Natural Philosophie strictly so termed, has not a little contributed to Atheisme, in that those proud Physiologists, not understanding the true origine of the Universe, nor that Divine Providence which governes and moderates al Natural productions, and motions, assigned causes of things suitable to their own humors and inclinations; excluding the great God from having any thing to do in the World. Thus Democritus and Epicurus reduced the first origine of the Universe to a fortuitous concurrence and casual combination of Atomes, excluding Divine Providence from having any thing to do here∣in; which cursed piece of Philosophie has taken too much root amongst some new Philosophers. Aristotle, who endeavored to reduce al Effects to Mater and Forme, asserted a first eternal Mater ingenerable and incorruptible; which he made to be the seminarie of al Productions; out of whose passive power al Formes (by I know not what kind of emanation) were educed. Which unintelligible opinion, though it were but some broken Tradi∣tion of the first Chaos, yet it laid a foundation for excluding al Divine efficience and concurrence in the production of things. Neither are there wanting some in this Christian World, who dare assert an Eternitie of Mater, at least a possibilitie of the Worlds Eternitie. As an Appendix to Natural Philosophie we may adde Medicine,* 1.225 which has had a powerful influence on A∣theisme in this regard; because these proud Naturalists, obser∣ving by long experience many excellent qualities, soverain vir∣tues and Medicinal influences in several Minerals, Stones, Plants, Animals, &c. hence they would fain perswade themselves and the world, that the terme of mans life was not fixt, but vari∣able and determinable by their Art and Medicaments: which piece of Atheisme continues to this very day very commun. 2. The Mathematic Sciences have had,* 1.226 and stil have no little in∣fluence on Atheisme: and that (1) more general; inasmuch as those profound Mathematicians, being wholly taken up in ocu∣lar and sensible Demonstrations, they expect the same in Divine Maters, rejecting Divine Authoritie and Testimonie, though it be in some sense more certain and infallible than their Mathe∣matic Demonstrations. To passe by other instances which are many, we need go no further than Hobs's Leviathan for proof

hereof. (2) But more particularly,* 1.227 Pagan Astronomie has had a powerful causalitie for the production of Atheisme, in that it brought in a fatal kind of necessitie and absolute dependence not only of Sublunary Bodies, but also of human affairs and things most contingent, on Celestial constellations and influences. Those Pagan Astronomers held for the most part (which some Judici∣al Astrologers stil assert) an essential subordination of al Subluna∣ry causes and effects to the Celestial. Particularly that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Good order, good Temperament, good nature, and good operation, as wel moral as natural, in al human persons and affairs received measure and determination, according to, and by derived influences from, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Heavens. Which persuasion yet was more tolerable in those blind Heathens, who held the Stars to be Gods, than in the Atheistic Astrologers of these days, who reduce the most con∣tingent Effects and events of Providence to some Astrologic Fi∣gures, abstract Formes, Celestial Governements, insensible Influen∣ces, or such like Stoic Fate and Necessitie, thereby to exclude Divine Providence from ordering and determining human affairs. 3. Neither was their Philosophie Politics lesse influential on this cursed root of Atheisme.* 1.228 For the great Politicians of former as wel as of later Ages have been ever apt to conceit, that the World is governed by no other Providence than that of State-Wisdome and Interest: They would fain persuade themselves and others, that al Mutations in States or private affairs do hap∣pen but from some politic cause, contrivement, and resolutions of men. This Politic Atheisme seems to have had its birth and im∣provement from the Romans, (where the Pythagorean Philoso∣phie flourished) and the flourishing of their Empire; who fin∣ding the successe of their politic Contrivances and Resolutions, be∣gan to set the Crown of al their successes on the head of carnal Policie and Courage, excluding Divine Providence from sharing therein. Amongst these Politic Atheistes we may wel reckon Ne∣buchadnezar, according to his own proud assumings, Dan. 4.30,* 1.229 Is not this great Babylon that I have built — by the might of my power. i.e. By my politic contrivances and power. For the honor of my Majestie. i.e. For the Advancement of my Name and In∣terest. Here we see how his proud Atheistic heart shuts God out as efficient and final cause, both of which he ascribes to him∣self. And how apt potent Princes and States are to follow

proud Nebuchadnezar, in making their own Wisdome and Pow∣er the sole efficient, as also their own Majestie, Grandeur and Glorie, the sole End of al State-affairs, and Politic Undertake∣ments, to the exclusion of Divine Providences, the experience of some late years as wel as former Ages hath given us too great Demonstration. That which gives these Politic Atheistes advantage is, that whereas in the Infant-state of the World God kept alive the Memorial of his Providence by Miraculose and amazing Operations thereof, he afterwards about the beginning of the Roman Empire, (which was the seat of Politic Atheisme) began to suspend those Miraculose Effects of his Power, em∣ploying more of Wisdome in governing the Politic World, the effects whereof are not so obvious to sense as those of his Pow∣er. This made these Politic Atheistes deifie their own carnal wis∣dome and resolutions, as the only Moderators of human affairs. And 'twere wel if there were not too many such now-adaies. 4. But no part of Pagan Philosophie did more directly and effi∣caciously conduce to the production and improvement of Atheisme,* 1.230 than their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contentiose Logic, which the Scripture cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 2 Tim. 2.14. 1 Tim. 6.4, 5. of which before. Indeed Eristic Logic and Atheisme seem to have had their con∣ception and birth from the same Philosophic womb, and so, as twins, to run parallel til Pagan Philosophie grew extinct. For in the Eleatic Schole, where this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contentiose Logic, re∣ceived its formation and spirit under Zeno, Democritus and o∣thers, Philosophic Atheisme received also its Conception and Birth, and that much about the same time. This appears in that Me∣lissus, who was condisciple with Zeno the Eleatic under Xeno∣phanes, seems to be the first that began 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to suspend his belief touching the Gods; affirming, that nothing was to be de∣termined concerning them, by reason of our dark and obscure know∣lege. And Zeno himself held a multitude of Worlds, and the Souls origine from the Temperament of the sour Elements: which were both foundations of Atheisme. But Leucippus, Zeno's Dis∣ciple, who is stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Democritus, who was as to Physics Scholar to Leucippus, gave both of them a great advance to Atheisme, by their Eristic Philosophisings about Atomes. For they asserted the origine of althings to be from the fortui∣tous casual conjunction and combination of an infinite number of Atomes; which opinion was greedily imbibed by Epicurus,

and made use of by al as a medium to solve the Phaenomena of nature, without any supposition of a Providence. This was the product of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eristic Philosophising. And indeed nothing is more natural and commun, than by frequent conten∣tiose disputes at length to grow Academics and Sceptics; so to disbelieve every thing, even the Existence and Providence of God. And what a world of such Sceptic Atheistes are there in this Age, who make it their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or work, to cavil at the Existence and Providence of God! whose folie and iniquitie is by so much the greater, by how much the more credulous they are in maters more obscure. For the most incredulous of these A∣theistes, are as credulous in their kind as the most simple; why else do they so greedily assent to the Principes of Epicurus, or some moderne Philosopher, upon Reasons infinitely more sleight and trivial, than those which are offered to prove a Deitie? and why are they so opiniatre and dogmatising as to the impo∣sing their own Phaenomena, without shadow of solid reason? Plato shal one day rise up in judgement against such Sceptic A∣theistes; who, in his Book 10 de Legib. from pag. 888, to 909, makes it his businesse to cure a young man laboring under this Epidemic disease of Atheisme; proving, (1) That there is a God. (2) That this God takes care of human affaires, even the least. (3) That this God is most just, and therefore not to be flatered into favor by Prayers or Sacrifices. (4) That Atheisme is the peste of human kind, of Families, of Communwealths; and therefore to be restrain'd by Penal Laws, Emprisonment, Banishment, and the like. Such are the evils of Atheisme, which had its origine from vain Philosophie influenced by pride, as Psal. 10.4,* 1.231 Al his thoughts are there is no God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. These are the sceptic, politic, mischievous Philosophisings of his proud heart, that there is no God. Of the origine of Atheisme from Philosophie, &c. also of its maligne nature and influences, see Court Gent. Par. 4. B. 2. C. 2. §. 1. touching the Existence of God.

§. 5. We have laid down the evil Effects of Pagan Philoso∣phie in general, as they regard both the Pagans themselves,* 1.232 as also the People of God. We now procede to the sad evils which Pagan Philosophie infused into the Church of God, both Jewish and Christian. We shal begin with the Jewish Church: and here our main businesse wil be to shew that al the great Apostasies of the Jews had their foundation in Pagan Philoso∣phie.

To make our way clear hereto, we are to remember, that as the Pagan Philosophers traduced the choisest pieces of their Philosophie originally from the Jewish Church; so the Jews growing weary of their Sacred Oracles and Mysteries, thirsted after those very corrupt Derivations and streams of Pagan Wis∣dome and Mysteries, which were but darke Imitamens of, and broken Traditions from their Divine Philosophie. So vain and foolish were their imagination.* 1.233 1. The great Errors and Apo∣stasie of the Israelitic and Jewish Church, before the Babilonian Captivitie, lay in Idolatrie, and particularly in that of their Baa∣lim, or Demon-worship. It's likely these Apostatising Israelites and Jews had other vain Opinions and Heresies, besides those which related to their Idolatrie, yet we scarce find any other taken notice of and recorded in Scripture. For the Spirit of God foreseeing that this Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship, would prove the great foundation of Apostasie both in the Jewish and Christian Church, he seems to passe by other vain opinions, and make it his businesse both by Prophetic Precauti∣ons, Threats, and Judgements, to strike at this. So Deut. 13. throughout that Chapter, the Lord gives severe Comminations and punishments to be inflicted on such as turne away to Ido∣latrie;* 1.234 and more particularly Deut. 14.1. God gives a strict prohibition against Baalim, or Demon-worship, Ye shal not cut your selves,* 1.235 &c. That these Funeral-rites were a part of that worship they gave to their Baalim is plain from 1 King. 18.28. Yet notwithstanding al Divine Comminations and Maledictions, how soon did the carnal Jews affect an imitation of their Ido∣latrous neighbors the Phenicians in this Baal-worship, which was the same with the Grecian Demon-worship, and both but a Phi∣losophic Imitamen of the Jewish Messias his Mysteries and Wor∣ship, as has been before once and again proved. The sum of al is this, The Philosophers had a Divinitie of their own, (distinct from that of the Poets, which was fabulose, and that of the Statesmen, Priests and people, which was Politic) which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural Theologie; wherein they, in imi∣tation of the Jewish God and Messias, asserted (some of the wisest of them) one supreme soverain God, and many other petty made Gods, which the Phenicians called Baalim, (from Belus a Phenician King) Lords, and the Grecians, Demons: whose office was to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God:

whom the most of them conceited to have his residence in the Heavens, yea in the Bodie of the Sun, as the soul in the bodie, and therefore too remote, at least too sublime and pure to mingle with Sublunarie affaires; whence there could be no com∣munion with him but by these Demons or Baal-Gods, who were nothing else but the Souls of great Worthies deceased and dei∣fied. These the Apostle seems to hint, 1 Cor. 8.5, Lords many.* 1.236 These Baalim were brought into Judea by Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal King of Tyre, (where Baal or Belus the first of these Baalim reigned) and proved the foundation of that great Isra∣elitic and Jewish Apostasie. For no sooner were these Baalim, by Jezebels politic contrivement, brought into the Jewish Church, but presently they are according to, and in imitation of the Phenicians Natural Theologie, made as Mediators to the true God; and so they became as a counter-Messias, or Anti messias, excluding the true Messias. For we must know, that the Apo∣statizing Israelites did not wholly cast off the Worship of the true God; no, that were too grosse for such a knowing pro∣fessing people: only herein lay their Apostasie and Idolatrie, that, in imitation of the Philosophers Natural Theologie, they worshipped the true God with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship: they placed these Phenician Baalim, as an Anti-messias, in the room of Christ. This Baal-worship is called the way of Ahab, because it was brought into Israel by Jezebel his Queen,* 1.237 and established by him according to 1 King. 16.31, 32. which caused a total Apostasie among them: For the true Prophets, who would not conforme to this Baal-worship, were destroyed or removed; and others, who were willing to conforme to Baals worship, put in their room; so 1 King. 18.22, Elijah saies,* 1.238 that he only of the true Prophets remained, but Baals Prophets were four hundred and fifty men. And because these Baalim brought in by Jezebel were an Anti-messias, hence the Gnostics infusions, who revived this Doctrine of Demons and laid the foundation for Antichrist to build upon, is called the Doctrine of Jezebel,* 1.239 Rev. 2.20. And indeed Jezebel was an exact type and forerunner of the Anti∣christian Whore, who brought in her Saints and Saint-worship exactly conformable to Jezebel's Baalim. As Mede on 2 Pet. 2.1. Diatrib. 3. Edit. 1. pag. 548. excellently shews us:

Here note, saith he, that wheresoever you read in Scripture of the Idola∣trie of Jeroboam's Calves, and of Ahab's Baalim, think of what

I have told you, and know, that whatsoever God speakes a∣gainst these things there, the same he speaks of the Apostate Christians under Rome, whose case is the very same. The Holy Ghost placeth the essence of the great Apostasie under the Man of Sin, in Idolatrie, and spiritual fornication, &c.

2. The Apostasie of the Jewish Church after the Babylonian Cap∣tivitie had in like manner its foundation in Pagan Philosophie.* 1.240 It's true the Jews after their Captivitie were professed enemies to Idolatrie, for which they had been so severely punished; yet had they great Errors and Corruptions, which they sucked in together with the Grecian Philosophie. For look as the Gre∣cians, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. received the chief Rudiments and Elements of their Philosophie from the Jewish Church; so the Jews, when they came to live under the Grecian Monarchie, began to symbolise with their new Lords in Wisdome and Philo∣sophie. We find little of Pagan Philosophie in use amongst the Jews before the Captivitie, save only some few pieces of the Mathematics, which we may presume they had from the Pheni∣cians or the Egyptians, or, as learned Dr Owen conceives, from the Chaldeans; and made use of in their Idolatrous Worship. But after the Captivitie, when they became subject to their Grecian Lords, they soon drank in the Grecian Philosophie; which proved the corruption, yea subversion of their Divine Theo∣logie. This the pious and devote amongst them foresaw, and therefore in the time of the Hasmoneans, or Macchabees, there was a Decree made, That whosoever taught his Son the Grecian Philosophie should be accursed. Which notwithstanding could not prevent the inundation of Grecian Philosophie on the Jewish Church, to the infinite prejudice of their Sacred Theologie, as it's wel observed by Grotius on Col. 2.8, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

I do not wonder (saies he) that in the times of the Hasmoneans there was a decree made, That he should be cursed that taught his Son the Grecian Philosophie; not that it was in it self evil to know it, but in that they saw much danger therein. And truely we must confesse, that after the Jews gave up themselves to the studie of Greek Books, their ancient Doctrine was much so∣phisticated.

It's confest, that the Jews before the Captivitie had very much perverted their Doctrine,* 1.241 according to Esa. 47.10. Thy wisdome and knowlege hath perverted thee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. caused thee to turne aside. But after their returne from Babylon

there was an universal Reformation made by Esra and others both as to Doctrine and Discipline, which continued til this new soundation of Apostasie was laid by the mixing Grecian Phi∣losophie with their Doctrine. This is wel observed by Owen, Theol. lib. 5. cap. 14.

The Jewish Doctors before the Babyloni∣an Captivitie seem (according to what mention we sind) to have received none of the Exotic literature or sciences, excepting the Mathematics; which they seem to have received from the Chal∣deans, and to have abused to Idolatrous uses. For al human Wisdome is prone to Pride and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Superstition, speci∣ally when it fals upon a Mind not brought into obedience to the Truth. For that Grecian Philosophie being by degrees brought into the Church, it speedily turned to the ruine of the more pure Theologie. Hence they, whose Religion consi∣sted only in Faith and Obedience, began to erect Scholes alto∣gether unlike those over which the ancient Prophets presided, and to sal into Sects. The names of Plato and Aristotle were not more famose amongst the rout of Grecian disputers, than those of Shammai, Hillel, &c. amongst the Jews.

Now the Corruptions that crept into the Jewish Theologie by its commixture with the Grecian Philosophie, may be reduced to these three heads. (1) Their Cabalistic Mythologie.* 1.242 (2) Their Pharisaic and Talmudic Dochrines and Traditions. (3) Their Eristic or contentiose Disputations. 1. As for the Jewish Cabala or Cabalistic Mythologie, it seems to be exactly framed in imi∣tation of the Grecian Mythologie and Symbolic mode of Philoso∣phising. It's true, the Jewish Church had even from its first Institution its choisest Mysteries delivered in Symbols, Parables, Enigmes, and other terrene shadows; whence we need no way dout, the Pagan Philosophers, Egyptians, Phenicians and Greci∣ans traduced their Mythologic and Enigmatic modes of Philoso∣phising. These the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Go∣vernement, so far fel in love with, as that, despising their own Sacred Oracles and Mysteries, (by reason of their simplicitie) they clothe them with a new Grecian habit, or fabulose garb, which they cal their Cabala, or mystic sense; by virtue where∣of they in a short time grew as skilful in coming Fables as ever the Grecians were. This Jewish Cabala was so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to receive: for as the office of the Rabbi or Doctor was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to deliver; so that of the Disciple was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to receive: which

sometimes also was expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to hear. Whence the Ca∣balistes were wont to expresse the Traditions of their Doctors by this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the wise said: answerably to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he said it, in the Pythagorean Schole. Reuchlin, de Arte Ca∣balist. l. 3. p. 51. assures us,

That the Judaic Cabala is nothing else but their Symbolic Theologie, wherein not only Letters and Names are signes of things, but also things of things.

The Pa∣pists make their Anagogic sense of Scripture correspondent to the Judaic Cabala. Some refer the Origine of this Cabalistic sense of Scripture to the Angel Raziel's consolation given to Adam in Paradise after his Fal, as Reuchlin: others to Moses, as Johan. Picus Mirand. others to Esra, as Paulus Fagius. But I conceive it no difficult task to demonstrate, that this Cabalistic Symbolic Explication of Scripture found no place in the Judaic Theologie, 'til the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie was in∣corporated therewith. And indeed Johannes Picus, that noble Earle of Mirandula, and prodigiose Scholar, seems to grant this our Hypothesis, by acknowleging the assinitie of the Jewish Cabala to the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie. So learned Reuchlin, de Art. Cabalist. pag. 22, 23. makes this Cabalistic The∣ologie the same with the Pythagorean Doctrine. Hence also the Gnostics and Valentinians imbibed their Mystic Theologie, as hereafter, §. 7. These Cabalistes making it their main studie to comment on the Sacred Text, mingled, according to the Grecian Mode, so many Fables therewith, as that little of the Divine Character appeared: there was no Text so clear, so Historic, but they brought it under some Cabala, or mystic and allegoric sense; so that the Jewish Theologie seemed more like to Pythagoras and Plato's Philosophie, than to the Sacred Insti∣tutes of Moses and the Prophets. That the Hellenistic Jews generally followed the Symbolic, Allegoric Philosophie of Pytha∣goras and Plato, is evident by the Writings of their chiefest Sophists, Philo Judaeus, and al such as were bred up at Alexan∣dria, where the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie flourished. So Eusebius Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. He greatly affected the Platonic and Pythagorean Philosophie, speaking of Philo Jud us. But the Scripture gives us a sufficient account touching these Philosophic Fables, which had been foisted into the Jewish Theologie by the Cabalistes.* 1.243 So 1 Tim. 1.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He treats here,

saith Grotius, of such as turning from Judaisme to Christianisme mixed many Jewish Fables with Christianisme, as the conse∣quents shew, and Tit. 1.14. Such were those Jewish Fables concerning what God did before the Creation: of Man being at first made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of his copulation with the Bestes, and with Lilith, and of the Demons springing thence, of Behemoth and Leviathan, of the Soul's pre-existence before the bodie, &c.

That many of these Fables were Pythagorean and Platonic is evident. Which we may presume these Grecian Philosophers at first took up in imitation of Jewish Mysteries, and then the Jews took them up again at second hand from the Philosophers. The like 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He understandes, saies Grotius, the Doctrine of Metempseuchosis, which was the foundation of this abstinence. So Tit. 1.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. saies Grotius,

of the Messias being a Temporal Monarch, of the first Resurrection on the Earth, of the War of Gog and Magog, &c.

Of which see what precedes, B. 1. ch. 4. §. 1. See more of this Judaic Cabala, Hottinger. Thesaur. Philolog. l. 1. c. 3. Sect. 5. p. 437, &c.

2. The Jewish Theologie had in its Declension, besides the Ca∣bala,* 1.244 or Mystic Explication of Scripture, a Talmud or systeme of Traditions, which they pretend were at first delivered by God unto Moses on the Mount, to be handed down by Joshua and his Successors unto Posteritie. This they cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Oral Law, which they equalise unto, yea prefer before the Scriptures. For they say, (just as the Papists of their Traditions)

That we cannot arrive to a perfect explication of the Divine Precepts, but by these Traditions of the Ancients: again, that without this Oral Law, the whole written Law is wrapped up in darknesse. Whence they affirme, that men offend more by breaking these Traditions, than by violating the words of the Law, as Sanhedr. c. 10. §. 3. Yea they command that al Talmudic Traditions be swallowed down with an implicite faith, as R. Sol. Jarchi, on Deut. 17.11.

See more of this, Hotting. Thesaur. Philolog. l. 2. c. 3. S. 3. p. 560, &c. This Oral Law the Pharisees made the rule of their wil-worship, as Mark 7.3-13. These in after-times they compiled into their Fal∣muds; on which the Rabbines have spent vast Commentaries. But to give the true origine of these Pharisaic Rabbinic Tradi∣tions, they were indeed but corrupt imitations of Pythagorean Philosophie and Mysteries. For as the Pythagoreans received

their Mysteries and Discipline by Tradition originally from the Jews, so the Jews when they came under the Grecian yoke re∣assume many of these Pythagorean Dogmes and Institutes, and coin many more in imitation of their Pythagorean Preceptors. That many of those Traditions mentioned in the New Testa∣ment were Pythagorean as wel as Jewish is evident: particular∣ly Mark 7.3, 5. the Pharisees cal them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, supposing them to be traduced down from Moses by Oral Tradition; but Christ cals them ver. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. of the Pythagorean Philosophers, as Col. 2.22, 23. Agen Christ cals them, Mark 7.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. by which also he seems to strike at the Pythagoreans, according to Col. 2.8, 20, 21. That the Rabbinic Pharisaic Dogmes of Free∣wil, &c. were of Philosophic Origine shal be (as already it has been) proved.

3. Al those Eristic and vain disputes amongst the Jews had also their origine from Grecian Philosophie.* 1.245 So Tit. 3.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i.e. saies Grotius,

those vain questions and various emanations of Proprieties, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the figments of idle Jews:

thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. saies Grotius, con∣tentions arising from the differing interpretation of the Law. The Jews at Crete labored under the same disease with those of Ephesus, 2 Tim. 2.23. The Jewish Doctors never knew what be∣longed to such Eristic contentiose disputes before they were made drunken with Grecian Philosophie. Lastly, the later Jews are thought to receive much of their corruption from the Stoic Phi∣losophie: so Heinsius, 2 de Sat. Horat. saies, That an egge is not more like an egge, than the Paradoxes of the Rabbines to the Pa∣radoxes of the Stoics. Yet Maimonides, and Aben Tibbon follow Aristotle for the most part according to the Arabic Versions. For these later Jews mingling with the Saracens have received their Philosophie from them, as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 10.

§. 6. As the Pagan Philosophic had a very poisonous pestilen∣tiose influence on the Jewish Church,* 1.246 so has it been not lesse perniciose to the Christian Churches both primitive and later. This the Spirit of God foresaw, and therefore he abounds in his Divine Premonitions and cautions against admitting this vain Phi∣losophie into the Churches of Christ, so as to give any occasion for its mixture with the great Doctrines of Faith. We have given several Scriptures to make this good, and shal at present only

adde that, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17, 18, 23. v. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.247 put them in remembrance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. frequently inculcate this on thy hea∣rers, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, obtesting or adjuring them before the Lord. It notes the most solemne Adjuration. And to what? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they strive not about words; i.e. according to the custome of the vain Philosophers, who had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strifes about words. In opposition whereto he exhortes Timothic, v. 15. To studie, that he approve himself to God, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.248 rightly dividing the word of truth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, properly signifies to divide accurately: but here it is taken Metaphorically, as by the Seventy, Prov. 3.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Prov. 11.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Seventy elsewhere render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Grotius and others take the Metaphor from the accurate Section and division of the Sacrifices; which the Levites, according to a cer∣tain solemne rite, accurately divided. But our learned N. Fuller, Miscel. l. 3. c. 16. makes it to be a Metaphoric allusion to the Section of the Law, communly understood by al. For, the Ver∣ses of the Scripture were stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, segmenta, or particles. Whence they who gave up themselves to the studie of the Scriptures, were stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they who divided the Law. Thus Paul exhortes Timothie, (who was from his infance instituted in the Scriptures, and therefore wel understood the import of this phrase) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, accurately to divide the word of truth: which he opposeth to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. striving about words, v. 14. So v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shun.* 1.249 There is a great elegance in the original, which signifies primarily to circumclude, or shut up, thence to shun or avoid; because we are wont to shut up what we fear and would avoid, as Lions, Bears, &c. The same word is used Tit. 3.9. Then he addes the mater he was to avoid; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, profane and vain bab∣lings; i.e. saies Grotius,

Mens comments or figments about Divine maters without any Revelation.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies (1) Aclamor about vain maters: or (2) Avain clamor; or clamor of vain words, such as agree not with the forme of sound Doctrine. So Chrysostome understands it here, of such new formes of speech, or unheard of termes, which were not used in the Churches. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the same import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 14. and takes in al Philosophic discourses or dis∣putes; which in maters Divine without a Divine Revelation are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, profane and vain bablings. For, addes he, they

wil encrease unto more ungodlinesse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i.e. such vain Philosophisings, though they seem to have some res∣semblance to Divine Truth, and but little error in them, yet wil they in the issue determine in the foulest Heresies and Abo∣minations, even in Antichristianisme.* 1.250 Thence it follows, v. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their Philosophic discourse or Ratiocination:* 1.251 for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signifie as wel as word. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wil eat as doth a Cancer. The word we translate Cancer signifies proper∣ly a Gangrene, which is somewhat like, though different from a Cancer. That phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wil eat, has a peculiar significance in it: for we know a Gangrene mightily spreads and feeds up∣on the sound flesh: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Lev. 13.22. Whence the Greekes derive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to eat; as Hesychius. It properly signifies the mortification of some carnose part, by rea∣son of an inflammation; so that if there be not some oppor∣tune remedie immediately applied, or the part cut off, the Gan∣grene eats farther and farther on the adjacent parts, until the whole man perish. Such a venimous and dissusive influence has vain Philosophie on the minds of men, yea on whole Churches. This (addes Grotius) he affirmes,

That Philosophic evil spreades far, specially seing many wil embrace this mode of living, that they may avoid those punishments which hang over the Chri∣stians. Nothing does so much hurt Christianisme as those Insti∣tutes, which came very near to Christianisme, and by certain interpretations mollified the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Polutheisme.

Of whom is Hymeneus and Philctus: v. 18. who concerning the truth have er∣red, saying the Resurrection is past already. These Pythagorising Gnostics, by their Philosophic Allegories, endeavored to make void the Doctrine of the Gospel touching the Resurrection. The Philosophers, both Pythagorcans and Platonistes, as they called a wicked life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, death; so a reformed life was by them termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Resurrection, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a new birth: and these sensual Gnoslics, that they might the more freely en∣joy their lusts without fear of a future judgement, would needs persuade themselves and others, that the Resurrection, of which the Gospel speaks so plainly, was already past; intending there∣by the Philosophers symbolic allegoric Resurrection. Then the A∣postle concludes,* 1.252 v. 23. foolish and unlearned questions avoid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 foolish, i.e. because they no way tend to true Wisdome: al these Philosophic Allegories and Questions are but a mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, foolish wisdome. See the like, 1 Tim. 1.4, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unlear∣ned.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 uncorrigable, impudent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Prov. 8.5. sometimes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prov. 15.13. as also sometimes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prov. 17.22. Paul here (saies Grotius) understandes immodest Questions. For the Greeks expresse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are of the same import. Knowing that they gender to strife, as Tit. 3.9. The Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Grotius. By al which it is evident, that this Gnostic Gangrene had its rise from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie. And indeed that the Phi∣losophers were the great Heresiarchs, or founders of al those great Errors and Heresies, which like a Gangrene insested the Christian Theologie and Churches, was a commun received per∣suasion amongst the Fathers and Primitive Christians: the truth whereof wil appear evident by an examen of Particulars, and dis∣coverie how al the great Errors brought into the Christian Church, both before and after the rise of Antichrist, had their origine from Pagan Philosophie.

§. 7. The first great Heresie,* 1.253 which as a Gangrene did over∣spread and consume much of the beautie, glorie, and vigor of the Primitive Churches, was that of the Gnostics, which had ta∣ken a considerable rooting in the Apostles daies, as is gathered from the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colos∣sians, and Timothie; also from the Epistles of Peter, and Jude; al which seem sul of severe admonitions and invectives against these poisonous Infusions of the Gnostics; which the Spirit of God did the more abundantly caution the Churches against, because he foresaw they would open an effectual dore to Antichrist, and his Exaltation in the Temple of God. Theodoret, Eusebius, and Nicephorus make this Heresie of the Gnostics to arise from Sa∣turninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates, about An. 137. But others refer the origine of this Heresie to the Apostles times, as in what follows. Now that these Gnostic Infusions were but the corrupt off-spring of Pagan Philosophie is generally acknowle∣ged by the Learned, and wil be very apparent by a brief con∣sideration of Particulars. 1. As to the origination of their Name,* 1.254 they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gnostics, from their own assumings and pretensions to an extraordinary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, knowlege, which indeed was but spurious and false Science, as the Apostle upbraids them, 1 Tim. 6.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of science falsely so cal∣led.* 1.255

You see here, saies Grotius, how ancient the name of Gno∣stics

is, which these Philosophers mixing with the Christian Assemblies assumed to themselves, despising al others as rude and ignorant, and falsely challenging the encomium of Science. Clemens saith, the Gnostics rejected this Epistle, because they saw themselves so lively characterised herein.

I wil not posi∣tively affirme, that the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gnostics, was given to, or assumed by them in the Apostles daies, though Grotius and Ham∣mond favor this sentiment; because some learned men contra∣dict it: but this I believe, that the Gnostic Infusions and Errors were very much diffused through some of the Primitive Chur∣ches in the Apostles daies; and therefore oft strucke at in their Epistles, as it wil appear by what follows, out of Irenaeus Dis∣ciple of Polycarp, who lived in the second Centurie, and pro∣fessedly wrote against the Gnostics, and Valentinus their Sectator. Yea Eusebius and Photius tel us, that Irenaeus's five Books against the Gnostics, and Valentinians, had this title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a reviction of knowlege falsely so called. That these Gno∣stics had dissused much of their poison in the Apostles times, is affirmed by Ignatius in his Epistle to Philadelph. if genuine.

2. As to their Doctrine;* 1.256 these Pythagorising Gnostics pretended unto a very mystic, sublime, and spiritual Theologic, answerable to their name. So Jude v. 19. These be they that se∣parate themselves. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. saies Grotius,

who separate and distinguish themselves from others, as more wise and know∣ing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Not having the Spirit; i.e. they boast of very great spiritual Inspirations, but indeed they are but Diabolic Infusi∣ons; not from the Spirit. That this Mystic Theologie of the Gnostics was indeed the issue of vain Pagan Philosophie, together with some Jewish Observances, is a general persuasion of the Learned, Grotius and others. Irenaeus and Epiphanius tel us, that the Gnostics had the Images of Plato and Pythagoras, which they joined with the Image of Christ: This indeed holds true as to al their Mystic Theologie, which was but a composition of Pla∣tonic and Pythagoric Philosophemes, persumed with some Judaic and Christian Dogmes.* 1.257 So Hammond on Col. 2.8. With Philo∣sophie and vain deceit. Paraph.

And take care (saies he) that no bodie plunder you of al that you have, your Principles of Chri∣stian Knowlege, by that vain, emty, frothie, pretended know∣lege and wisdome, which the Gnostics talke of, 1 Tim. 1.4. and 6.20. taken out of the Heathenish Pythagorean Philoso∣phie,

together with the observances of the Mosaical Law, and very distant and contrarie to Christian Divinitie. Thus Ham∣mond, who addes the same in his Paraphrase on v. 9. for in him, &c. i.e. for the whole wil of God is by Christ really made known to us, — and therefore there is little need of the ad∣ditions of the Gnostics, which they borrow out of the Heathen and Jewish Theologie, to supplie the defects of the Evangelical Doctrine.

The like he addes v. 10. of which hereafter. But to treat more distinctly of the origine of this Mystic Theologic ta∣ken up by the Gnostics, as a medium for symbolising with the Gentiles, we must know, that it was partly Mythologic and fa∣bulose; partly Symbolic and Enigmatic; and wholly Allegoric. (1) As for the Mythologic and fabulose part of the Gnostics My∣stic Theologie,* 1.258 it seems to be derived from the Mythologic Phi∣losophers and Poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, Amiphanes, Philistion, and Pherecydes, who writ of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Genealogie of the Gods; whence the Gnostics borrowed their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Con∣junctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joined to another begets a third: as out of night and silence (say they) comes forth Chaos, &c. which indeed was the same with the Theologie of Orpheus, and the rest of these Theologistes.* 1.259 So 1 Tim. 1.4. That they give not heed to fables and endlesse genealogies.

He cals them Genealogies, (saith Grotius) because they feigned the emanation of the one from the other. And for these Ge∣nealogies they would seem more wise than others; whence de∣spising other Christians as more rude and ignorant, they made the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Gnostics, peculiar to themselves.

Though indeed al their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Mystic Theologie, was but a mere My∣thologic Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or fabulose Wisdome, taken up in imitation of the Orphic Mystic Theologie, or Genealogie of the Gods, &c. as hereafter. (2) Neither was this Gnostic Theologie only Mythologic, but also Symbolic, Enigmatic and Allegoric, in imitation of the Pythagoric and Platonic Philosophie,* 1.260 as it may appear by the following Discourse of its parts.

1. A great and principal part of the Gnostics Mystic Theologie comprehended the Doctrine of their Aeones, their Origine, Ge∣nealogie, and Office, which they took up in imitation of the Py∣thagorean and Platonic Ideas and Demons, applying the same to the Angels. So Ireneus, advers. Haeres. lib. 2. cap. 19. where he opens this mysterie to us, shewing how these Gnostics framed their

Aeones in imitation of the ancient Poets and Philosophers, Py∣thagoras, Democritus, Plato, &c.

Antiphanes, saith he, in his Theogonie, saith, that out of night and silence the Chaos came forth, &c. Hence the Gnostics formed their Aeones. — And that they cal them Images or Ideas, they manifestly follow the opinion of Democritus and Plato — But in that they make the Savior to result out of al these Aeones, they bring in no∣thing but Hesiod's Pandora. And in that they wil that al this be transferred into Numbers, this they had from the Pytha∣goreans, &c.

He tels us, that these Reveries were framed out of the Platonic Ideas, &c. Tertullian, libro de anima, saies, That the heretic seeds of the Gnostics shined in the Platonic Ideas. Which he cals in the same place, The heretic Sacraments of Ideas. And more fully, lib. de Praescript. cap. 7. Tertullian assures us,

That the very Heresies of the Gnostics had their composure and or∣nament from Philosophie. Thence the Aeones, and I know not what formes and Trinitie of man in Valentinus, who was of this Gnostic sect, as hereafter.

And as the Pythagoric and Pla∣tonic Ideas contributed much to these Gnostic Aeones, so also their Doctrines of Demons. Thus Grotius and Hammond out of him seem to make those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Doctrines of De∣mons,* 1.261 mentioned 1 Tim. 4.1. to be the character of the Gnostics Theologic, which so far as the Gnostics were types and forerun∣ners of Antichrist his Demon-Doctrines and Apostasie, we may safely grant. Though, I conceive, that Prophetic character pri∣marily refers to the Antichristian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was but an imitamen of the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Demon-worship, as hereafter: yet we may also take in the Gnostic Aeones, as fore∣runners of Antichrists Saints, and Imitamens of the Philosophers Demons. And indeed these Gnostic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aeones, as to their Origine and Office, seem much the same with the Pythagorean and Platonic Demons. For these Gnostics looked on their Aeones as midling-Gods, or Mediators; which our Apostle seems to strike at Col. 2.10.* 1.262 Ye are complete in him which is the Head of al principalitie and power. i.e. (saies Hammond in his Paraphrase)

By him you have knowlege enough to complete you, without such supplies as these, from the Doctrines and Divinitie of the Gnostics about their Aeones, looked on by them as Divine Immortal Powers, of which, whatsoever they are, (if they be not Idol-nothings) be they Angels of a superior or second de∣gree,

Christ is the Head; and they that have Christ, need not trouble themselves with these accessions.

By which it is plain, that these Gnostics made their Aeones, as Mediators, an∣swerable to the Philosophers Demons, and Antichrists Saints; which were al erected as Mediators in the room of Christ. Therefore v. 18. we find mention of a Voluntarie humilitie and worship, which these Pythagorising Gnostics gave unto their An∣gelic Powers or Aeones; which ver. 19. is stiled a not holding the Head: i.e. (saies Hammond in his Paraphr.)

They that be guil∣ty hereof disclaim Christ, who indeed is the Head of his Church, the only Intercessor to his Father.

The Apostle seems the more invective against these Gnostic A ones and Mediators, because they were but the fore-runners of Antichrist and his Demons or Saints. This seems to be the meaning of that Scrip∣ture, '1 Joh. 2.18. Ye have heard that Antichrist shal come,* 1.263 even now are there many Antichrists. The Syriac renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a false Christ. Such indeed were these Gnostic Aeones, as the Pythagorean Demons, whence they sprang, and both the Parents and precursors of the great Anti∣christ and his Demon Saints. I know Grotius, (and so Hammond who follows him) out of his too great favor for the Roman An∣tichrist, restraines this and other Prophetic discoveries of Anti∣christ to some Pseudochrist, or Antichrist started up in the Apo∣stles times; such as Barchochebas amongst the Jews, Apollonius Tyanaeus amongst the Pagans, and Simon Magus amongst the Gno∣stics: but this is too narrow a conceit to find room in any true Christian heart. Yet thus much we may allow him, and al other Cassandrian Patrones of the Roman Antichrist, that these holy Penmen, in their Prophetic discoveries of the great Antichrist, might have an eye on those Pagan, Jewish, and Gnostic Anti∣christs of their time, as fore-runners and Ideas of the great Ro∣man Antichrist. And indeed 'tis our safest course to interpret Scripture in its largest sense.

But as to the origine of these Gnostic Aeones, they were ta∣ken up in imitation of the Grecian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Generation of the Gods, begun by Sanchoniathon the Phenician Mythologist, who was followed herein by Orpheus, Hesiod, and Pherecydes, who was of Phenician extract, and spent a main part of his Philosophi∣sings in the explaining this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Genealogie of the Gods: from whom we may presume Pythagoras his Scholar learned the same,

as also from the Orphic Theologistes, with whom he much con∣versed. Now the Gnostics applie the whole of this Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Generation of the Gods, to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aeones, or Angelic Pow∣ers; which the Apostle seems to strike at, 1 Tim. 1.4. Nei∣ther give heed to Fables and endlesse Genealogies, which minister questions, &c. i. e. (saies Hammond in his Paraphrase)

warne thy flock not to heed those fabulose Pedegrees of the Gods, which under the name of Aeones the Gnostics talke so much of, and so bring in many perplexe disputes.

The like in his note on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Most of the Divinitie, saies he, of the Gnostics consisted of Conjunctions, and then from them Genealogies, how one thing joins with another, and begets a third, and applies al the Theologie and Genealogies of the Gods in Orpheus, &c. to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aeones, as they called the Angels, &c.

See Iren. l. 2. c. 19.

2. These Pythagorising Gnostics abounded much in Wil-worship,* 1.264 and Superstitiose Ceremonies, in imitation of Pythagorean Insti∣tutes and Demon-worship. This the Apostle seems to intimate, Col. 2.16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat and drink, &c. As the Gnostics did. Then he addes, v. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntarie humilitie, and worshipping of Angels, &c. i.e. (saies Hammond)

Let no man please him∣self, and condemne you, in point of worshipping Angels as Mediators to God, as if there were some special humilitie in so doing, &c.

Which the Gnostics were guiltie of. Thence v. 20, 21, 22. he mentions sundry Pythagorean Institutes which these Gnostics assumed.* 1.265 And then ver. 23. he concludes, Which things have indeed a shew of wisdome. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a pretext or vain umbrage of Pythagorean wisdome, &c. In Wil-worship. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. according to the Thracian, Orphic, and Pytha∣gorean Institutes, which abounded in Wil worship, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-fear. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Religiose Rites and Worship, which Plutarch deduceth from the Thracians, among whom the Orphic Mysteries prevailed. Whence it is oft used to signifie Superstiti∣on and superstitiose worship,* 1.266 as Col. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the superstitiose worship of Angels. So Hesychius interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a superstitiose person. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies primarily, a worship invented and instituted by the wil of man. So it's taken materially and passively for any worship that receives its original Institution from the wil of man, not the

wil of God. Thence Hesychius explicates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wil-worship: and Phavorinus expounds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he worships according to his own wil, what seems good to him. And because al such Wil worship is in Divine estimation superstition, hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here rendred by the old Latin, Ambrose, and Erasmus, Superstitio, q. Supra statutum. Such was the superstitiose Wil-worship of the Gnostics, which they invented in imitation of the Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or De∣mon-worship, as hereafter, C. 2. S. 3. §. 10.

3. More particularly these Gnostics affected Celibate,* 1.267 and for∣bad Mariage, in imitation of the Pythagoreans. So Theodoret saith, that Saturnius, a Ringleader amongst the Gnostics, was the first amongst Christians that affirmed Mariage to be the worke of the Devil: and Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 3. saies, this was generally the Doctrine of the Gnostics. So Hammond on 1 Tim. 4.3. Forbidding to marie.* 1.268

Part of the character of these Gnostic Heretics is to interdict Mariages, and speak against them as unlawful. — These Heretics had much of their Do∣ctrine from the Pythagorean Philosophers, &c.

Hence,

4. These Pythagorising Gnostics enjoined Abstinence from the flesh of Bestes, and several other meats, as Col. 2.21, 22.* 1.269 Touch not, taste not, handle not; which were Pythagorean Injunctions assumed by these Gnostics, as before. So Hammond on 1 Tim. 4.3. Commanding to abstain from meats, &c. See Theodoret and Cle∣mens Alex. Strom. l. 3. of the Gnostic Abstinences.

5. The Gnostics also, in imitation of the Pythagoreans,* 1.270 much addicted themselves to Divination, Sorcerie, and lying wonders. This was that which Simon Magus, the Father of the Gnostics, endeavored to render himself famose by, who would sain have purchased the gist of doing Miracles from the Apostles; but when that could not be, he gives up himself to the Devil for a purchase of the same; which, as the Ancients generally report, he grew famose for both amongst the Heathens and Gnostic Go∣spellers. Insomuch that Hammond and Grotius would fain restrain Antichrists lying wonders, 2 Thes. 2.9. to Simon Magus, or such∣like.

6. These carnal Gnostics,* 1.271 notwithstanding their pretensions to spiritual Mysteries, professed and practised monstrose Sensualitie and uncleannesses. These seem struck at 2 Pet. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lasciviose waies. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Selga, was a Town in Pisidia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

where men lived luxuriosely, and polluted themselves by mutual uncleannesses. Whence unclean persons were termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eminently selgites, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being here augmentative, as the Etymologist, Suidas, and Bochart. Whence Plinie, Nat. Hist. l. 15. c. 7. makes mention of Selitic Oil, which these Selgites invented, to fortifie their spirits and nerves, debi∣litated by luxurie and uncleannesse. Schmidius and others give a contrary character of these Selgites; yet al agree in this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies great luxurie and libidinose uncleannesse, which the Gnostics were guiltie of. For, saies Grotius, they gave their Philtra, or love-charmes, and counted lasciviose deeds amongst things indifferent.* 1.272 So Jude 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in your love-festes; which these sensual Gnostics converted into fuel for their un∣cleannesse. The Nicolaitans, Rev. 2.15. seem to be of this Gno∣stic Sect. He that has a mind to hear more of their monstrose wickednesse may consult Epiphanius and Irenaeus, who have laid them open.

7. These Gnostics had,* 1.273 in imitation of the Pythagorean Purifi∣cations, their Expiations. So Grotius on 2 Tim. 4.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

These Fables (saith he) were concerning the Expiations of sins, according to the Chaldaic and Orphic Disciplines. In those a chief place was given to Sea-water, and thence to fountain-water, Scilla, sulphur, bitumen, &c.

The Gnostics held also free-wil, as Jansenius informes us.

8. Lastly,* 1.274 to lay a sure foundation for their wickednesse, these Gnostics denied the Resurrection, turning al the Scriptures that tended to prove the Resurrection into mere Allegories. So Hymeneus and Philetus, who were of this Gnostic sect, 2 Tim. 2.18. Saying the Resurrection is past already. i.e. They turned the Scripture-relation of the Resurrection into a mere Allegoric 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of the Pythagorean and Pla∣tonic Resurrections, as Grotius. Touching Pythagoras's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and its ressemblance to the Gnostic, see Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. C. 2. §. 8. These were the noxious Infusions of the Pythagori∣sing Gnostics, who were herein but fore-runners of the Roman Antichrist,* 1.275 as we shal fully demonstrate, Chap. 2.

§. 8. As Pagan Philosophie laid the foundation of the Gno∣stic Heresie, so also of the great fundamental Errors, which have been ever since broched and revived in the Churches of Christ. And indeed herein we may not excuse the Greek Fa∣thers,

who being many of them brought up in the Schole of Alexandria, and other Academies, where the Grecanic Philoso∣phie flourished, dranke in therewith many Philosophic Errors and Infusions, which proved not a little prejudicial to the simplicitie of the Christian Theologie. Thus Justin Martyr, having his spirit deeply drencht in Platonic Philosophie, even to some de∣gree of Intemperance, (1) he presumed, That Plato's Dogmes were not aliene from the Doctrine of Christ, as Apol. 1. (2) Hence he asserted, That such as lived according to reason, albeit Pagans, as Socrates, Heraclitus, and such-like, might be saved. (3) He held, in imitation of the Philosophers Demons, that God commit∣ted the care of human affaires, and sublunary things to Angels, as Apol. 1. p. 44. (4) He was too much a Patron of Moral free-wil, in corrupt nature, as Apol. 2. Thus also Clemens Alexandri∣nus, so termed because brought up at Alexandria in Egypt, ha∣ving been educated in Philosophic, which then greatly flourished in the Schole of Alexandria, he therewith imbibed many Er∣rors, which he mixed with his Christian Theologie. As (1) He held, That Christ assumed flesh, thereby to demonstrate unto men their sufficient forces to obey Gods Commandments: whence also he asserted, That obedience and inobedience was in our power; as Strom. 2. Likewise, That the precepts of God are such as may be, or not be observed by us, as Strom. 4. Yea Strom. 2. he saith, That Faith also is in our power, because infidelitie. Which Pelagian In∣fusions he imbibed from the Stoic Philosophie, wherein his spi∣rit was drenched. Yet Strom. 3. he assertes efficacious Grace for the production of al Moral good. And Strom. 2. he owns the Infusion of faith by God, which he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (2) He asserted, That those who were before Christ, and lived honestly, were made just by the Law, and by Philosophic, yet that they wan∣ted faith in Christ; whence that in Hel they expected the coming of Christ and his Apostles, by whose Preaching there they were con∣verted to believe in Christ, and so at length saved. Again, That none were perfectly saved by Christ before his coming, as Strom. 5.6. (3) He sometimes assertes Justification by Workes: as in Protrep∣tico, he saith, Men might purchase Salvation by their own workes: sometimes he joines Faith and Workes together, as Strom. 5, & 6. (4) He held with the Stoics, That perfection in Virtue was at∣tainable in this life, Strom. 6, 7. (5) He cals Martyrie the pur∣gation of sin. Strom. 4. But none imbibed more Philosophic Er∣rors

than Origen, as in what follows. How much Philosophie corrupted the Fathers, has been taken notice of by many Re∣formers; as by Amesius, Bellarm. Enerv. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.

It is evident, that the Fathers by and from Philosophie intro∣duced into the Church various modes of speaking, specially of human Merits, and of the righteousnesse of the Gospel, which appear not in Scripture; whence there was occasion given and taken by the Scholemen of framing perniciose Errors.

The like Tilenus, Syntagm. part. 2. Disp. 16. Thes. 31.

Neither (saies he) did the Fathers introduce into the Church some Orna∣ments only from Rhetoricians, but also Dogmes from the Phi∣losophers Scholes, specially from Plato's Academie; some also from Zeno's porch; which were incorporated by little and lit∣tle into the Church. At length things growing worse and worse, Plato being ejected by the Scholemen (successors of the Fathers) and Aristotle exalted into Christs chair, he does even engage in controversie with Christ about the Rule of truth, specially in the Doctrine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about con∣tingent and free-wil: although truely in this point the most ancient Greek Fathers had rather hear Aristotle than Paul.

Thus Tilenus, who afterward himself fel into the same snare as to Free-wil, &c.

This in a more peculiar manner concernes the Greek Fathers,* 1.276 such as were brought up in the Schole of Alexandria, specially 'Origen, who being Scholar to Ammonius, that great Master of Platonic Philosophie, (whom some reckon to be a Christian) follows his Masters steps in endeavoring to reforme Platonic Phi∣losophie, and reduce it to the forme of Christian Theologie; wherein he came infinitely short of his designe: for he did by these his vain attemts, but the more sophisticate and adulterate Divine Theologie; not only by his many Platonic Allegories, but also by those several Philosophic termes and errors which he mix∣ed with the Doctrines of Faith,* 1.277 namely his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or free∣wil, his Pre-existence of Souls, &c.

1. The Pelagian Errors came from Origen.* 1.278 Jansenius, August. De Haeres. Pelagian, Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 13, &c. gives us a particular

and large account, how al the Pelagian Dogmes were formed out of Origen's Philosophic Contemplations. (1)

The Pelagi∣ans (saith he) were severely reprehended by Augustin for ma∣king Indifference to Good and Evil, with the exclusion of Ne∣cessitie as to one part, essential to the libertie of the wil in every state. For this is the most principal basis of the whole Pelagian structure; which Origen entirely delivered: For he was so far fond of this Philosophic libertie, and a Patron of this indifference to Good and Evil, as that he decreed man without this was to be reckoned among Brutes and Stones. Hear Origen discoursing of this libertie, Lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, C. 5. And by consequence it is from us, and in our motions, that we are blessed or holy, &c. See Jans. p. 150. (2) Origen every-where inculcates and cries up the sufficience of Natures Law to live wel. As Lib. 2. in Rom. Jans. c. 14. p. 151. (3) Touching Grace and its Merit, the very error of Pelagius and the Massilienses is delivered by Origen; as also touching the perfection of Ju∣stice, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As l. 4. in Rom. And in his Books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his scope is to shew, That the Providence of God doth governe immortal souls according to the merits of each, as Jansen. c. 15. p. 152. (4) Origen, as Pelagius, utterly overthrows Election, Predestination, and Vocation according to the purpose of God. Jans. c. 16. p. 152. (5) Al the Glosses of Scriptures touching Original sin and Grace, which the Pelagians abuse, yea the whole systeme of Pelagian Errors Origen preformed, as it suffi∣ciently appears by his Comments on the Epistle to the Ro∣mans, specially on Ch. 5.

and his Books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Jansen. c. 17. p. 153. gives this as the root of al Origen's Errors, namely the Ubertie and Fecunditie of his Wit too much immersed in vain Philosophie, as hereafter, §. 10. and C. 2. Sect. 1. §. 4.

2. Origen gave also a great foundation and improvement to 'the Arian Heresie. (1) By asserting that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Word,* 1.279 Joh. 1.1. is taken only Metaphorically, and Ideally, according to the Platonic mode, as in what immediately follows §. 9. (2) He held also, That the Son of God saw not the Father, be∣cause he was a creature made, not borne the Son of God: that the Son, who is the Image of the Invisible God, compared with the Fa∣ther, was not Truth, i.e. True God. That God the Father was an incomprehensible Light; but Christ, if compared with the Fa∣ther, was a very poor splendor, which yet with us, by reason of our

imbecillitie, may seem very great. That the Son was not Bonitie it self, but a certain air or image of Bonitie, so that he could not be termed absolutely good, but only with an additament, A good Pa∣stor, or the like. As Hieronym. Epist. ad Avitum. (3) He said also, That the Holy Spirit was the third in Dignitie and honor after the Father and Son, yea inferior to the Son, as Hicronym. ad Avitum. Who also in Epist. ad Pammachium, saith, That he spoke il of the Son, but worse of the Holy Spirit. (4) He held, That the Father contained althings, the Son was only in Rational Creatures, and the Holy Spirit only in Believers, as Athanasius, Quaest. 71. ad Antiochum, relates. These notions about the Tri∣mtie he imbibed from that Platonic Philosophie then taught in the Schole of Alexandria, wherein he was instructed; which acknowleged a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Trinitie; namely, [1] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Father; whom they made to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supreme Being. [2] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Mind, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Reason; whom they made inferior to the first. And [3] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the mundane Spirit; which they made inferior to both the former. And hence Origen traduced his Trinitie, which gave the original Exemplar to Arianisme. Whence Epiphanius, in Epist. ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum, cals Origen, the Father of Arius: and Hieronymus Epist. ad Pamma∣chium, stiles him, the Ocean and Fountain of Arius. And Socrates, l. 4. c. 21. with others, related, that the Arians frequently used Testimonies taken out of Origen's Books. See P. 4. B. 2. C. 6. §. 4.

3. Origen by his Platonic Philosophemes,* 1.280 gave a great ad∣vance to the whole Systeme of Papisme, or Antichristianisme. (1) He gave the first lines to al Mystic Theologie, by turning al Scriptures, even the most plain into Allegories, according to the Platonic mode, of which more hereafter, Chap. 2 Sect. 1. §. 1. (2) He was the first Founder of Monastic Life, Abstinences, and Austerities. [1] He emaseulated himself, i.e. extinguished viri∣litie, thereby to preserve Chastitie. [2] He understood those Precepts of our Lord, against having two coats, shooes, and ma∣king provision for the morrow, in a literal sense, as belonging to al Christians; and thence affected voluntarie Povertie, as the Monkes of Egypt his Successors. [3] He abstained from neces∣sarie food, as the Pythagoreans, and Popish Monkes; whereby he endangered his health. [4] He affected superstitiose sancti∣tie and severities, abstaining from necessarie sleep, lying on the ground, &c. as Monkes. (3) He held human merits, and justi∣sication

by workes, placing Mans Satisfactions, Tears, Contrition, and other good workes, as the causes of Remission of Sins. So in his Hom. 24. on Numbers, and 24, and 23, on Joshua, and Hom. 1. in Ezech. (4) He asserted, with the Papistes, Perfection in this life, namely, that Saints may extinguish al tho fome of sin in this life, and so satisfie the Law. Of which see Lib. 1. in Job, Hom. 8. and Hieron. ad Ctesiph. advers. Pelagianos. (5) He was the first that introduced Purgatorie, from the Platonic Schole at Alexandria, into the Church of God. Plato's notions of Purga∣torie see in what follows, Chap. 2. S. 3. §. 11. And Origen in imitation hereof held, That some sins were purged out here, but others passed with us into the next life, where they were by the torment of sire purged out. Of which see his Hom. 8. in Leviticus. Hom. 2, & 3. in Psal. & Hom. 14. in Jeremie.

4. There were many other great Errors asserted and intro∣duced by Origen,* 1.281 from that Platonic Schole at Alexandria, and its corrupt Infusions. As (1) he held the pre-existence of Souls. Thus Plato in his Timaeus, and elsewhere he saith, Thut al Souls were produced at once, and distributed into the Stars, &c. So Nicephorus, lib. 5. c. 23. August. lib. 2. de Civit. Dei. c. 23. as Epiphanius, Hieronymus and Suidas relate, that Origen held, Hu∣man souls to have been before bodies, and that for their sins they were chained to bodies: which was a great Philosopheme among the Platonistes. (2) Hieronymus, Epist. ad Avitum, & Apol. 2. adversus Ruffinum, assures us, that he held, in imitation of Py∣thagoras and Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Transmigration of Souls from one Bodie into another. (3) He held, That the Devils and souls of the wicked should be at last saved, and that after long punishments they should be associated to the good Angels. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, l. 1. c. 6, 8. Hom. 9. in Jerem. which also is related by Theophilus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus and Augustinus. So lib. 2. contra Celsum, he saith, That the soul of Christ divested of its bodie converted many souls. (4) He denied the Resurrection of the flesh, affirming, that our Bodies after the Resurrection should be round, aereous, and not of the same substance they now are. Thus de Resurrect. l. 4. & Expos. in Psal. 1. as Hieron. ad Pammachium.

How many and great the Errors of Origen were, which he imbibed from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophic in the Alexandrine Schole, is more fully explicated by Hieronymus, in Epistolis ad Avitum, and Pammachium, and Oceanum, Tom. 2.

Oper. p. 190. Also in Apolog. adversus Ruffinum. These his Veni∣mous Errors began first to be espoused by the Monkes of Egypt, who dranke in the same with much greedinesse, and diffused them throughout the whole masse of their Mystic Theologie, which gave great contestes among the Churches of those times, as Baronius has wel observed on the year 256. Alexander, Eusebius, Didymus, and others, studiosely endeavored the defense of Origen; but Methodius, Eustachius, Apollinarius, Anastasius, Theophilus, Hieronymus, Athanasius, Augustinus, and many other of the Fathers; and more particularly the Constantinopolitan Council, An. 551. condemned Origen of many Pestilential and prodigiose Errors, imbibed from Ethnic Philosophers. Cluverus in Apocalyps. Tom. 2. p. 315, &c. applies that character, Rev. 8.10, 11.* 1.282 And there fel a great Star from Heaven, burning as it were a lampe, &c. unto Origen; who, as Severus Sulpitius ob∣serves, in what he did wel came short of none after the Apostles; but in what he erred, none was worse. That this Texte, Revel. 8.10, 11. pointes out Origen, Cluverus proves, (1) from the time of this third Trumpet, which answers exactly to Origen. (2) From the several parts of the character: [1] He burned as a lampe, which notes his spiritual gifts, as Mat. 5.15. Joh. 5.35. [2] Yet he fel from Heaven; i. e. from his spiritual celestial Light, into miserable terrene darknesses of Ethnic Philosophie. [3] He fel upon the third part of the rivers and fountains of wa∣ters; i.e. on the People and Ecclesiastic Assemblies, which were cor∣rupted by him. [4] And his name was wormewood, namely by reason of the extreme bitternesse of his Dogmes and superstitiose severities.

But to conclude Origen's Character, the original springs of these his monstrose Errors seem these. (1) The natural Luxuri∣ance of his exorbitant phantasie, which recreated it self in the Allegoric mode of the Platonistes. (2) His despising the simpli∣citie of the Scriptures, and Christian Theologie. (3) His too great confidence in his own parts, and presuming himself to be wiser than others. (4) His affectation of new Termes and Modes of interpreting Scripture. (5) But most of al his insolent abuse of Divine Mysteries and Truths, by reducing the same to Platonic Philosophemes. Hence basil, Hom. 3. Hexaem. severely redargues Origen's Allegoric Mode of Theologising: and else∣where he termes it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a fabulose figment. Greg.

Nazianzen, Orat. 42. stiles Origen's way of commenting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worthy of a conjector of Dreams, in allusion to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Artemidorus, and Apollonius Attalus, as before, L. 1. C. 3. §. 8. Greg. Nyssenus, in Cant. Praesat. & l. de ho. opat. c. 18. disputes sharpely against the Deliries or sick Dreams of Origen. Cyril Alexandrin. in Act. Concil. C P. stigmatiseth Origen with the character of Antichrist: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Origen has started up in the midst of the true Church, as the Abomination of Desolation. Epi∣phanius, in haeres. 64. hath writ severely against Origen's Errors, whom he termes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, self-willed sophist, or one tenacious of his own sentiments in wisdome. And he termes his Doctrine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Absurditie and perniciose Doctrine in many parts of saith, &c. Whence the Greek Theologues in the fifth Oecumenic Council anathematised him for his Errors. Of which see more, Vin∣centius Lyrinensis, lib. advers. Haeres. c. 23. How much these Primitive Churches were infested by Errors imbibed from Eth∣nic Philosophie, specially those of Origen and the Schole of Alex∣andria, has been wel observed by that great French Divine Mo∣relius, in his Discipline de l' Eglise, liv. 2. chap. 6. pag. 101.

Hu∣man Philosophie has corrupted many, who desirous to mixe it with the Gospel, disfigured the Doctrine thereof, and at length made of it a pure Human Philosophie. This happened not al at once, but by little and little, until it came to darken Grace. For Origen endeavoring to exhort men to performe workes worthy of their Vocation, extolled good workes without mea∣sure: and the more to awaken men hereto, he gave them to understand, that these good workes were in their power and from their Free-wil. Which opinion opened the dore to the Pelagi∣ans. — In general the ignorance of al Science has produced great evils: but yet the greatest part have had their fource from Reason, Human opinion, and Philosophie; which for this rea∣son Tertullian rejected and banished from the Church, as be∣ing the mistresse of Heresies.

Agen, liv. 3. chap. 14. pag. 260. Morelius addes,

That Philosophie and Curiositie corrupted this noble Schole of Alexandria, and by consequent the Church Which ought therefore to be carefully avoided; because these two evils are natural to Scholars, who not contenting them∣selves with the simplicitie of the Gospel, are ambitiose to beau∣tifie

it with human ornaments of Eloquence and Philosophie; and from a rage to get knowlege would fain mount up higher than their very Doctors.

We find this mysterie of iniquitie excellently laid open by Owen, Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. where he shews us, how this Pagan Philo∣sophie at first crept in amongst the Fathers, to the great pre∣judice of Christian Theologie.

The sacred Chorus (saies he) of the Apostles being removed, Satan again attemted the cor∣rupting of Evangelic Truth, and that not without successe. For what he could not accomplish by open assault, he gradu∣ally obtained in defense of the Truth. For after the Apostles were removed, the Patronage of Truth came into the hands of Learned men. Of this number were Clemens, Origen, &c. whom it sufficed not to use the Word and Spirit of God a∣gainst the enemies of Truth, but they were pleased to engage also with reasons drawen from secular learning. And it hap∣pened in progresse of time, that these Philosophic arguments, which these learned men used in the defense of Truth, yea the very termes and words, were estimed as necessary parts of Re∣ligion. But this Philosophic fatal evil did in a more particular manner infect the Church after the Peripatetic Philosophie, (which for some ages had lain neglected) began to please Stu∣dents in good literature. For this Philosophie of Aristotle being revived and adorned by the Mahumedan Arabians, and thence sucked in by the Scholemen, they utterly abrogated the E∣vangelic Theologie.

And as many of the Fathers thus cor∣rupted the Doctrine of the Gospel by Philosophic Notions and Infusions; so in like manner the Worship of the Gospel was by their assuming Philosophic termes and rites greatly corrupted. Pythagoras, Plato, and other of the Philosophers had, in imita∣tion of the Jewish Church, their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And the Greek Fathers in imitation of these Philosophic Rites, cal their Sacraments and other Mysteries by the same Names; yea assume many of the same Rites to clothe Christs Mysteries withal. Thus the spurious Dionysius Areopagita cals the Eucharist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Casaub. Exer. 16. c. 43. assures us,* 1.283 that when the first Christians cal their Sacraments Teletas, &c. these and the like Names were transferred from the Sacreds of the Pagans. The Grecians called the Deification of the Heroes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hence a∣mong the Fathers, specially such as were Popishly inclined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is attributed to Saints. But of this more fully in what follows of Antichristian Rites, Ch. 2. S. 3. §. 11.

§. 9. But to descend to particulars. 1. Al those hel bred,* 1.284 black Errors, which struck at the Deitie of Christ, had their foundation in Pagan Philosophie. Such were the opinions of Sa∣mosatemus, Arius, &c. As for the Heresie of Samosatenus and its traduction from Pagan Philosophie, we find a good account in Melancthon, Chron. lib. 3. of the state of the Church under Va∣lerius and Aurelianus:

Paulus Samosatenus, (saies he) who fel up∣on the blasphemie of Ebion and Cerinthus, had this occasion for his Errors: Plotinus the Philosopher (who was Scholar to Ammonius) reading in the Schole of Alexandria, had mingled with his Philosophie Allegories touching the Eternal Word. And in as much as there were many debates about these things from the writings of the Ancients, Paulus Samosatenus drew thence his impostures, and maintained, that Jesus Christ was only man, and that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word, Joh. 1.1. We may not understand any person subsistent, but the declaration and word of promise. These Reveries were received with much ap∣plaudissement by curiose spirits, and particularly by Zenobia Queen of Arabia and Dame of Antioch: by whose means P. Samosatenus was maintained secure for ten years space.

This Heresie of Samosatenus denying the Divinitie of Christ was re∣vived by Arius, and that from the very same foundation of Pla∣tonic Philosophie, yea in the very same Schole of Alexandria. This is wel explicated by Aquinas, Sum. part. 1. Q. 32. A. 1.

We find, saith he, in the Books of the Platonistes, That in the be∣ginning the Word was: by which Word they understood not a person in the Trinitie, but an Ideal Reason, by which God made al things — whence sprang the Error of Origen, and Arius, who followed the Platonistes herein.

So again in what follows, Q. 34. Art. 1. Aquinas assures us, That Origen laid the foundation of Arianisme, by affirming, That the Word in Divine 'maters, signified only Metaphorically, not properly. That Arius also had his Infusions from the Platonistes in this Schole of Alexan∣dria is evident: For Arius was a Presbyter in this Church, and Student in this Schole, where the Pythagorcan and Platonic Phi∣losophie was at this time wholly in request, (for Aristotle came not in play til afterward) which the learned Christians Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, &c. made use of as a medium to

illustrate and prove the great mysteries of Faith touching the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, word, mentioned, Joh. 1.1. hoping by such sym∣bolisings, and claiming kindred with these Philosophic notions and traditions (originally Jewish) touching the Platonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they might gain very much credit and interest amongst these Platonic Sophistes. Hence these learned Fathers Clemens and Origen made it their businesse to lay open the cognation betwixt Pagan Philosophie and the Mysteries of the Gospel; pro∣ving, that Philosophie was but a reflexe beam, or broken deri∣vation and tradition of Sacred Revelation. Which designe and undertaking had been of excellent use, had these learned Fathers withal discovered the Vanitie and Corruptions of Pagan Philoso∣phie as then constituted: but this they were so far from under∣taking, as that they assumed a considerable part of the Pytha∣gorean and Platonic Philosophie, both Mater and Forme, and mixed it with their Sacred Theologie; and so out of al framed an Image like that of Nebuchadnezar, Dan. 2.31, 32. And a∣mongst other Platonic Mysteries, that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the word, on which Ammonius and Plotinus had much commented, was taken and applied to the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Word, explicated by John; which gave occasion and foundation to many Philosophic de∣bates and contestes in the Schole and Church of Alexandria; as also to the Heresie of Arius, as it had done to that of Sa∣mosetanus before. This is wel taken notice of by that great French Reformer Morelius, Discipl. liv. 2. chap. 4. pag. 87, 88.

It has been the custome (saies he) to use Disputes in many places, whence many inconveniences may follow: For such Disputes tend only to awaken and discover the spirit, whence follows much pre∣sumtion and ostentation, and the starting of high and curiose Questions; which may afterward trouble the Church. The Arian Heresie had its rise from the particular conferences of learned men in the citie of Alexandria. Indeed Constantine sharply reprehended these curiose Disputes, &c.

The same may be applied to the Photinian Heresie, which was the same with the Arian and Samosatenan. Of which see Melanchton, Lib. 3. of the Churches conflict after Constantine. We have before touched on this (Chap. 3. §. 2, 3. of Book 1.) out of Justinian, who acquaintes us, that these Philosophic Notions about the Platonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which supposed a real difference in nature be∣twixt the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Word, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

the Soul of the World, gave occasion to the Arian Heresie. See Justinian in 1 Joh. 1.1. and Origen's influence on Arianisme in what precedes, §. 8.

§. 10. Another great fundamental Error, which received spi∣rit and life from Pagan Philosophie, is Pelagianisme;* 1.285 which strikes diametrically at the free efficacious Grace of Christ, (as Arianisme at his Divinitie) and containes in it much of the spi∣rit of Antichrist. We have before in what was laid down touch∣ing the Vanitie of Pagan Ethics, B. 1. C. 2. §. 4. proved, that the Philosophers generally asserted a Moral power, or Free wil, in al men to performe virtuose actions. They had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, right Reason; their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good nature; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, free-wil; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, things in our power, and seeds of virtue, which they made the spring of al their good workes. These notions the Greek Fathers, specially Origen, (who was bred up amongst the Philosophers in the Schole of Alexandria) sucked in with too much greedinesse, who made them the foundation of his Exhor∣tations to good workes, which he cried up without end or measure; and to awaken Christians more effectually hereto, he took up this Philosophic principe, That it was in the power of mens free-wil to performe the same. This laid the foundation for the Pelagian Heresie, as we have before observed out of Morelius, and we find this excellently opened to us by Jansenius,* 1.286 in his Augustinus, Tom. 1. lib. 6 cap. 13, &c.

Amongst al (saies he) that preceded Pelagius, I find no more skilful Architect of the Pe∣lagian Heresie than Origen; who gave origine to many Here∣sies, which for some ages after his death infested the Church; specially by his Books, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But there was none that he did more exactly forme than the Pelagian. Neither wil you easily find any Dogme, one excepted, used by Pelagius, or Ju∣lianus, against the Church, or any interpretation of Scripture favoring that Heresie, which Origen did not forme to their hands: so that sometimes they use the very words of Origen a∣gainst the truth; which, because it may seem incredible to some, I wil a little more fully demonstrate.

Which he does, (1) From Origen's asserting an Indifference of Free wil. (2) From his supposing the Law of Nature sufficient to guide us to live wel, &c. (3) From his pleading for Merits, and perfect Righ∣teousnesse, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (4) From his overthrowing the Doctrine of free Election, Predestination, &c. (5) From his denying or

lessening Original Sin and Grace, as it appeareth by his Com∣mentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, specially on Chap. 5. as also his Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And then he addes cap. 18. that the whole of this Heresie had its foundation in the Pythagorean, Stoic, and Peripatetic Philosophie. He also acquaints that the Origenists, or Monkes that followed Origen and his Doctrine in Egypt and Palestine, aspiring after a Monkish Perfection and Re∣ligiose life embraced these Infusions of Origen, from whom the Massilienses and Pelagians traduced their Heresie. Hieronymus Adversus Pelag. ad Ctesiphontem, assures us, That the Doctrine of Pelagius was but a branch of Origen's. And the same Hierony∣mus, Apolog. 1. adversus Ruffin. saith that Origen held, That God chose men, not that they might be holy, but for their foreseen san∣ctitie and holinesse: which made way for that great Pelagian Error, touching Election from the prevision of good Workes. More touching the Traduction of Pelagianisme from Origen's Dogmes, see what precedes §. 8.

That Philosophie was the cause of Pelagianisme also, Godeau, that great French Historian in the Life of Augustin, Liv. 2. Chap. 2. p. 200. demonstrates thus,

Neverthelesse the Philosophie of Aristotle and Zeno seems to have contributed much to Pe∣lagianisme. And if Tertullian has named the Philosophers the Patriarches of Heretics, that is particularly true in regard of the Pelagians; who, if we may so speake, are descended in a direct line. For the first Error of Pelagius was touching the perfection of justice and impeccabilitie, which he held a man might attain to in this life. Which is the same with the Apa∣thie, or the exemtion from passions; which the Stoics attri∣buted to their wise man. And albeit Aristotle and the New Academics held, That a wise man is capable of passions, but vir∣tue consistes in the moderation of them; yet both one and t'other agreed in this, That virtue came from man, not from God. And Cicero explicating their Doctrine, saith, Who ever gave God thankes for being a good man? And Seneca saith, There is a good, which is the cause of a blessed life, namely to confide in a mans self. Lo, the Abregement of the Pelagian Doctrine! — Philosophie furnisht the Pelagians not only with Materials to build their Forteresse against the Church, but also with Armes to defend it. And Augustin doth reproach Julian, with the subtilities of Logic, which he had learned, &c. As Vanitie

and Pride is the character of Human Philosophie, so also of the Pelagian Heresie; and it is its specifie difference: For if a man examine al its propositions, he shal find in them a spirit of pride in the most insolent degree. — We have a secret desire of Independence which is graven on the very fund of our corrupt nature.

Thence one being asked why Pelagianisme did spring up in al Ages, answered, because there were Pelagianae sibrae, certain Pelagian sibres, or smal venes of Pelagianisme in the hearts of al.

Jansenius likewise tels us, Tom. 1. lib. 7. cap. 17. That the Greek Fathers, out of too great opinion of Origen and his Commen∣taries, sucked in from him the same opinions about Free-wil; which Chrysostome, Oecumenius and Theophylact were too guilty of Origen's opinion for Free-wil see in his Philocalia, cap. 21, 23, 25, 26, &c. This may serve as a reason why Pelagius found so much favor from the Greek Fathers in the Council of Dispolis, An. 415. That Pelagius himself received much of his Heresie from these Origenistic Monkes seated in Egypt, with whom he had conversation whilest in those parts, may hereafter appear, when we come to treat more fully of Pelagianisme revived by the Scholemen. It sufficeth at present to shew, what foundation was laid for the Pelagian Heresie by the Greek Fathers, special∣ly those of the Alexandrine Schole; who out of a vain designe to gain reputation to the Christian Theologie contempered some of the purer and more reformed parts of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie therewith, to the great prejudice, yea cor∣ruption thereof, which Antichrist afterwards makes use of for the exaltation of his throne, and introduction of his Mystical, Scholastic, Canonic Theologie, as it follows, C. 2. S. 1. §. 1, &c.

But to give a Summarie account of the rise and progresse of Pelagian Dogmes, Bradwardine in his Preface to his never-e∣nough to be admired Book De Causa Dei, against the Pelagi∣ans,* 1.287 tels us, that the lapsed Angels were the first Founders of this Sect, who depending on their mutable Free-wil, though then Morally holy, fel from their Dependence on Divine Grace, into that miserable servitude of sin they are now chained under. The same Error Augustin, Aquinas, and other Antipelagian Scholemen make to be the cause of Adam's Fal. And if his Moral Free-wil when void of Sin could not preserve him from falling into sin and miserie, when he depended thereon, how is

it possible that corrupt Free-wil in his lapsed posteritie should raise them up to a state of Union and Communion with God, from whom they are now, by reason of the spiritual death and servitude of Sin, so far distant? Bradwardine also makes Pelagia∣nisme to have been avouched and owned by Cain, Nimrod, Ne∣buchadnezar, and other forerunners of Antichrist. That it was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Pharisees is most evident both from Sa∣cred Scriptures, as Luk 18.9, 11. and elsewhere, as also by the general consent of such as have written of the Pharisees, Drusi∣us, &c. In the Primitive Christian Churches this Pelagian Infu∣sion was diffused among the Gnostics, and other legal carnal Christians, even in the Apostles daies; as seems evident by their Epistles, which elsewhere, if the Lord please, we shal make ap∣parent. But the principal founder of this Pelagian Placite in the Primitive times was Origen, as Jansenius has incomparably wel demonstrated in his Historie of Pelagianisme. From Origen and his Sectators the Monkes of Egypt, Pelagius, the reproche of our ancient Britaines, imbibed his venimous Infusions, which proved the vital spirits of Antichrist that man of sin.

To give check and confusion to these proud sentiments of that Pelagian Antichristian party God raised up Augustin for the succur of his poor bleeding Church,* 1.288 against the most pesti∣ferous Heresie that ever infested it. He was a person of prodi∣giose natural acumen and Capacitie: he had an ample vast soul, filled with Divine Lights and Heats: he was indeed the Restau∣rator of the ancient Faith in this point, and Doctor of Grace, being indeed an infatigable and invincible champion of Free-grace against Free-wil: He penetrated al the secrets of the Pe∣lagians, and opened their Vanitie: he entred by the conduct of Gods Spirit into the very bowels of corrupt Nature, and anatomised al its subtile Recesses and Diverticules: He descen∣ded into the darknesses of the blind mind, and discovered its venimous influences on human Acts: He also manifested the fee∣blesses and impotence of the corrupt Wil as to what is spiri∣tually good: He made a perfect Anatomie of the old Adam, dissecting the smal fibres thereof. And this Pelagian Heresie, which may wel be stiled the Heresie of corrupt Nature, the daughter and mother of Pride, did but the more inflame his zele for Divine Grace, and increase his profound Humilitie: and whereas the pride of mans spirit takes great satisfaction in such

flesh-pleasing notions, his incomparable Humilitie led him to a more implacable enmitie against them: and being fortified with the armor of Divine Light and Grace, he confounded the Fau∣tors of Pelagianisme, and Patrones of corrupt Free-wil, disco∣vered their puerile ignorant Sophismes, and impudent Blasphe∣mies; as also contemned their reproches and calumnies. He ex∣plicated his Hypotheses with claritie, and demonstrated them with invincible force, specially in his two last pieces; those he writ against the Semi-pelagians, of the Predestination of Saints, and of the gift of Perseverance. We have an incomparable Sy∣steme of al his choifest sentiments about Grace collected by that great Patrone of Free-Grace, and Impugnator of Free-wil, Jan∣senius, in his Augustinus; where also we find an excellent account of Augustin's Life, and Zele against the Pelagians: the like in Godeau, La Vie de St. Augustin. And because some of late have thought Augustin too warme and passionate in his Zele against the Pelagians, I shal give an abbreviate Idea or chara∣cter of his spirit and zele for God, which is more copiosely and lively delineated by Godeau, that great French Historian, in the forementioned Historie of Augustin's Life. Augustin was a won∣der of nature for Parts, and a miracle of Grace for Pietie. It were easie to find admirable Parallels between those two great men, Paul and Augustin, which Godeau cals the ancient and new Apostle of Jesus Christ. Augustin observed in Paul an admira∣ble Fidelitie, a celeste Eloquence, which was by so much the more capable to prevail, by how much the lesse human. He al∣so observed in him a singular adresse to manage Spirits, an in∣comparable claritie to explicate Mysteries, a singular prudence to distribute Divine Verities according to the capacitie of his Disciples, a marvellous judgement in his counsels, a profound intelligence to discover the secrets of mens hearts; a perfect cha∣ritie for sinners, and yet an amorous vehemence against Sin. Libertines were constrained to admire in Augustin an exemple, which they were not willing to imitate. He studied more to be∣come pious than learned, and to purifie his heart from carnal Affections, than to enrich his Understanding with new Sciences. He thought he ought to grow in virtue according to the mea∣sure he grew in dignitie. He was the Master of al by his Do∣ctrine and Exemples; but by his Humilitie, charitable and pru∣dent Conduct, the Servant of al. The Son of God chose him to

defend the principal foundation of Christian Religion. Other Doctors had particular lights for the defending diverse Truths, but he had extraordinarie claritie for the defense of the prime Truth and Grace. If it be the nature of Science to pusse up, then one might think such an eminent Science as Augustin had should greatly puffe him up; but the malignitie of Science was never so perfectly extinguished as in him: and he is yet more ad∣mirable for the profunditie of his Humilitie, than for the sub∣limitie of his Doctrine: he searched not for the praise of men. We might copie out al Augustin's Books, if we would report al the humble Sentiments which he hath couched touching him∣self, in a manner that is not affected, and wherein one cannot accuse him, that he searched for Glorie in a seeming contemt thereof; he had no difficultie to confesse his ignorance in many things, which men believed he could instruct others in. He thus speakes: I professe I am of the number of those which write in pro∣fiting, and profit in writing. With what Sentiments of grief, with what sinceritie, with what simplicitie, with what diligence, with what confusion doth he in his Confessions speak of the Er∣rors of his spirit, of his foolish imaginations, of his extravagant thoughts of Divine Verities? with what freedome doth he open his heart, that we may read al the disorders of his passions? we may cal these Confessions of his the triumph of Grace. Augu∣stin had in his house an Assemblie of Ministers with whom he lived in commun; he forgat nothing to bring them to perfecti∣on; he had for al a love truly Paternal: he counselled them in their douts, supported them in their infirmities, fortified them in their seeblesses, accommodated himself to their ignorances. He had a great natural tendernesse of love towards his friends, which Grace formed into a Divine love.

After Augustin, when Pelagianisme, by the growth of An∣tichristianisme was come to a perfect stature, God raised up ma∣ny great Reformers, specially Bradwardine and Wiclef, to oppose the same.* 1.289 Many also among the Dominicans, as Aquinas, Ari∣minensis, Alvarez, &c. have put forth great efforts to pul down this Idol of Pelagianisme. But none have been more bold and successeful in the Roman Church, for the overthrowing this proud Pelagian Idol, than pious and great Corn. Jansenius, and his Sectators; whereof we have given a large relation in our Idea of Jansenisme. And we shal here only adde, that it is, or

ought to be the great wonder of pious souls, that in this Age, wherein so many Professors of the Reformed Religion have tur∣ned their backs on the Doctrine of Free-Grace, and imbibed so many Pelagian Infusions, which are the very vital spirits and heart of Antichristianisme, God has raised up, even in the bosome of Antichrist, Jansenius and his Sectators, who, in vindication of Augustin's Doctrine, have approved themselves such stout Champions and Assertors of Free-Grace, against al Pelagian Dogmes. O! what mater of Admiration wil this be unto al Eternitie?

CHAP. II. Pagan Philosophie the cause of al Antichristianisme.

Pagan Philosophie the cause 1. of Monachisme and Mystic Theo∣logie; 2. Of Scholastic Theologie and Pelagianisme; 3. Of Canonic Theologie; (1) Its forme, 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Col. 2.8. (2) Its Mater, 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Antichrists Canonised Saints an Imitamen of the Philosophers Demons. Their Parallel [1] in Origine; [2] In formal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [3] In Mediator∣ship, Col. 2.9, 10, 19. 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or imitation of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Tim. 4.2. The essence of Antichrists Apostasie in Idolatrie, Rev. 17.5. Rev. 13.1. (1) Al Commemorations of Saints at their Graves, Demon-worship. (2) Saints Holy-daies and Festivals from De∣mon-worship. (3) Saints Images, Crosses, and Reliques from Demons, &c. (4) Sacrifices and Offerings to Saints from De∣mons, Psal. 106.28. 1 Cor. 10.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (5) Exorcisme, and Popish Miracles from Demons, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. Eph. 4.14. Pythagoreans great Magicians, as Apollonius Tyanaeus, &c. (6) Invocation of Saints. (7) Popish Rites, viz. holy water, fire, garments, &c. from Demons. (8) Antichrists Fasts, &c. from Demons, 1 Tim. 4.3. (9) Monastic Life and Rules De∣mon-Doctrines, 1 Tim. 4.3. Col. 2.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (10) Workes of Supererogation and Merits from Demon-Doctrines, 1 Tim. 4.7, 8, 9. Col. 2.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Tim. 4.4. (11) Purgatorie from Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Offerings and Prayers for the Dead from Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. (12) Antichrists Primatie an Imitamen of the Pagan; its Origine at Alexandria, but its chief seat at Rome. The Pope a Demonarch, in Imitation of Divus Augustus, who was Pontifex Maximus. 2 Thes. 2.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, extensive and intensive. v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. the Roman Emperors Demons; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Emperor called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Divus Au∣gustus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to rule; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. as a Demon. The Popes gradual Advances. Al Patriarchs from Pagan In∣stitutes. (13) Al Popish Traditions from Demon-Dogmes. 1 Tim. 4.1. A Summarie of the whole.

SECT. I. Antichrist's Mystic and Scholastic Theologie from Ethnic Philosophic.

§. 1. WE have shewen the sad and evil Effects of Pagan Phi∣losophie in reference to the Pagans themselves, the Jews, and the Primitive Christians; we now procede to demon∣strate its perniciose causalitie and influence as to Antichrist his hel-bred Doctrine and Discipline. And for our more Methodic procedure herein we shal reduce the whole of Antichristianisme to these three Heads: (1) Mystic Theologie; (2) Scholastic The∣ologie;* 1.290 (3) Canonic Theologie. (1) As for Antichrist's Mystic Theologie, it was the figment of the superstitiose Monkes, who were the first-borne sons of this Man of Sin, and the main Pil∣lars of his Throne, according to that part of his character, 1 Tim. 4.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, forbidding to marie. It's true, there were some devote Christians, who in time of persecution chose a Monastic or solitarie life; but the imposing hereof under certain Rules, yea Vows, and that as a more perfect state of Religion, proceded from the spirit of Antichrist. Now these superstitiose Monkes were first seated in Egypt at Alexandria; where they dranke in the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie, and therewith many Philosophic superstitions. And to treat a little more di∣stinctly of the Origine of these Monkes, the first borne sons of Antichrist, and their Mystic Theologie, we are to take a brief view of the Schole of Alexandria, and its Constitution when Monastic Life and Theologie was introduced into the Primitive Churches. This Schole of Alexandria, founded by Ptolomeus Philadelphus, was indeed the seat of al Philosophie, yea the eye of the world as to learning, at this time when Monastic Life and Theologie crept into the Church, as we have largely de∣monstrated, Court Gent. P. 2. B. 3. C. 4. §. 4, &c. The Philoso∣phie that most flourished in this Alexandrine Schole at this time was Pythagorean and Platonic: and the principal Professors there∣of were the Egypt an Priests, who were incorporated into Col∣leges, or Convents, affecting a Monastic Life and Severities, in imi∣tation of the Essenes among the Jewes; who, in the times of the Babylonian and subsequent Persecutions under Antiochus, &c. affected a Monastic solitarie life, and severe Discipline, to pre∣serve the puritie of their Consciences and Religion, as we have shewen Philos. General. P. 1. l. 1. c. 1. §. 11. Hence, I say, both

the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Priests traduced their Monastic Life and Discipline: of which see Philosoph. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. also l. 2. c. 3. §. 4. and Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. c. 6. §. 9. Now that the whole of Antichrist's Monkes, their original Constitu∣tion, and Discipline, and Mystic Theologie, was but a supersti∣tiose Imitamen of the Egyptian and Pythagorean Monastic Life and Philosophie,* 1.291 wil be most evident by the subsequent Parallels.

1. As to the origine of these Antichristian Monkes, their se∣veral Orders and Rules, they were indeed al but superstitiose Imitamens, or Apes of Pagan Monkes and Discipline. We have before P. 2. Book 2. C. 6. §. 9. shewen how the Pythagoreans, in imi∣tation of the Jewish Scholes and Essenes, affected a Collegiate Mo∣nastic life, and Discipline. And that the whole of Antichristian Monachisme was but a reflexe Idea or Imitamen of that Pytha∣goraen Constitution, learned Bochart in his Treatise against Veron, part 3. chap. 25. §. 4. Art. 1. proves at large: shewing,

how this injunction of Celibat and Monastic life was one great part of the Doctrine of Demons, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. which was one of the superstitions Pythagoras brought out of Egypt into Grece; for he forbad Mariage to those of his Sect, and erected a Cloistre of Virgins or Nuns, &c. then he proves, how that this institu∣tion of Celibat was by Christs time established almost through∣out the Pagan World.

But to come to Particulars: (1) The Pythagorean Monkes, in order to their more regular Collegiate life, entred into a most strict confederation or covenant to walk by the same commun Rule, enjoined by their Master Pythago∣ras, as Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. c. 6. §. 6. Thus also the Egyptian Priests, as Philos. Gener. P. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. parag. 11. The same do the Antichristian Monkes, who make a Vow to walk re∣gularly according to the Rule of their Founder: whence they are called Regulars, in opposition to the Secular Priests. (2) Had the Pythagoreans in their College Novices and Perfect? So have the Antichristian Monkes. (3) Did the Pythagoreans separate themselves and despise al that were not of their Order, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imperfect and uninitiate? So do these Monastic Sons of Antichrist, &c. (4) Did the Pythagoreans affect a superstitiose silence? so do these Monkes; having this Motto over their dores, Silentium, silence. (5) The Pythagoreans enjoyed althings in commun; thence their College was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a commu∣nitie. The same do Antichrists Monkes in their Convents, which

they cal by the same name, Caenobium. (6) Had the Pythagore∣ans their Rules for abstinence from flesh, &c? Thus also the Egyptian Priests gloried much in their abstinences from flesh, &c. as Philos. Gener. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. parag. 3. And have not Antichrists Monkes the same Abstinences? are not the Carthu∣sians and Praemonstrantes under a prohibition from ever eating flesh, according to their character, Col. 2.21. 1 Tim. 4.3? (7) The Pythagorean Collegiates had their white distinctive garments: so have these sons of Antichrist the like distinctive Garments or Vest∣ments, which Constantin stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Garment of dark∣nesse. (8) Did the Pythagoreans greatly reverence their Elders? so do these sons of Antichrist their Superiors and Elders, calling them, my Father, &c. (9) Were the Pythagoreans and Egypti∣an Priests much addicted to devotion or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, superstitiose Demon-worship? so are these superstitiose Monkes to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saint-worship, which exactly answers to the Pythagorean Demon-worship, as 1 Tim. 4.1. (10) Had the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Priests their Severities, Mortifications, and Purificati∣ons? so have these superstitiose Monkes the very same. (11) The Pythagoreans divided their life into contemplative and active, &c. So also the Egyptian Priests, as Philosoph. Gener. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. So the Monkes. Now to explicate more fully the manner how these Pythagorean and Egyptian Rites of Monastic Life and Dis∣cipline were introduced first into the Egyptian Churches, and thence into the Grecian, Roman, and other Churches, we must reflect on what was before mentioned of Origen, C. 1. §. 8. who, in imitation of that Monastic Life, so much affected by the Pythagoreans, Platonistes, and Egyptian Priests in the Schole of Alexandria, brought in the like Monastic modes into the Chur∣ches of Egypt; wherein he was followed by his Sectators, the Origenistic Monkes of Egypt; from whom al Antichristian Mo∣nastic Life, Rules, Confederations, Orders, Abstinences, and superstitiose Rites proceded, as before, also in what follows, S. 3. §. 9.

2. To procede to the Mystic Theologie hatcht by these Anti∣christian Monkes, and its production both as to mater and forme,* 1.292 in derivation from, and in imitation of the Pythagorean and Pla∣tonic Philosophie. We have already shewed, that the Origine of this Mystic Divinitie was laid by the Monkes of Alexandria, and other parts in Egypt; the Idea or platforme whereof was given them by Origen, who being brought up in the Schole of

Alexandria under Ammonius, that great Reformed, and as some think Christian Platonist, was so drencht in Pythagorean and Pla∣tonic Philosophie, as that he fils his Commentaries on Scripture with little else save Allegoric and Mystic Theologie, answerable to the Pythagoric and Platonic mode of Philosophising. Wherein he is followed by his successors the Monkes of Alexandria: amongst whom Origen, by reason of his great parts and acqui∣red learning, was greatly idolised and imitated; whence they were called Origenists. And that which gave them great advan∣tage for the spinning out this their Cobweb of Allegoric and Mystic Divinitie, was their solitarie Monastic contemplative life, which they greatly affected, and whereby they being freed from the encumbrances of worldly affaires, had the more op∣portunitie to broach and perfect their Mystic contemplations. Thus also the Pythagoreans, Platonistes and Egyptian Priests, spent a great part of their time in sublime Mystic Contemplations, which made their Philosophie so Symbolic and Mystic, as Porphyrie, de Abstinent. l. 4. §. 6. p. 149. and Philos. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. paragr. 5. Farther, that this Mystic Divinitie was taken up in Imitation of, and Derivation from the Pythagorean, Egyp∣tian, and Platonic Philosophie, may appear not only from the Au∣thors of it, Origen, and his followers, (who were seated at the fountain of Platonic Philosophie) but also by its essential parts, both mater and forme,* 1.293 or mode. (1) As for the mater of this Monkish Mystic Divinitie, it aboundes with many Philosophic Fables, and lying wonders, answerable to the Mystic Fables in Pythagoras and Plato's Philosophie. Indeed the whole of Anti∣christs Theologie is but a mere Philosophic and lying Mysterie, as 2 Thes. 2.9. But yet no part of Antichristianisme is so stuffed with lying Fables and Demonic Miracles, as this Mystic Theolo∣gie, framed by these Antichristian Monkes. By whom were those Legends of fabulose wonders (supposed to be wrought by Saints) framed, but by these Mystic Divines; and that in imitation of the Pythagorean wonders wrought by Apollonius Tyanaeus and o∣thers of that Sect? Indeed the whole of this Mystic Monkish Divinitie seems to be but a mere Pythagorean and Platonic Fa∣ble: for though the original Idea might be some Divine Scrip∣ture-Mysterie, yet these fabulose Monkes mixe so many of their own fantastic allegoric Fables therewith, as that a critical eye can hardly discerne any elements or characters of Divine Truth

amidst so many Fables. (2) Neither is the mater only of this Mystic Theologie fabulose, but its forme also;* 1.294 answerable to the Mythologic, Symbolic, Allegoric mode of Philosophising so commun amongst the Pythagoreans and Platonists. How much do these Mystic Divines glorie in their Tropologic, Anagogic, and Allego∣ric explication of Scripture? Neither is there any Scripture so plain, literal, or historic, but they have some Tropologic or My∣stic sense for it: witnesse that of Job 1.14. where by the Oxen plowing they understand, the people laboring: and by [the Asses feeding beside them] they understand, the Priests feeding on the peoples labors. In which Mystic Explication, though most absurd as to the Texte, yet we have more of truth than they ever dreamed of; namely, that al their Monastic Orders and Anti∣christian Priests are but so many idle Asses, which feed on and waxe fat by the labors of poor Laics, as they cal the people. Indeed this Monkish Mystic Theologie does, in point of Fables and Allegories, seem to excede either the Jewish Cabala, or the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie, whence it received its original Ideas. And we need no way dout, but that the Spirit of God, in laying down such severe Premonitions and Cautions against giving heed to Fables, had a very great eye upon this fabulose mystic Divinitie, which at first the Gnostics, and since these Monkish Divines, the first-borne sons of Antichrist, took up in imitation of their Grand-fathers, the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophers. So 1 Tim. 1.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Philosophic Fables.* 1.295〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which Allegoric Genealogies these Monkes affected as wel as the Gnostics. The like 1 Tim. 4.7. where he addes this as one part of these Doctrines of Demons revived by Anti∣christ,* 1.296 that they should revive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, old Philosophic fa∣bles: which these mystic Monkes were greatly guilty of. The like Tit. 1.14. In al which Textes we find these mystic Divines the Monkes fully characterised, as wel as the Gnostics: of which see B. 1. Chap. 4. §. 1.

§. 2. After the Mystic Theologie framed by the Monkes,* 1.297 suc∣ceded the Schole-Divinitie composed by the Scholemen, which received its origine from the very same fountain of Pagan Phi∣losophie, and tended to the very same end, namely the confir∣mation and farther propagation of Antichristianisme, though the medium and course taken up by the later was quite different, yea opposite to that used by the former. For the Monkes de∣riving

their Mystic Theologie from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie, made use of al their fabulose Miracles and lying Wonders, al their allegoric and mystic Interpretations of Scrip∣ture, with al their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Pythagorean Institutes, Absti∣nences, Severities, and other pretended Sanctities of their Mo∣nastic life, as medium's to gain credit and authoritie to Anti∣christ, their Parent and Lord. But now the Scholemen, those younger sons of Antichrist, though they had the same end in their eye, yet they proceded on a new and different medium or way: For these vain Sophists traducing their Scholastic Divinitie from their Grandfather Aristotle his Eristic Philosophie, made it their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or businesse, to maintain Antichrist their Father's Do∣ctrine and Authoritie by vain disputations, according to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Contentiose Logic in the Eleatic and Peripatetic Scholes. And to make the demonstration hereof more firme and evident, we shal a little consider the origine of Scholemen and their Divi∣nitie, its parts essential and integral.

As for the origine of the Schole-Divines, they began to slou∣rish in the thirteenth Centurie,* 1.298 about the middle thereof; and their chief feat was at Paris, which was then the eye of Europe for Liberal Sciences and Theologie. For Charles the Great ha∣ving in the ninth Centurie erected a famose Universitie there, those who had inclinations to good Literature resorted thither, as to the commun Schole thereof; specially considering the In∣undation of Barbarisme and Ignorance in Italie. But that which rendred this Universitie of Paris more famose was the College of the Sorbonne, instituted by Robert D. brother of Lewis King of France, about the year 1270. Here the Scholemen, Albertus Magnus, Hugo the Cardinal, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and the rest of that Gang seated themselves; making it their businesse to defend the Popes Doctrine and Authoritie by their Philosophic distinctions and disputations; wherein they found at first great opposition from more sober Divines and Professors of the Universitie at Paris; specially from Gulielmus de sancto Amore, a pious Reformer, who flourished about the year 1260, and greatly declaimed and writ against those Schole-Divines their Philosophic Infusions, as that which was likely to prove perniciose to the Church: wherein indeed he was a true Pro∣phet. He writ many excellent Treatises against these Schole-Divines, viz. A Defensorie of the Scripture and Church, against

the dangers which hung over the Universal Church by Hypo∣crites and false Teachers: also of the perils of the later times: of the signes of false prophets, &c. Yet notwithstanding the Schole-men, those great Champions of Antichrist, found so much fa∣vor from Alphonsus Earle of Poictou, another brother of Lewis King of France, as that he, by threats and terrors, chased a∣way the more zelose Reforming Divines, and established these Scholastic Doctors in the Sorboune, as it is wel observed by our famose Baleus, de Script. Britan. Cent. 4 cap. 34. where he far∣ther addes this:

And as Cantipratensis has it in his Book of Mystic Bees, Albertus Magnus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas A∣quinas, Bonaventura, and others of the same meal did many and wonderful things at Paris. And Erasnus saies, that the Philo∣sophie which these our Masters afterward used in the Scholes had its origine in these daies. Leland saies, that in those times Arts degenerated from their puritie, and I know not what so∣phistic Garrulitie made a noise in the Schole. Thus Baleus, who also (cap. 77.) acquaints us, that Arnoldus de Villa Nova, a fa∣mose Physician and Mathematician (who flourished about An. 1300.) opposed in like manner these Divines; affirming, that they had perfidiously adjoined the Dreams of the Philosophers to the Scriptures.

Franciscus Petrarcha, lib. 1. de Remed. utri∣usque fortunae, Dialog. 46. complaines of these Scholemen thus:

They fable many things rashly of God and nature; by their airy Sophismes they circumscribe the most Omnipotent Majestie: they dispute so of the secrets of Nature, as if they came down from Heaven.

By which we see, that in the first peepings forth of this Schole-Divinitie out of its shel, there were not wanting some zelose Reformers who opposed it, as being but a Philo∣sophic dream, which would greatly prejudice the true Christian Theologie. And to make the same more evident and clear we shal consider this Scholastic Theologie in its Parts, both essen∣tial and integral, with their origine from Pagan Philosophie.

§. 3. The first Essential part of Scholastic Divinitie,* 1.299 we shal consider, is its Forme or Mode of Philophising, which is Eri∣stic or Dialectic, answerable to that in the Eleatic and Peripate∣tic Schole. For, as we have formerly observed, B. 1. C. 2. §. 1. there was in the Eleatic Schole a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eristic or conten∣tiose mode of Disputing, whereof there was also some spice in the old Academie called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a probationarie or pro∣blematic

mode of disputing, which yet was only about things doutful; but in the new Academies it determined in an univer∣sal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Sceptisme. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contentiose Logic, as sea∣ted in the old Academic Scholes was more simple and plain, be∣ing managed only in a way of Dialogue, according to the Scrip∣tural mode of Disputation. Whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usu∣ally signifie to dispute. But Aristotle, to avoid the prejudices which such a naked forme of disputation was exposed to, re∣duceth the disputes of his Schole to a more artificial forme and method of syllogising; wherein by reason of his natural acumen he was extreme dexterous. Him therefore these Scholemen fol∣low, as their Master; he having laid down a more succinct, ac∣curate, artificial forme of disputation. Thus Luther (as Sleidan, Lib. 11. Comment.) saies,

That Aristotle was in great repute a∣mong the Schole-Divines; and there was nothing so absurd, so remote from our Religion, which they defend not, which they clothe not with some interpretation, although far-fetcht, that so his honor and name may be great.

And Schmidius ap∣plies to them, 2 Tim. 2.23. Foolish and unlearned Questions re∣ject, knowing that they breed contentions. But how guilty these Schole-Divines are as to contentiose disputes is set forth to the life by one of their own Religion, Erasmus in his Annotations, on 1 Tim. 1.6. where he discovers how far they have, by their fri∣volous vain Questions and Digladiations turned away, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to vain babling. Though, to give Aristotle his due, he was nothing near so vain and contentiose in his Disputes, as these Scholemen are. It's true, he left some Theses to be dis∣puted by his Scholars, (as also Theophrastus his successor after him) as an exercice of their acumen and wits; but these dispu∣tations were nothing like those vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or contentiose disputes, which are in use amongst the Scholemen. Therefore to give a more particular account of the origine of these vain Scholastic Disputes, we must know, that these Scholemen, though they pretend Aristotle to be their Master, yet they rather owe their Eristic mode of disputing to Aristotle's Commentators the Arabians;* 1.300 particularly to Aben roes, who having little or no skil in the Greek, and not much in the Latin, could only make some poor guesses touching Aristotle's mind and sense: whence he framed many exotic termes, and uncouth notions and distin∣ctions as so many blinds to concele his ignorance. We sind this

wel observed by Owen, de Theolog lib. 6. cap. 7. pag. 515, &c.

In al the Eristic disputations, Aristotle's name is pretended, when as they rather follow his corrupt Interpreters and Com∣mentators. For the Arabians, (from whom the Scholemen de∣rived al their niceties) being most ignorant of Greek and La∣tin, were forced to make use of rude and unlearned Transla∣tions from the Latin to the Arabic Tongue, which in many places could no way reach the sense of the Original, &c.

The like account I sind in Hornius, Histor. Philos. l. 5. c. 10. of these Arabian Commentators on Aristotle, thus:

I wish, they had been skilled (which is altogether necessarie to accurate Phi∣losophie) in the Tongues, and in Philologie. But they being borne in the midst of Barbarisme, what else brought they to Philosophie, but Ingenie and Industrie? There happened ano∣ther evil, that whilest they estimed Aristotle for the God of Sapience, who could not erre, they ost erre, with erring Ari∣stotle. This also we may peremtorily affirme, that they who gave up themselves to Aristotle's Philosophie, could not under∣stand Aristotle in his own tongue, nor yet in any tolerable Version. There were extant Arabic Versions, but those in ma∣ny places maimed, perverted, corrupted. Which happened by the fault partly of the times, partly of men, partly of the Tongues. The times were so barbarous, that Grece it self was ignorant of her own Plato and Aristotle. For as it was difficult to turne Aristotle out of Greek, by reason of his concise and interrupted manner of speech; so was it most difficult for the Arabians, whose speech, as it is evident,* 1.301 is most disserent from the Greek: hence it was that these Commentators so often mistake Aristotle.

Thus Caelius, lib. 2. A. l. cap. 2. of Avincenna. He being, saies he, imbued with the Arabic Idiome, and no way verst in the Greek literature, read Aristotle's Books not translated, but mutilated and perverted in his barbaric tongue: whence no won∣der if he could not attain to the sense and mind of that most emi∣nent Author, who for brevities sake oft speaks so concisely, that the best Philosophers can hardly reach his sense. Yea that which addes to the Scholemens mistakes of Aristotle, is that they un∣derstood only some Versions of these Arabic Commentators on Aristotle. That Abenroes, (or as they write him Averroes) the chief of the Arabian Commentators on Aristotle, was of great repute amongst the Scholemen at Paris, yea more studied

than Aristotle's Text, is evident, in that it was reputed the glo∣rie of a Scholeman to be a good Averroist. And not many years since we found Averroes in great vogue there. We find an ex∣cellent character of these Aristotelic Divines, and their Eristic mode of disputing in Jansenius's August. Tom. 2. lib. pro em. c. 28.

The Scholemen being even drunken with the love of too much Philosophie, would fain draw out, penetrate, forme, and judge those secret mysteries of Grace, almost buried and extinguish∣ed, according to the rules of human reason. Hence that ardor of disputing every thing, and calling al those mysteries into que∣stion. Hence their Theologie is stuffed with a bundle of innu∣merable opinions, by which al things though never so contra∣ry are made probable, which, according to their own declara∣tions, it is lawful for any to defend. So that promtitude has scarce lest any thing certain, but a belief that it is lawful to forme new opinions; for Scepticisme and incertitude is the punishment of such temeritie: neither is any thing more na∣tural, than that men from Peripatetics should become Acade∣mics, &c.

We find the like account of this Schole-Divinitie, and its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Owen, Theol. lib. 6. c. 7. pag. 516, &c.

Al the difference betwixt the Scholemen and Philosophers lies in this, that they have mixed somewhat of Scripture with their Science. — In the beginning of Reformation nothing seemed so odiose in that Apostatised Church, as this Theologic Sci∣ence, which ruled in the Schole. — From this Philosophic Theologic there has sprung many Errors, infinite contentions, which might be easily removed, if Christians would content themselves with the naked Word of God, laying aside that spinose Theologie, &c.

Sir Francis Bacon, in his Novum Or∣ganum, speaking of these Scholastic Divines, saies,

That besides their reducing Theologie into an order, and artificial forme, they over and above effected this, that Aristotle's contentiose and spinose Philosophie should be more than was meet mixed with the bodie of Religion. This made Sir Henry Wotton give this as his Epitaph, Disputandi pruritus est scabies Ecclesiae, the itch of Disputing is the scab of the Church.

And indeed Christ and his Apostles foreseeing the noxious influences of these Scho∣lastic disputes, give frequent, and very severe Premonitions a∣gainst them. So 1 Tim. 6.4, Doting about questions and strife of words:* 1.302 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. (as Grotius) answerable to the Philoso∣phers

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Again v. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sophi∣stic disputes: which he cals v. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, profane and vain bablings: also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, opposition of science falsely so called, of which see more fully B. 1. C. 1. §. 6. Again, 1 Tim. 1.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which Book 1. C. 2. §. 1. as also, 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which Scriptures, though they might have some fulfilling in, and regard unto those vain disputings began in the Primitive Churches; yet we may not limit them to those times: For without dout the Spirit of God, in laying down such strict cautions against these vain disputes, had a particular regard to following times, wherein he foresaw these Philosophic contenti∣ons would be revived; as indeed they were by the Schole Di∣vines.

§. 4. As the Forme, so also the Mater of Schole-Divinitie,* 1.303 had its origine in good part from Pagan Philosophie. It's true, the Texte these Scholastic disputers Theologise upon is usually the Sentences collected out of the Fathers by Lombard, but their Comments are for the most part little else but Philosophic Notions and Distinctions taken out of Aristotle and his Commen∣tators, Abenroes, &c. I shal not treat at large of the Mater of Schole Divinitie, but only of their Pelagian Infusions, which are their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the spirit of Antichrist, which they have greatly fomented by their Scholastic Disputes, and contempla∣tions traduced from Pagan Philosophic. And here we may not bring al the Schole-Divines under this imputation and condem∣nation. For Thomas Aquinas and his followers the Thomistes, who keep more close to Augustin, are nothing near so guiltie of this Pelagian crime as the Jesuites. Yea, many of the Thomistes, as Greg. Ariminensis, Alvarez, and others, have greatly opposed the Pelagians and Jesuites in the most principal of their Dogmes against Efficacious Grace. Yet, that the Scholemen have been the great brochers and patrons of Pelagianisme, is evident by their Writings: neither did Pelagius's Doctrine find any consi∣derable favor and acceptation in the Catholic Church til the Scholemen came in play. And that these Pelagian Infusions were foisted into their Schole Divinitie by Philosophic Disputes and Principes, is as clear. We have in the foregoing Chapter, §. 8, 10. shewen, what foundation the Pelagian Heresie received amongst the Grecian Fathers, particularly Origen, and that from Pagan Philosophie. Now that the Scholemen build their Pelagian In∣fusions

upon the same foundation, wil be easie to prove. We find a great account hereof in Jansenius his Augustinus, Tom. 1. lib. 6. cap. 18.

Although if we, would reduce the Pelagian Error to its proper fountain, and weigh it in its own ballance, we shal find that it has been composed of nothing else but of the Placits of gentile Philosophers. Neither is the apparatus of that whole Heresie any thing else but pure Pythagoric, Stoic, and Aristotelic Philosophie; so that what Tertullian and Jerome said of the Philosophers, that they were the Patriarchs of Heretics, may be affirmed of none more truely than of the Pelagians, their descent from the Philosophers. Which may easily be de∣monstrated of each hinge of the Pelagian Error:* 1.304 For (1) the first and chief Pelagian Dogme was concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apathie, or Impeccance; and what is this but that most known and proud reverie of the Pythagoric and Stoic Philosophie? against which both the Peripatetics and new Academics most stoutly dispute; whose opinions Tullie in his Tusculan Questions has explicated.

That the Scholemen have been great Champions for this Philosophic Pelagian Impeccance, or state of Perfection in this life,* 1.305 is evident from al their writings, &c. (2) Another Philosophic infusion suckt in by the Pelagian Schole-Divines, follows in Jansenius thus:

It is the unanimous opinion of the Philosophers, That other things are to be sought from the Gods, but Virtue from a man's self. So Seneca, The only good which is the cause and firmament of a blessed life, is to trust on a mans self. In which words the whole venome of the Pelagian impie∣tie is comprehended. So Tullie de Nat. Deorum, fine, Virtue, saies he, is never acknowledged by any as received from God.

That the Philosophers generally asserted a natural power or free∣wil to moral good has been before proved, Part 2. Book 3. Ch. 2. §. 4. which some called the seeds of virtue, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, good nature, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a self-power, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an indifference to good or evil. Al which the Scholemen have foisted into their Theologie, both names and things. That this Scholastic Free-wil and indifference to good and evil, was originally a Philosophic figment,* 1.306 see more largely Jansenius, Au∣gut. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 24. (3) It follows in Jansenius, Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 18.

Also their disputes against Original Sin and its punish∣ment, whence came they but from the Ethnics Philosophie? for these were not only ignorant of the traduction of Sin from

the Parent to the Child, but also assorded unto Pelagius such materials as served for a foundation to his Error, &c.

And have not the Scholemen made use of the same Philosophic Armes to oppugne the traduction of Original Sin?

(4) Jansenius addes,

That not only the Pelagian Dogmes,* 1.307 but also the very weapons which are used by its Defendents to maintain the same were taken out of the Philosophers Shop: which is so far true, that if you take away the garrulitie or babling of Philosophie, the whole Heresie may be dissipated by one breath. Whence the Pelagians being condemned by the Church flie to the Philosophers, even by their sentence to be absolved from condemnation.

Then he addes more particularly concerning the Scholemen, how much they have somented and nourished this Pelagian Heresie, by virtue of Aristotle's Philoso∣phie incorporated into their own subtile Questions and Scholastic niceties.

Moreover as Philosophie alone produced this Pelagian Heresie, so as many as in after-times amongst the Christians have adulterated the puritie of Divine Grace, by a predominant mixture of human libertie, have been seduced by the inveigle∣ment of Philosophie. — For by how much the more plain and simple the truth once was explained, and delivered; by so much the more vexatious subtiltie found or cast in scruples; and that which it found certain, it made uncertain, by mixing therewith uncertainties: for too much of Philosophie has ever sophisticated, not perfected Christian truth, in that it does not believe sufficiently things divine and sixed; neither does it suf∣ficiently understand those human mixtures which by their see∣ming novitie flater, &c.

We find yet a more ful confirmation hereof in Jansenius, August. Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 23.

Amongst the Pelagians there is a great estimation of Secular Sciences; and because they are sons of contention, they greatly affect Logic, because any thing is wont to be defended by the pertinacious against the truth by Philosophic subtilties. Hence they would needs seem exact Dialectics and Aristotelics, that so they may by their Syllogismes cast mists on the eyes of the ignorant: Which vanitie Augustin does most frequently upbraid the Pe∣lagians withal. Hence they would have althings doutful de∣cided by human reasons; which they ever-where crack, as the Philosophers were wont. Namely, Reason holds the chief place amongst the Pelagians, to which they contend, al the

Scriptures must conforme, although they seem to speak what is contrary thereto. Whence Julian fixing the Pelagian rule, saith, What reason argues authoritie may not denie.

Thus Jan∣senius: wherein he gives us an exact character of these Pelagian Schole-Divines, and their Philosophic Theologie. For what more Idolised in the Scholes than their Recta Ratio, Right Reason, as they stile it, which they make the measure of Moral good and evil, answerably to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, right reason among the Phi∣losophers, of which see P. 4. B. 1. C. 2. §. 2. Yea, that these Schole-Divines have out-gone the very Philosophers, (those who were more ancient) in their Pelagian Infusions, is excellently laid open to us by Jansenius, August. Tom. 2. de Nat. pura l. 2. c. 2. p. 326.

I have more than once, saies he, vehemently wondred, that the Philosophers, before the light of the Gospel shone on the Gentiles, Philosophised far more rightly, more accurately, more holily of the chief Heads of Moral Doctrine, of the In∣firmitie of natural Abilitie to live wel, of God to be loved in al acts, of the Souls Purgation and Beatitude, of the Ne∣cessitie of Grace, &c. than many Christian Scholemen. Neither truely can I find any other cause hereof but this, that they have universally followed Aristotle's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vain ratiocination, who being willing to carpe at the choisest Heads of Learning in his Master Plato, and that either from his ignorance of Di∣vine things, or from an emulation of his Master's glorie, he by his minute reasonings contemplated only terrene things: He supposed there needed not any Adjutorie of a superior Being, either to Virtue, or Happinesse its reward; but being igno∣rant of his own Imbecillitie, he taught, that for every good worke a man should confide in his own strength and virtue. This is the very poison which the Pelagians sucked from him as their Master, whilest they stifled the Grace of God as super∣fluous: This is the Doctrine which the Scholemen have endea∣vored to moderate, whilest they frame two men in one, a Phi∣losopher, and a Christian. Whence also we see it happened, that so long as Aristotle's Philosophie stood banished from the Churches Scholes, there was no mention found of these Pela∣gian Dogmes or blandishments of pure nature in the Writings of the Latin Fathers, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustin, &c. But the Scholemen, because they remembred themselves to be Christi∣ans, placed a supernatural and natural man, as the Arke with

Dagon, in the same house: For whatever they perceive to be predicated of Divine Grace in Scripture, that they applie to the supernatural man: and whatever they find mentioned in the Philosophers touching the power of the wil, and Philoso∣phic Virtues, this they applie to the natural man.

Whence their distinction of Virtue and Happinesse into natural and super∣natural, as hereafter, P. 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 4. Thus we see how al the Pelagian Dogmes have been revived by the Schole∣men, and that upon Philosophic Principes.

SECT. II. A general Account of Antichrist's Canonic Theologie and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with its Traduction from the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

ANother great Pillar of Antichrist's Throne is Canonic The∣ologie;* 1.308 the main designe whereof has been to defend An∣tichrist's Authoritie and Discipline by Ecclesiastic Canons. For look as the Monkes by their pretended Sanctitie and Mystic Theologie, and the Scholemen by their Eristic Theologie; so in like manner the Canonists by their Canonic Theologie have endeavored to their utmost to maintain and pro∣pagate Antichrists Soveraintie and Discipline. The chief Head of these Canonists was Gratian, who reduced the Ecclesiastic Canons to a bodie called the Canon-Law; the scope whereof chiefly is to support the Discipline of the Pope, under a pretension of the Catholic Church, and its Autoritie. For as the Scholemens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or taske was to defend the Pope's Power and Doctrine by Disputation and strength of argument; so the work of these Canonists was to maintain Antichrist's Soveraintie and Discipline by producing the Canons and Authoritie of the Catholic Church. They pretend not to Scholastic Reason or Argument; for that (say they) does but diminish the Authoritie of a Law; but their great Diana is the Churches Authoritie, which they urge as the fountain of al their Ecclesiastic Canons and Impositions. But to run up this Canonic Theologie to its origine or spring head, we no way dout but to make it very evident, that the main, if not the whole of Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Canons and Discipline owes its origine to Pythagorean, or some other Philosophic Institutes. This we shal make good both by Divine and Human Autoritie. And the great hinge on which this our Demonstration shal turne,

is that eminent Prophetic image or character of Antichrist, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. compared with Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. And to give a general key to these and such Prophetic descriptions of Antichrist; we are to know, that though they might have some typic and initial fulfilling in the Gnostic Here∣tics, which started up in the Apostles times, and were fore-runners of Antichrist, as has been once and agian observed, Ch 1. §. 7. Yet their main scope is to characterise and delineate Anti∣tichrist his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, superstition and tyrannic Impositions. For it is usual with the Spirit of God in Scripture to paint forth and decipher the great and famose Apostasie under Antichrist, by lesser and more particular Usurpations and Apostasies of per∣sons in those times wherein the Prophesie was delivered. So in the Old Testament, what is Historically spoken of Egypt, Baby∣lon, Antiochus, &c. is in the New Testament applied to Anti∣christ and his Kingdome; in like manner as David and Solomon are made Types of Christ. So here, we denie not but that these Prophetic Characters of Antichrist, laid down by Paul, and John might have some foundation in, and regard unto those Gnostic Antichrists of their time, of whom Simon Magus was the Head; but to confine al these great Prophetic descriptions of Antichrist to Simon Magus, or some Heretic of those times, as Grotius and his Sectators seem to do, savors too much of an Antichristian spirit. No, it is our safest course to interpret Scripture in its lar∣gest sense: for as it has been wel observed by Sir Francis Bacon, in his Advancement of Learning, Prophetic Scriptures have their fulfilling over and again in diverse Periods and Ages: so that al these Scriptures which we have before made use of to characte∣rise and describe the Gnostics and their Philosophic Infusions, who were the Forerunners of Antichrist, may much more truely and fully be applied to Antichrist, the great Antitype; who though last in Execution, yet was first in Intention, as we need no way dout. Having given this key, we shal procede to demonstrate, That Antichrists Canonic Theologie, or Ecclesiastic Canons, were Derivations from, and Imitamens of Philosophic, and principally Pythagoric Institutes. And herein we shal follow our wonted method, reducing the whole of our Demonstration to the Forme and Mater of Canonic Theologie.

§. 2. As for the Forme of Antichrists Canon Law, it received its Constitution from its formal Object, answerably to al other

Laws.* 1.309 For the formal Object of any Law is the Autoritie of the Law-giver, which is the principal foundation, or proper motive on which it dependes. Whence the formal Object of this Antichri∣stian Canon-Law is the pretended Autoritie of the Church, on which al their Ecclesiastic Canons are founded, as on their prin∣cipal ground and proper motive. For look as Christs Divine Law has for its formal Object his Divine Autoritie reveled in Scrip∣ture, according to 1 Thes. 2.13. As the word of God. This As is reduplicative, not specificative only, (as quatenus is used in the Scholes) i. e. they received the Word of God under this redu∣plication, As the word of God, or as clothed with Divine Au∣toritie: so parallel hereto Antichrist's Canon-Law has for its formal Object the pretended Churches Autoritic; whence resultes its formal constitution, or obligatorie spirit and force. Now that this formal constitution of Antichrist's Canonic Theologie exactly answers to, and, as we may presume, was taken up in imitation of the Pythagorean mode of dogmatising, or imposing Institutes, seems evident from what intimations we find hereof in the fore∣mentioned Scriptures. So 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.310 Do∣ctrines of Demons. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as used in the Pythagorean Schole, signifies the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Dogme, Decree, Institute, Canon: so also it seems to be used, Col. 2.22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being appendent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies the Institutes and Dogmes of the Philosophers, (as Grotius) an∣swering to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 20. of which hereafter, Sect. 4. §. 3. Thus Mat. 15.9. as also S. 4. S. 3. So that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Doctrines of Demons here we may understand those Dogmes, Institutes, and Canons, which Antichrist by his pretended Ec∣clesiastic Autoritie and Traditions, should impose upon the Chur∣ches of Christ, in imitation of those Pythagorean Dogmes, Insti∣tutes, and Canons imposed by Pythagoras on his Scholars, in re∣ference to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship. For the Explication whereof we may remember, that amongst Pythagoras's Scholars 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ipse dixit, HE SAID IT, i. e. Pythagoras, had the same weight and autoritie, as any Law or Canon in human Po∣lities. They disputed not but obeyed their Masters Canons and Institutes, with as great reverence as the Sons of Antichrist do his Ecclesiastic Canons: so that a Dogme or Doctrine in his Schole had the sul force and obligation of a Law, specially in maters of Discipline and Demon-worship. In imitation whereof our Apo∣stle

here tels us, that Antichrist should introduce his Demon-Dogmes, or Canons, under a pretext of Church-autoritie or tradition. And this notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it implies a Dogme or Canon, suits wel with our Apostles sense: for Antichrists Saints, couched here under the notion of Demons, take up a good part of his Canon-Law; yea the whole of their Saintship and Mediatory Office owes its origine to some Popish Canon; whence we find so frequent mention in their Canonic Theologie of the Canonisation of Saints, and Canonised Saints, &c. answerably to the Demon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deification. So that it's evident, this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Antichrist was to introduce, comprehendes his Eccle∣siastic Canons, at least such as refer to his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saint-wor∣ship. This suites with v. 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which implies a Ca∣nonic prohibition against Mariage, of which we find many bran∣ches in Antichrists Canon-Law; and with ver. 7. where we find mention of old wives fables, which indeed is a good character of al Antichrists Canons, notwithstanding their pretension to Church-Autoritie and Tradition. To which our Apostle oppo∣seth v. 9. a Divine Christian Cabala, Canon, or Tradition: This is (saies he) a faithful saying and worthy of al acceptation; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. (as Paulus Fagius) this is the true Christian Cabala, or Tradition, in opposition to al these Pythagoric, Jewish, Anti∣christian Cabala's, as before, Book 1. Chap. 4. §. 1. But we find Antichrists Ecclesiastic Canons, and their origine from Pytha∣gorean Dogmes more fully laid open to us,* 1.311 Col. 2.8, &c. where he gives them (1) a strict charge, that no one spoil them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. plunder them of their Christian libertie, or lead them cap∣tive: which exactly suites with Antichrist, his plundering Chri∣stians of their Libertie, and captivating their Consciences, or bringing them under the yoke of his Ecclesiastic Canons. Of which see what precedes, C. 1. §. 1. We find the like caution, Gal. 5.1.* 1.312 Stand fast therefore in your libertie, &c.

Where, saies Grotius, he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the yoke of bondage, not only that which the Hebrews cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the yoke of the Law; but also those Opinions or Rites, whereby the Gentiles bound themselves.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to be bound, or to be brought under an obligation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies to urge, to ensnare, to take al occasions of hurting others, as Hesychius and Eustathius: so Mar. 6.19 Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primarily signifies, to be ensna∣red, to be entangled, to be held bound. Thus these Galatians had

their Consciences entangled in the yoke of Judaic Ceremonies. It seems to allude to Oxen, whose heads are entangled in their Harnesse, or the cords of their yoke. Which exactly describes to us that obligation and bondage, which the Conscience is brought under by subjection to the yoke of Antichrists Ecclesi∣astic Canons. (2) Our Apostle, Col. 2.8.* 1.313 laies down the medium or means by which Antichrist leads captive the Consciences of men, and brings them under his Canonic yoke; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by Philosophie and vain deceit. Here is, saies Grotius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if he had said, by the vain deceit of Phi∣losophie. By Philosophie here Grotius and Hammond understand the Pythagorean; which was stuffed with Dogmes, Institutes, Tra∣ditions, and Canons, which al who were of Pythagoras's Church or College submitted unto, as their Canon-Law or Rule of Dis∣cipline; wherein they were followed by Antichrist and his Church: (as wel as the Primitive Gnosties:) so it follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the tradition of men. This Grotius ap∣plies also to the Pythagorean Philosophie, and its Human Traditi∣ons and Canons imposed on al those of that Sect; who have been herein followed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not only by the Gnostics, but also) by Antichrist; for what are al his Ecclesiastic Traditions and Canons, but corrupt Imitamens of Pythagorean and Talmudic Tra∣ditions and Canons? It's true, he pretendes unto a Church-Auto∣ritie as the fountain of al; and so did the Pharisees for al their Talmudic Traditions, or Oral Canon-Law; and yet notwithstan∣ding both one and t'other were but Traditions of men, yea of blind Pythagoreans. Thence it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Philosophie signifies a first Principe, Dogme, Institute or Canon: and he addes, of this world; because they flowed from Pythagorean Human Institution, not from Christ. We find the like, Gal. 4.3, 9. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is evidently used to signifie In∣junctions or Canons. And are not Antichrists Ecclesiastic Ca∣nons here characterised to the life? which though they claim kindred with Heavenly Tradition, yet it's a thing most plain, that they were al of terrene extract, rudiments of this world, or, as Gal. 4.9. Beggerly elements, descended from Tradition, not from Christ, as it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not according to Christ; i.e. saies Grotius, not such rudiments or canons as Christ brought from Heaven. It's true, Antichrists Canons have Christ and his Churches name affixt to them, as the Jewish Talmud or

Oral Law passeth under the name of Divine Traditions; but in truth both one and t'other owe their origine to Pythagorean In∣stitutes, Traditions, and Canons, not to Christ his Royal Ca∣non Law.* 1.314 This is farther illustrated v. 14. Blotting out the hand∣writing of Ordinances. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Bill or Bond under a mans hand, whereby he binds himself to some payment of mo∣ney or dutie: Thence Hesychius interprets it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. such a Schedule or obligation under a mans own hand, whereby he acknowledgeth a debt, and promiseth the payment, according to the day appointed. So the Legal Sacrifices, Ob∣lations, Purifications, and Ceremonies were a bond or hand∣writing, whereby the Jews testified and acknowledged their debt to Divine Justice. This Bond, saies our Apostle, Christ has can∣celled, by nailing it to his Crosse, (this being one way of can∣celling a Bond by striking a nail thorough it:) beware therefore how you suffer your selves to be brought under any fresh ob∣ligation by any Antichristian Canons or Injunctions. That this is applicable to Antichrists Ecclesiastic Canons, is evident by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appendant thereto. It is wel known that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Philosophic notion, signifying an Institute, Injunction or Canon, imposed on their Disciples, specially in the Pythagorean Schole: and it was used in the same notion in the Greek Churches, for a Decree or Canon. So Luk. 2.1. Caesar's Decree is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence this hand-writing of Ordinances is stiled, Ephes. 2.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Law of Commandments in Or∣dinances; i. e. the Jewish Canon-Law consisting of many Ordi∣nances, which Antichrist has since revived, mixing therewith many Pythagorean Dogmes or Canons. So it follows, v. 16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat and drink,* 1.315 &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, judge, is a Law-notion, and as here applied to meat and drink, suppo∣seth some Ecclesiastic Canons or Traditions, concerning the same.

Grotius makes it the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Rom. 2.1. and un∣derstandes it of those Pythagorising Masters, who imposed these their Ordinances under pain of damnation.

Which indeed is of none more true than of Antichrist, who enjoyns the Observance of his Ecclesiastic Canons and Ordinances under pain of damnati∣on, Purgatorie,* 1.316 &c. The like he addes, v. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let no man plunder you of your reward.

By reward (saies Grotius) he understands in this place the libertie vouch∣safed by Christ.

Now what has more abreged this Christian

libertie, than Antichrists Ecclesiastic Canons? which we find more fully described v. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.317 from the rudiments of the world. He repetes here what he had before mentioned v. 8.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saies Grotius) signifies al Institutions. They are called the Rudiments of this world, because they were com∣mun to the Gentiles with the Jews; yea they seem rather to be traduced from the Gentiles to the Jews, than to procede from the Jews to the Gentiles.

So that we see what was the fountain whence Antichrist derived his Ecclesiastic Institutes, namely some human, and principally Pythagorean Institution or Canon; which the Apostle gives a strict caution against in what follows, Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to Ordi∣nances? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. why do ye suffer your selves to be im∣posed upon by those Antichristian Pythagorean Dogmes? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as has been before observed, signifies to impose a Dogme, Institute, or Canon, answerably to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to impose a Law. And look as the Pythagoreans had their Dogmes, Institutes or Canons, which they imposed on their Disciples; so Antichrist his Eccle∣siastic Canons or Laws, which for the most part were of Pytha∣gorean extract, as v. 21. of which hereafter. Thence it follows,* 1.318 v. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the Com∣mandements and doctrines of men. This relates to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 20. as if he had said, Al these Pythagorean Injunctions, Dogmes, or Canons, which these Gnostics have already assumed, and Anti∣christ wil hereafter re-assume, they are but human sigments or Traditions, not of Divine stampe and institution. Whence he addes, v. 23. Which things indeed have a shew of wisdome.* 1.319 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an apparence of Divine, Canonic institution. As al Antichrists Canons have a shew of Church-Autoritie, or Divine Canonic In∣stitution, though they are indeed but Human, Pythagorean, and Jewish Traditions, founded on Wil-worship: as it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies Grotius, signifies Rites or Ceremonies;

which had its origine from the Thracians, as Plutarch teach∣eth us. Whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Rites and Observations taken up of our own accord; which the Hebrews cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Such indeed are al Antichrists Institutes and Canons,

no other than the Injunctions of his own Anti∣christian Pleasure, taken up in imitation of Pythagorean Dogmes, mixed with some Jewish Ordinances, and framed into a Canon-Law, for the conservation of his tyrannic Wil-worship, which

he imposeth on al his slaves, under the usurped pretension of Church-autoritie, and Apostolic Tradition. Thus we have shewen what foundation Antichrists Canonic Theologie, as to its formal con∣stitution, had in the Pythagorean Philosophie.

§. 3.* 1.320 As Antichrist derived the Forme, so in like manner the Mater of his Ecclesiastic Canons from Pagan Philosophie; the De∣monstration whereof wil appear evident from an enumeration of Particulars. Indeed the whole bodie of Antichrists Canon-Law seems to be but a reviving of the old Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship, according to Pauls Prophetic description of that Man of Sin, 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. We shal insist only on such of his Canons as are manifestly Derivations from, and Imi∣tamens of the Philosophers Demon-worship. And the main seat of this Discourse shal be that great character of Antichrists Dis∣cipline, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3.* 1.321 Doctrines of Demons, &c. Before we enter upon the examen of Particulars, we are to make our way plain by removing those Antichristian Glosses, which are given by Grotius, and his Adherents, on this and such-like characters of Antichrist. Grotius restraines these words to Apollonius Tya∣naeus, that Pythagorean Sorcerer, and Hammond seems to limit them to Simon Magus, and other Gnostic Heretics; which so far as they were Forerunners of Antichrist, we have before admit∣ted. But yet that the main scope of this Prophetic Character is to delineate Antichrist, and his Demon-worship introduced by his Ecclesiastic Canons, is excellently wel proved to our hands by Mede, on 2 Pet. 2.1. (Diatr. 3. pag. 532). In these Prophe∣sies

(saies he) of a general defection and Apostasie of the later times, 2 Thes. 2. 1 Tim. 4.1, &c. if St. Paul should mean no other but the Errors of particular men, and their trouble from the Church, they should make no Prophesie at al, or a needlesse one. For who knows not, that in St. Paul's, St. John's, and the Apostles times were diverse Heresies and Heretics here and there dispersed: of al these they could not mean, when as (1) the known bodie of the visible Church disclaimed them. (2) They foretel of a corruption to come in after times, or as 1 Tim. 4.1. In the later times: for no man useth to foretel of things which are already, as if they were to come. — The corruption and defection therefore so much prophesied of, was another manner of one; such a kind of one as had neither been before in the Church, nor was to be; namely such an one as should not be

disclaimed by the bodie of the Church, but should surprise and overwhelme the visible Church itself.

We now procede to the particulars of Antichrist's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Canonic Demon-worship, according to 1 Tim. 4.1.* 1.322 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here signifies not a mere Speculative Doctrine, but an Institute or Canon, as Col. 2.22. answerably to the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Col. 2.14, 20. we have pro∣ved §. 2. To which we may adde, that this also suites with the no∣tion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which, according to Pagan and Scripture-phraseologie, signifies not a mere Doctor and Teacher, but also an Institutor or Preceptor, who has Autoritie to impose his Dogmes and Canons; whence the proper title given to Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, answerably to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rabbi. So that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we must understand those Ecclesiastic Insti∣tutes or Canons, which Antichrist was to frame, for the introducing the Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Demon-worship. And that this is the proper notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place, namely to signifie Demons, (not Devils as Grotius wil have it) is evident from those parallel places, Act. 17.22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rev. 9.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Cor. 10.21, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Of which more in what follows. Now these Demon-Dogmes or Canons framed by Anti∣christ, in imitation of the old Grecian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (framed by the Philosophers, and made a chief part of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural Theologie) comprehend several branches parallel to the Pagan Demon-Canons.

1. As the Philosophers had their Deified Demons,* 1.323 which took up a good part of their Natural Theologie, so also Antichrist has his Canonised Saints, who fil up a great part of his Canon-Law, as 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demons. Mede, in his excellent Discourse of the Apostasie of the later times, opens this Text at large, and shews,

That the Primitive Christians Canonised Saints, and honored their Reliques in imitation of the Gentiles, their Demon worship, thereby to allure them; which laid the foundation of Antichrist's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Idolatric Apostasie.

We shal discourse a little more distinctly and particularly tou∣ching these Antichristian Saints, and their derivation from the Pagan Demons. As for the origine of the Philosophers Demons we have once and again discoursed thereof, as Part 2. Bock 2. Chap. 8. §. 11. and P. 3. B. 2. C. 1. §. 1. also Philosoph. General. P. 1. L. 3. C. 4. §. 4. We shal adde thereto what account we

find hereof in Augustin and Ludovicus Vives thereon. August. de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 18. tels us,

That Apuleius (and who∣ever are of the same opinion) does in vain defer or bestow this honor on those Demons, whom he placeth as midling Gods in the Air, as those who must transport the prayers of men to the Gods, and thence the commands of the Gods to men. For they who believed these things thought it unworthy for men to mingle with the Gods, or the Gods with men; but that it was meet for these Demons to mingle with men and the Gods.

Where Ludovicus Vives gives this whole Mysterie more fully to us:

This is the opinion of Plato in his Convivium, and attributed to Socrates, who asking Diotima what Love was? she made answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A great Demon, O Socrates: for every De∣mon is a middle betwixt God and Mortal. Socrates not yet un∣derstanding, demands what this Demon's power and nature was? then Diotima answers, to interpret and conveigh human affaires to the Gods, and Divine affaires to us: i. e. prayers and sacrifices from men to the Gods, and precepts and rewards from the Gods to men. Wherefore Demons being placed in the middle, they fil up that place, that so the universe may be wel disposed and conjoined. Hence flows Prophetes, and al Sacerdotal art, and whatever belongs to Sacrifices, and In∣cantations. To these she addes, what Augustin cites, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. God mingleth not with man; but al com∣merce betwixt men and God is by Demons. These Apuleius cals Administers and Salvation-bringers. They are called by Capella, Angels, i.e. Messengers.

Now that the Popish Saints were taken up, and brought into the Church in imitation of these Pagan Demons seems very evident, and that according to the general consent both of ancient and moderne Writers. Indeed there was a great foundation laid for these Antichristian De∣mons or Saints in the fourth Centurie, as soon as the Church began to have any relaxation from Pagan persecution. This I gather out of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 26.

But that Egyptian Trismegistus seems to grieve, that the Commemorati∣ons of our Martyrs should succede the Temples and Commemo∣rations of their Demons; so that he who shal read these things with a mind perverse and averse from us, may think, that as the Pagans worshipped their Gods in their Temples, so we wor∣ship

our dead Martyrs at their Graves, &c.

By which it is evident, that in Augustin's time the Christians performed many Commemorations and other solemnities at the Graves of the Martyrs and Saints, al which had a very great ressemblance with the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon worship; though as yet it was not arrived to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Saint-worship. For Augustin, in his following Chapter endeavors to vindicate this respect which some gave to the Martyrs and Saints from the imputation of Saint-worship; though it is most certain, that it laid a very great foundation for the same, as it may appear by Augustin's own words, and the observations of learned Papists thereon. Au∣gust. de civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 27. speakes thus,

Neither do we notwithstanding constitute Temples, Priesthoods, Sacreds, and Sacrifices to these Martyrs; because they are not our God, but their God is ours. — Where-ever therefore there be perfor∣med Religiose Obsequies, in the places where Martyrs suffer∣ed, they are only Ornaments for Memorial, not Sacreds, or Sacrifices of the Dead, as if they were Gods. Whoever also carrie their Banquets thither, which truely is not performed by the better sort of Christians, and in many Countries there is no such custome; yet whoever they be who do this, (which Banquets when they have set down at the Martyrs Sepulchre, they pray and carrie them away, that they may feste thereon, or that they may bestow them upon the poor amongst them) they wil that their Banquets be sanctified there, by the merits of the Martyrs, in the name of the God of the Martyrs. But yet he who acknowledgeth one true God does not acknow∣lege these to be Sacrifices of the Martyrs. We therefore wor∣ship not our Martyrs with Divine honors, as they worship their Demon Gods.

Thus Augustin. By which, though he en∣deavors to vindicate the Christians of his age from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship performed to the Saints; yet it is evident by his own confession, that some superstitiose Christians were too much inclined thereto: for he saies, That they carried their Ban∣quets to the Sepulchres of the Martyrs, and there prayed, and so carried them away again, supposing them to be sanctified by the me∣rits of the Martyrs. Yea, Augustin, Lib. 6. of his Confessions, re∣lateth of his own Mother,

That she brought to Milan, for a Commemoration of the Saints, Bread, and Fruments, and Wine, and gave them to the dore-keeper: But these things were pro∣hibited

by Ambrose, to avoid occasion of rioting, and because these kind of Parentals were most like to the Gentiles super∣stition.

This also is taken notice of by Cassander, that learned and moderate Papist, Consultat. Art. 21. de Venerat. Reliqu.

More∣over, in the times of Ambrose and Augustin this custome pre∣vailed, that the people brought Banquets for the Commemo∣ration of the Martyrs, which that it was not done by the bet∣ter Christians, but prohibited by Ambrose at Milan, Augustin testifies, Confess. l. 6. c. 2.

And that these and such-like Imita∣mens of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship, gave a great and effectual entrance to the Popish Canonised Saints, and their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is confessed by some ingenuous Papists. So Ludovicus Vives, on these words of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 27. But these are not the sacrifices of Martyrs.

Many Christians, saies he, often offend in a good mater, in that they worship their He-and-She-Saints as God: neither can I discerne any difference in many things between this their opinion of Saints, and that which the Gentiles had of their Gods.

Which is indeed a great and most true Confession, and is taken notice of by several of our Writers: as by Reignolds in his Conference with Hart, where he tels,

That Ludovicus Vives saith in his Comment on Augustin, l. 8. c. 27. that Saints are estimed and worshipped by many as were the Gods amongst the Gentiles.

The like Con∣fession I find in Cassander, that moderate Papist, in his Consul∣tation, Art. 21. where quoting this place of Augustin, he saith,

That the ignorance of the commun people hath attributed Di∣vine honor to the Saints; as when Temples, Altars, Sacrifi∣ces, Priesthoods, Vows, Festivals are conceived to be conse∣crated not only to the memorie, as the Ancients speak, but to the honor and worship of the Saints. Which Error Augu∣stin now and then refutes: We, saies he, build not Temples to the Martyrs, as to Gods, but memorials for them as dead men.

Where Grotius observes wel,

That we should take diligent heed, lest under too favorable inclinations in this mater, the Pa∣gan customes be reduced into Christianisme.

Thus we see how Antichrists Canonised Saints were but Imi∣tamens or Apes of the Gentile-Demons.* 1.324 And to make the parallel yet more exact and clear, we shal shew how these Popish Saints had the very same origine amongst Christians, as the Deified De∣mons had amongst the Pagans. We have already, C. 1. §. 3. trea∣ted

of the Origine of those Demons out of Plato, who tels us,

That they were certain noble Heroes belonging to the Golden-Age, who having been exceding famose for their Wisdome, Virtues, or some wonderful atchievements and warlike exploits, were after their death, according to the appointment of the Divine Oracle, Deified and worshipped as Gods.

We find the like account in Hesiod, (whom Plato cites to the same purpose) who saies,

That the men of the Golden-Age being dead be∣came, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demons and Conserva∣tors of mortal men.

By men of the Golden Age, we need no way dout but Hesiod and Plato meant the first Patriarches and Heads of mankind; who having gained a great estime with their Po∣steritie, for some conceived excellence of Wisdome, Virtue, or Warlike exploits, were, by the Devils inveiglement, Idolised by Superstitiose spirits, as Demons, or Deisied Mediators. This is wel observed by Mede, on Gen. 3.13-15. (Diatrib. 2. p. 428)

Here I observe, (saies he) that over-much dotage upon a con∣ceived excellence, whether of Wisdome, or whatsoever else, without a special eye to Gods Commandement, hath ever been the occasion of greatest Errors in the World; and the Devil under this maske, useth to bleer our eyes, and with this bait to enveigle our hearts, that he may securely bring us to his lure. The admired Wisdome of the long-living Fathers of the elder World, having been for so many Ages as Oracles to their off-spring growen even to a People and Nation while they lived, was the ground of the ancient Idolatrie of mankind, whilest they supposed, that those to whom for Wisdome they had recourse being living, could not but help them when they were dead. This we may learne out of Hesiod, who saith, The men of the Golden Age being dead, became Demons, or Godlings and Patrons of mortal men. So the opinion of the blessed Martyrs superlative Glorie in Heaven, was made the occasion of the New-found Idolatrie of the Christian-Churches, wherewith they are for the greatest part yet overwhelmed. And the estime which Peter had above the rest of the Apostles, in regard of Chiesdome, even in the Apostles times, was abused by the old Deceiver, to instal the man of sin. This made St. Paul to say, 2 Thes. 2.7.

The mysterie of iniquitie was then working, &c. Thus we see how the Popish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saint-worship, had the very same origine or foundation as the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, viz.

some conceived excellence, pretended merit, or wonder-working power.

§. 4. We have given some account of the origine of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Primitive Churches of the third and fourth Centurie, we shal procede to treat more particularly of it as reduced by Antichrist unto his systeme or bodie of Canonic Theologie in the following Centuries, with endeavors to demon∣strate its exact symbolisation with the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And in this procedure we shal discourse more particularly (1) of the origine of these Canonised Saints; (2) of their formal Cano∣nisation; (3) of their Mediatory office; and al in imitation of the Pagan Demons, their origine, &c.

1.* 1.325 As to the origine of these Canonised Saints, it was, as it has been hinted, the very same with that of the Pagan Demons, namely from a superstitiose conceit of some Divine Wisdome, Power, and Excellence in their Ancestors. For look as in the old World, its infant-state, God vouchsafed several gloriose Ma∣nifestations of a miraculose Power and Providence with his Church and People, thereby to confirme their Faith and amaze their Enemies; which the Devil in following Ages endeavoring to imitate by his fabulose Apparitions, and lying wonders, al∣lured the credulous Superstitiose World into a fond admiration of their Demon-Gods, their Miraculose Apparations and Power: so in like manner in the Primitive Churches, Christ vouchsafing a Miraculose Power and Providence to the first Planters of the Christian Faith; Antichrist in following Ages affected the like wonder-working Power, and ascribed the same to his Canonised Saints.* 1.326 Al this seems fully implied in that 1 Tim. 4.2. where having made mention, v. 1. of Antichrist's Doctrines of Demons, which he should introduce into the Church under his Canoni∣sed Saints, he addes v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Speaking lies in hypocrisie, or through the hypocrisie of liers. These lies which Antichrist speakes are called, 2 Thes. 2.9. Lying wonders, or lying miracles; which he pretendes to worke in and by his Demons, or Canonised Saints; and these he is said to speak, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in hypocrisie. The primitive notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a personation, or imitation: so in Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an hy∣pocrite, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Imitator, or one that perso∣nates another. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, (1) to simulate, feigne, or coun∣terfeit either a person or thing.* 1.327 So Luk. 20.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who

feigned themselves righteous. Thence (2) to act the part of another, to imitate, personate, or represent another. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to represent Nestor. Whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies among the ancient Grecians, Histrio, or Mimus, one that personates or imitates an∣other. Thence also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies an Histrionic Art, the representation or imitation of another person, the fiction of a person on the Theatre or Stage. And this seems the proper import of it here, 1 Tim. 4.2. Where the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes the cause and manner of the action, and therefore it is rendred by Beza and Schmidius, per, through the hypocrisie of liers. Which Mede understandes Transitively, and so to be repeted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as applicable to al the following branches; namely, that through the hypocrisie, simulation, or imitation of liers, of men of scared Consciences, of those that forbid Mariage and Meats, &c. al those Demon-Doctrines should be introduced by Antichrist and his Sectators. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be very properly render'd here, in or through Imitation, or Hypocrisie, as Schmidius and Beza. By which is signified, that they should act the part of Stage-players, or Mimes, that imitate some other person; and by their Histrionic or Hypocritic Imitation introduce al the old Pagan De∣mon-Doctrines and Superstitions. And so the sense is this: that Antichrist's Canonised Saints should be introduced into the Church of Christ, in imitation of the Pagan Demons, by lying wonders, &c. This began about the fifth Centurie, after the death of Julian the Apostate; though these Saints came not to be formally Canonised 'til about the middle of the ninth Cen∣turie. We have the whole of this Mysterie of Iniquitie excellent∣ly unfolded to us, by Mede on this, 1 Tim. 4.2. Touching the Apostasie of the later times, Edit. 2. pag. 120.

The Deifying and invocating of Saints, and adoring reliques, is the most ancient for time of al the rest of the Demon Popish Idolatrie, and be∣gan to appear in the Church presently after the death of Ju∣lian the Apostate: the grounds and occasions whereof were most strange reports of wonders shewed upon those, who approched the Shrines of Martyrs, and prayed at their Memories and Sepulchres; Devils charmed, diseases cured, &c. which the Doctors of those times avouched to be done by the power and prayers of glorified Martyrs, and by the notice they took of mens devotions at their Sepulchres; though at the beginning such devotions were directed to God alone; and those places

only chosen for the stirring up zele and fervor, by the memo∣rie of those blessed and gloriose champions of Christ. But while the world stood in admiration, and the most estimed of these Wonders, as of the gloriose beams of the triumph of Christ, they were soon persuaded to cal upon them as Patrons and Mediators; whose power with God and notice of things done upon earth, they thought that these signes and miracles ap∣proved.

And then he addes, pag. 121,-123.

But here is the wonder of wonders, that none of these miraculose signes were ever heard of in the Church for the first three hundred years after Christ. — But in this also the Idolatrie of Saint-worship was a true counterfeit of the Gentiles Idolatrie of Demons. Did not Demon-worship enter after the very same manner? was it not first insinuated, and after established by signes and wonders of the very self-same kind?

Whence he addes, pag. 125, &c.

The second particular of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was fabulose Legends of the Acts of Saints and Martyrs. This was also an∣other means to advance the Doctrines of Demons. For the true acts and stories of Martyrs being extinguished for the most part, by the bloodie Edict of Dioclesian, they now begin to supplie again that losse, by collecting such tales as were then current of them, and adding such Miracles as were fabled after their death, fashioned al to the best advantage of what they meant to promote in the Church, and was already on foot in the same.

* 1.328 Hence Revel. 13.15. it's said, that Antichrist, by his lying wonders and hypocritic assuming of a Vicarious power from Christ, had power to give life to the Image of the Beste. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the image, i.e. to forme an Antichristian Church, Wor∣ship, Ceremonies, and Institutes exactly conformable to the De∣mon-worship, Institutes and Ceremonies of the Pagan Beste. By al which it is most evident, that, as face answers to face in the glasse, so these Canonised Saints, their origine from lying Won∣ders and fabulose Legends exactly answers to the Pagan Demons, their origine from lying wonders, and Poetic fables. So that we may safely conclude, according to 1 Tim. 4.2. that the origine of these Popish Saints,* 1.329 &c. was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, through the personation or imitation of those liers, who by their lying wonders, &c. introduced those Gentile Demons and their wor∣ship.

2. Having given the original grounds and occasion of Anti∣christs

Canonised Saints, exactly parallel to that of the Gentile Demons, we now procede to their formal Canonisation, to de∣monstrate how this also was according to 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of that fabulose, lying, Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Deification of their Demons. And for the clearing hereof we must remember, that though Antichrist's Demons or Saints had their vital and principal parts formed betimes, even assoon as he himself received his Spirit, Head, and Power, namely about the fifth Centurie, as has been proved; yet they came not to be Canonised Saints, or complete Mediators, til about the middle of the ninth Centurie. For we must know, that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Demon worship, introduced by Antichrist, was opposed in the Easterne and Greek Churches by diverse Emperors, Nobles, Bi∣shops, and People, from the year 720 til after the year 840. Yea some denied the title of Saints unto Martyrs: neither could any of the Popes before Adrian, about the year 880 obtain a fixed Canon for the Canonising of Saints, and establishing their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This has been wel observed by a French Author, Traitè des anciennes Ceremonies, pag. 67.

In the year 880, Pope Adrian was the first who resolved to Canonise the Saints, imi∣tating therein the Apotheoses of the Romans under Paganisme.

And that this Canonisation of Saints was indeed the very same with the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apotheosis or Deification of Demons, appears from the very confession of their own Canonists, quoted by learned Bochart, in his Discourse against Veron, p. 815.

The Roman Church has other Gods, the Pope, the Masse-God, the Virgin Marie; to whom Leo the tenth gives the title of God∣desse; the Angels and al the Saints, who are Gods by partici∣pation, according to the Doctrine of Cajetan: whence it is that the Director of the Inquisitors cals the Canonisation of Saints, Apotheosis, i.e. Deification.

Wherein note, that Caje∣tan's Gods by participation, are the very same, both name and thing, with Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made-Gods, which is the title he gives his Demons. And that this Popish Canonisation of Saints is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a personation and imitation of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apotheosis, is farther evident from the samenesse of Rites and Modes used both in one and t'other. As for the Demon-Apotheosis we have it mentioned in Plato, Rep. 5. pag. 469. We consult the Divine Oracle in what rank those blessed divine men are to be had, and with what ensignes they are to be honored; and we

performe unto them the same honors which he prescribeth, and for the future we serve and worship them as Demons. And do not the sons of Antichrist take the very same course in the Canoni∣sation of their Saints? do they not first consult the Pope their great Oracle, and then according to his Prescript or Canon, worship their Saints? yea, to demonstrate this yet more fully, it is observable, that the Papists give unto their Canonised Saints the very same Rites, Ceremonies, and Ensignes, which the Pa∣gans gave to their Demon-Gods. Thus Bochart against Veron, part. 3. cap. 25. pag. 888.

They have transferred to their Saints al the Equipage of the Pagan Gods: to St. Wolfang the Hat∣chet, or Hook of Saturne; to Moses the Hornes of Jupiter Hammon; to St. Peter the keyes of Janus. In brief, they have chassed away al the Gods out of the Pantheon at Rome, to place in their room al the Saints: Whose Images they worship with like devotion, as those of the Pagan Gods sometimes were. They dresse them up in apparel, they crown them with garlands of flowers, they carrie them on their shoulders, they bow before them, they addresse their prayers to them, they make them descend from Heaven, they attribute to them mira∣culose virtues, &c.

By which it's manifest, that these Popish Canonised Saints were introduced by Antichrist 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as 1 Tim. 4.2. in an hypocritic lying imitation of the Pagan Deified Demons.

5.* 1.330 As Antichrist's Canonised Saints are parallel to the Pagan Demons as to their origine and formal Canonisation, so in like manner in point of Office, as Mediators betwixt God and men. This also is implied in 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i.e. tea∣ching lying false Saint-mediators, in imitation of the Pagan-De∣mon-mediators. We have before Chap. 1. §. 3 proved out of Plato and others, that the great office of the Pagan Demons was to be as Mediators betwixt the supreme God or Gods, and men; because as Plato affirmes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the supreme God mingles not with men, but by the mediation of these Demons. And more particularly, he tels us, that these Demons were ap∣pointed (1) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to interpret and transport the prayers and sacrifices of men to God, and the commands and re∣wards of God to men. (2) That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, al Divination was from these Demons. (3) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, al communion with God was by virtue of these Demons. (4) To which adde, that of

Hesiod, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demons are patrons of mortal men. So Diogenes Laertius, in the Life of Zeno, saies, that the Stoics held such Demons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. who had compassion of men, and a very great care of human af∣faires. Now do not the Popish Canonic Saints exactly answer to these Pagan Demons in al these points? Are they not made Interpreters of mens desires to God, and conveighers of Gods gifts to men? do not these sons of Antichrist, by virtue of their Saints work Miracles, divine, &c? Have they not al their Tute∣lar Saints, or Demons? Lastly, is not al communion betwixt God and men in the Roman Church transacted by their Canoni∣sed Saints or Demons? We have a good reflexion hereon made by judiciose and holy Deering, on Heb. 4 15.

The Papists have learned to make the Saints their Mediators from the Heathens. The Gods of the Gentiles, which were Devils, had this wor∣ship amongst them: the Devils amongst themselves, they who were reputed of a lower sort were made as means to come un∣to the higher; whereof they were called Dii Medioxumi, i.e. Gods only for intercession. The Gentiles Books are ful of Exem∣ples, how these things were practised: as if Neptune would speak to Jupiter, he made Mercurie his intercessor. — And what else do the Papists but teach al their posteritie in chusing many Mediators, to have considence in none, no boldnesse un∣to God, &c?

Yea Cardinal Perron observing this ressemblance betwixt the Grecian Demons and their Canonised, Saints makes use of the former to prove the later. So Bochart contre Veron, pag. 883.

The Sieur du Perron cites Plato to prove, that the Dead have care of things here below.

These Canonised Saints are also exactly parallel with the Phenician Baalim (which were the same with the Grecian Demons) brought into the Jewish Church by Jezebel, and set up as Mediators in the room of the true Messias, of which we find a good account in Mede on 2 Pet. 2.1. Diatrib. 3. pag. 548.

The second main Apostasie is called the way of Ahab; not because he was the first bringer in, but the chief establisher thereof, — which was to worship Baal-Gods, or Baalim; supposing either by these to have easier ac∣cesse to the Lord of Hosts the Soverain God; or that these he might have resort unto at al times for al maters; as being near at hand, and not so high in dignitie, &c. when therefore Christians do worship or invocate Saints or Angels, whether

with Images or without, to be as under-Mediators with God for them, or of themselves to bestow some favor upon them, those who do this are fallen into the Apostasie of Ahab. — Here note, that wheresoever you read in Scripture of the Ido∣latrie of Jeroboam's Calves, and of Ahab's Baalim, thinke of what I have told you, and know that whatsoever God speakes against those things here, the same he speakes of the Apostate Christians under Rome, whose case is in al points the same, &c.

These Baalim or Demon-Mediators seem pointed at by Paul, 1 Cor. 8.5.* 1.331 Lords many. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to the Phenician 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Baalim. They derive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cyrus, Pers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Coresch; which among the Persians was one of the greatest Titles of ho∣nor, signifying Lord; whereby they called, (1) The Sun, their supreme Lord: So Plutarch in Artoxerxe, informes us, That the Persians called the Sun, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cyrus: and so it agrees with the Hebraic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cheres, which signifies the Sun. (2) Cyrus their great Emperor, who was dignified with the same title of Ho∣nor, as their supreme Lord on earth, and after his death wor∣shipped by them as a Demon, or one of their Baalim, Mediato∣rie Lords. Hence the Exploits of Cyrus being most famose a∣mong the Grecians, or else from the Suns Dominion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sig∣nified among the Grecians supreme Dominion, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 supreme Lord, the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baal. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here being of the same import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baalim, plainly indigitates the Philo∣sophers Demons, or Mediatorie Lords, which were the original Exemplars of Antichrist's Mediatorie Saints. But more expresly Col. 2.8, 9, 10, &c. v. 8. our Apostle gives us an account of the means by which the Gnostics of that Age, and Antichrist after them, should introduce these Demon-Mediators, and that is vain Pythagorean Philosophie; to which v. 9. he opposeth Christ, in whom dwels al the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily.* 1.332 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. really, essentially, and perfectly, in opposition to those Demons or Idol-Gods. Whence he addes, v. 10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of al principalitie and power. i.e. Christ is your complete Mediator, who is Head or Soverain of al Angels and men, and therefore infinitely above al tho2e Pythagorean Demons, Gnostic Aeones, and Popish Canonised Saints, be they what they wil. Thence he subjoines ver. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntarie humilitie and worshipping of Angels. Which the Gnostics then, and Antichrist since intro∣duced,

placing Angels as Mediators in the room of Christ. So it follows, ver. 19. Not holding the head. i.e. They who are guilty of this Angel-worship do thereby disclaim Christ, who is the only Mediator and Intercessor to the Father. By which Prophetic discoverie the Spirit of God doth fully strike tho∣rough al those Demon-Saint-Mediators, which Antichrist by his Ecclesiastic Canons has introduced and placed on Christ's Throne. It would be an endlesse thing to enumerate al those Canonised Saints, which Antichrist has by his creative power erected as Mediators, in imitation of the Pagan Demons: I shal yet men∣tion one or two of the chiefest. The supreme and head of al Antichrist's Canonic Saints is the Virgin Marie, who passeth a∣mongst his Sons for a Deesse or Godesse, yea they seem to lay more stresse upon her Mediation and Intercession than upon Christ's. This our blessed Lord foreseeing seems to give a tacite check unto, in not admitting her to be an Intercessor here on Earth, in a smal and trivial case. So Joh. 2.4.* 1.333 What have I to do with thee, O woman, &c.? Christ denies her Mediation and Intercession in a trifle, thereby to rebuke those fond conceits, which he foresaw Antichrist would in following times insinuate touching her prevalence and Intercession with himself. Another great Saint-Mediator is Peter; to whom they give the Keys of Heaven. But we find Paul to put a stop to this Idolising hu∣mor, as much depressing him as Antichrist exalts him. Yea in∣deed nothing is more injuriose to those blessed Spirits than to attribute to them a Mediatorie Office. Whence the Spirit, of God cals this, blasphemie against those heavenly inhabitants,* 1.334 Rev. 13.6. And them that dwelt in heaven; i. e. saies Mede, (in his Clav. Apocalyp.) against Angels and men, by Demon-worship. And indeed what greater contumelie or blasphemie can there be cast forth against those glorified Spirits, than to place them in the room of Pagan Demons, to occupie and possesse the Me∣diatorie Throne of their dearest Lord, whose glorie is so dear unto them? Certainly Antichrist wil never receive thankes from them for this pretended favor, but real blasphemie against them.

SECT. III. That Antichrist's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is but an Imitamen of the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, demonstrated from the several parts thereof.

§. 1.* 1.335 WE have hitherto treated of the Origine, Canonisati∣on, and Mediatorie Office of Antichrist's Canonised Saints, and proved, that al was but, as 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a personation or imitation of Pagan Demons: We shal now pro∣cede to discourse more professedly and particularly of Antichrists Canonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saint-worship, with endeavors to prove, That al is but, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Mimic imitation of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, De∣mon-worship. And to make our way hereunto clear, we shal lay down these two Premunitions. (1) That the formal constitution, or essence of Antichrist's Apostasie lies in Idolatrie. (2) That this Antichristian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saint-worship, is really Idolatrie.

First,* 1.336 That Antichrists formal Idea or essence consistes in Ido∣latrie, is evident by those Characters which are given him in Scripture. Babylon his royal feat, is called, Rev. 17.5. The mo∣ther of Harlots; and so elsewhere the great Whore, &c. Now this is the usual Character of Idolaters in the Old Testament, as Hos. 2. And there is much reason why Antichrist's Idolatrie, as al other, should be expressed under this Symbolic image of Adul∣terie. For Believers in regard of their Consciences are looked upon as the Spouse of Christ. So 2 Cor. 11.2. I am jealous of you, &c. wherefore to submit the Conscience to any but Christ, is according to Divine estimation spiritual Adulterie. This is the case of Antichristian, as of al other Idolatrie, which cuts the bond of Communion betwixt Christ and any Church, as Adul∣terie does the Mariage bond betwixt Husband and Wife. This is wel observed by Mede on 2 Pet. 2.1. Diatrib. 3. pag. 554, 555.

As a Wife who hath given her faith to one Husband, if she commits adulterie with others, denies him to be that she cals him, though she cal him her Husband never so much; so the Church, the Spouse of Christ, if she bow down her self to other Mediators, she commits spiritual adulterie, i.e. Idolatrie, and denies the Lord that bought her,* 1.337 as here 2 Pet. 2.1. That this should be the meaning here, let this one reason serve the turne, that this is alwaies the meaning of the like phrase in the Old Testament; where instead of the Lord that bought them,

we have the Lord that brought them out of the land of Egypt. So Deut. 32.15. Judg. 2.12. Psal. 81.10, 11. — The Holy Ghost placeth the essence and soul of the great Apostasie, un∣der the Man of Sin, in Idolatrie and spiritual fornication: other Errors or Heresies, how grosse soever are but accidental to that great Apostasie: even as Whores have usually other faultes, which yet are no parts of Whoredome; so hath the spiritual Whore many other Heresies, but her Whoredome is Idolatrie. Idolatrie is the only character and note, whereby the great Apostasie of the visible Church is distinguished from al other blasphemies and heresies of what age soever.

The same he addes, Diatr. 4. pag. 254.

Babylon is not called the Lyar of Babylon, the Tyrant of Babylon, the Heretic of Babylon, the murtherer of Babylon; but the Whore of Babylon. — Now if the Church of Rome be not an Idolatresse or spiritual Whore, pro∣stituting her self to other Gods, to Stocks and Stones, and many waies breaking her faith to her one Lord and Mediator Christ Jesus, by committing fornication with I know not how many other Mediators, there never was a Whore in the World. And certainly if the Church of Rome may herein be justified, the Church of Israel had but hard measure to be condemned for spiritual Adulterie or Idolatrie.

This also is wel observed by Mestrezat, de l' Eglise liv 2. c. 4.

Idolatrie cuts the bond of Communion betwixt the Creature and the Creator, in the same sort as Adulterie does the Mariage-bond, &c.

And there is yet a farther mysterie in this name of the great Whore of Ba∣bylon, Rev. 17.5. Mysterie, Babylon the great, mother of Harlots.* 1.338 (1) The first part of this Antichristian Name is Mysterie, which denotes, that her Apostasie is a Mysterie of Iniquity, as 2 Thes. 2.7. i.e. [1] A profound infinite Golphe or Abysse of al manner of Iniquitie. So Josephus speaking of Antipater the Son of Herod, a most wicked wretch, saith, That man erres not, who affirmeth, that the life of Antipater was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a mysterie of iniquitie. Of which more hereafter, S. 4. §. 2. [2] This Antichristian Whore is said to have Mysterie written on her forehead, in that al her Doctrines and Superstitions were but a mysteriose hypocritic Imitamen of Demon-Doctrines and Superstitions, under the masque and vizard of Christianitie. Thence the Antichristian Beste, when he came upon the Stage, appeared in the forme, not of a Dragon, as the Pagan Beste, Revel. 12.7. but of a

Leopard,* 1.339 or Panther, Rev. 13.2, which by his sweet smel and beautiful color allures al Bestes to it. And it's said, Rev. 13.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. that Antichrist had two hornes like a Lamb, [i.e. like Christ] and did wonders, and deceived men, &c. and al this in a mysterie, or under a semblance of being Christ's Vicar; though indeed he gave life to the Image of the Beste; i.e. revived al the Demon-worship of the Pagan Beste. And to decipher this Mysterie of Antichrist, what Joseph Scaliger mentions on Revel. 17.5. is worthy of particular remarque:

Mr. de Montmorency being at Rome, when they spake freely of the Pope, was told by a Father of good repute, that on the Frontal of the Pope's Mitre was writ in letters of Gold, MYSTERIƲM; which title was since altered by Julius, as that which demonstrated this name, Revel. 17.5. to belong to him.

But then, (2) Why is she called Babylon the Great, &c? Why, we must know, that she is called Babylon the Great, in the same respect that Nim∣rod is called a mighty hunter, Gen. 10.9. i. e. in regard of ty∣rannic usurpation: for look as old Babel was the first seat and patterne of ambitiose usurpation and tyrannie under Nimrod; so the Roman Church, which is here named spiritual Babylon, is the seat of Antichrist's tyrannic Usurpation and Domination. But this is not al. (3) There follows another part of her name, that is, the mother of Harlots, &c. Herein also this Antichristi∣an Whore imitates old Babel, which we know was the first foun∣dresse of Idols and Demon-worship or Idolatrie which is spiri∣tual Adulterie. And has not Rome exactly answered her pat∣terne, old Babylon, in Spiritual fornication or Demon-Idolatrie? So that we see this Mystic name of the Whore of Babylon con∣tains two parts. [1] Spiritual Ʋsurpation. [2] Spiritual Forni∣cation, or Idolatrie: and al in imitation of old Babel's tyrannic Usurpation and Idolatrie. And it is farther worth our observa∣tion, that these two have usually by a secret judgement of God gone hand in hand; for when Gods people wil serve other Gods or Mediators, God in righteousnesse leaves them to fal under the Tyrannie of other Lords. This is Gods regular course to punish Idolatrie with slaverie, as Mede has wel observed on Jer. 10.11. Diatr. 2.

2.* 1.340 Another name given to Antichrist, whereby his Apostasie is notified to us, is Blasphemie; so Rev. 13.1. and upon his heads the name of Blasphemie. That this name of Blasphemie is here

given him to signifie his Idolatrie and Demon-worship, is evident from the usual Phraseologie of Scripture, which frequently ex∣presseth Idolatrie by this name of Blasphemie. There are three words in the Hebrew by which Idolatrie is signified unto us, al which the LXX and Vulgar Latin render Blasphemie.* 1.341 (1) Ezech. 20.27. your Fathers have blasphemed me: the Original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 garats, signifies Idolatrie. (2) Esa. 65.7. And blasphemed me:* 1.342 the He∣brew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which answereth to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Theodo∣tion translateth it, signifies also to play the Idolater. (3) Ano∣ther word, whereby Idolatrie is signified, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signi∣fies properly to provoke to wrath by reproches and contumeliose words; and therefore it is rendred by the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is used to expresse Idolatrie, Deut. 31.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.343 And in∣deed the very thing speaks so much; for what greater reproche or blasphemie can there be against God, than to attribute that Mediatorie glorie to the Creature, which is due only to Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Farther, that this name Blasphemie given to Anti∣christ is a signal distinctive character of his Idolatrie, is apparent from the several branches thereof,* 1.344 mentioned vers. 6. where the general name is distributed into three severals, each of which im∣plies Idolatrie. (1) He is said to blaspheme the name of God: i. e. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Image-worship. (2) His tabernacle; i.e. the hu∣man nature of Christ, by worshipping his breaden God Tran∣substantiated. (3) The heavenly Inhabitants; i. e. Angels and Saints, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon and Saint worship. As Mede, Clav. Apocalyp. on this place. By al which it is evident, that the formal reason, essence, and soul of Antichrists Apostasie consistes in Idolatrie.

A second thing to be premissed is, that Antichrists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.345 Saint-worship, is really Idolatrie, yea the chiefest part of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship. This follows upon what has been already laid down, and wil farther appear from what follows: we have it proved at large by Mede in his Apostasie of the later times, on 1 Tim. 4.1. pag. 44,-49. where he proves, that the Holy Ghost placeth the essence of the Antichristian Apostasie, not in every error or heresie, how foul soever,* 1.346 but in this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Idolatrie, &c.

Having laid this basis we shal now procede to the Demonstra∣tion of our Hypothesis, namely, That al that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Saint-worship, which sils up a great part of Antichrist's Canonic Theo∣logie,

was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Imitation, or Imitamen of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship introduced by that man of sin. I find a good general account hereof in Mede, his Apostasie of the later times, on 1 Tim. 4.1. pag. 40,-42.

The Doctrines of the De∣mons comprehended in most expresse manner the whole Idola∣trie of the mysterie of iniquitie, the Deifying and Invocating of Saints and Angels; the bowing down unto Images; the wor∣shipping of Crosses, as new Idol-columns; the adoring and Tem∣pling of reliques; the worshipping any other visible thing upon the supposal of any Divinity therein. — I must confesse, I can∣not think of this Demon-ressemblance without admiration; spe∣cially in that the advancers of Saint-worship in the beginning did not only see it, but even gloried, that they had a thing in Chri∣stian-worship so like the Doctrines of Demons. Thus many of the Fathers, as Eusebius, Theodoret, &c.

Wherein we have seve∣ral branches of this Demon-worship and their Origine: of which more particularly hereafter. We have also a good ac∣count of this Demon-worship, and the manner how it at first crept into the Christian Church, in that great French Divine Morelius, Traitè de la Discipline, liv. 1. chap. 5. pag. 22.

More∣over this good Emperor Constantine, making use of his coactive power, constrained every one to make profession of the Chri∣stian Religion; whereby, instead of an infinitie of Christians which he hoped to make, he made an infinitie of Hypocrites: who first under the Empire of Constance his Son, who became Arian, conforming themselves to his pleasure, followed for the most part, as it usually happens his error: and afterward un∣der Julian returned again to their vomit of Idolatrie. Since that time, albeit the people under the good Emperors made some semblance of Christian Religion, yet were there very few who truely embraced the same. For by reason of the de∣fect in good Discipline, the precedent Idolatries were mixed with Religion;* 1.347 and the people brought in their spirit the con∣ception of their Idols into the Temple of the Lord, imagining Jesus Christ to be as one of their Heroes, Demons, or Semi-Gods: unto which corruption al the evils that followed owe their origine, &c.

But to come to Particulars.

1. The first great piece of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship intro∣duced by Antichrist, which makes a great part of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the solemne commemoration of deceased Martyrs, and Saints

at their Sepulchres, with the building and consecrating of Tem∣ples in the same places. And this indeed is most easie to demon∣strate; namely, that al those Funeral-Orations, or Sermons, and al those consecrated Temples, which Antichrist by his Canonic Law erected and dedicated to his Saints, were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitation of the Doctrine or Canon of De∣mons, according to 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. For the clearing whereof we are to remember, that al the Pagan Demons being but the souls of men deceased, they supposed these Ghosts did stil frequent those places where their bodies lay buried; and indeed it was usual for the Devil, their great Demon, to appear and exhibite his lying wonders in such places, thereby to gain credit to his petty Demons.* 1.348 So Mark 5.2, 3. these Demons or unclean spi∣rits are said, to dwel among the Tombes. Whence the Pagans sin∣ding some Diabolic Presences and powers of these Demons at their Graves and Sepulchres, they there built Temples to them, where their bodies or ashes lay buried. So Plato Rep. 5. p. 469. speaking of their Demons, saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and we wil worship their Shrines. And elsewhere he tels us, That they had their yearly Funeral Orations and other Commemorations of their Demons at their Sepulchres. Whence the Primitive Fathers, which writ against the Heathens, do often upbraid them, That their Temples were nothing else but the Sepulchres of dead-men. We have a good observation hereof in Ludovicus Vives, on Augu∣stin de Civ. lib. 7. cap. 34.

The Religion of Sepulchres, saies he, is most ancient; whereby it was prohibited for any to violate, throw down, or break them: which Law was not only in the twelve Tables, and amongst Solon's, but also in the most anci∣ent Laws of Numa, and of both Latins and Greeks: which seem to belong not so much to the Civil Law as the Sacreds; because Sepulchres were estimed as Temples of their Manes or Demons: whence there was inscribed on them D. M. S. i.e. Diis Manibus Sacrum: and the Sacreds which were performed to them were called Necia.

We have this wel given us by Mede, Diatrib. 3. p. 545.

Another way (saies he) to worship the Baalim or Demons was in Religiose Graves and Sepulchres, for there they hoped to find their Ghost Gods; specially see∣ing, as we yet suppose, that spirits frequent Church-yards and places of the dead.

Thus in his Apostasie of the later times, pag. 22. (Edit. 2. 1644.) citing those words of Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

as the Coffins of Demons, he tels us,

That Plato would have the Shrines or Coffins of his Canonised Demons worshipped.

So Clemens Alexandr. Strom. 6. out of whose words he observes,

That the Heathens supposed the like presences and powers of Demons at their Coffins and Sepulchres, which was exhibited in their Images; as though there alwaies remained some natu∣ral tie between the Souls deceased, and their Reliques, and therefore they builded Temples unto them, where their bodies and ashes were entombed; and hence it is that the Primitive Fathers so oft upbraided them, That their Temples were nothing else but the Sepulchres of dead men.

Thus we see what the Pa∣gan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was, as to the worshipping these Demons at their Graves and Sepulchres. Now that Antichrists worshipping of Saints at their Graves was but an imitation hereof, is evident. Indeed this piece of Saint worship began very early, even in the second Centurie in some degree, as we find it in a French Trea∣tise, Traite des Anciennes Ceremonies, on the year 160.

A∣mongst the Greeks they celebrated yearly the memorie of the Heroes, those illustrious persons who died in the defence of their Countrie; and this solemnitie was performed at their Graves, thereby to animate the survivant, and to encourage them to the like exploits. The Christians imitated this exemple, judging it would prove a means very proper to induce many persons to suffer death for the Gospel. After this there was a custome introduced to make an yearly Commemoration of the com∣bates and constance of the Martyres, on the same day in which they suffered death, and at the same place where they were buried. Whence it came to passe, that the Cemeteries, or Church yards, became the ordinary place of their Assemblies: for these annual Commemorations were very frequent, by rea∣son of the great number of Martyrs.

Though as yet we find no mention of any consecrated Temples or Holy-dayes dedicated to Saints, nor in some following Centuries. I find the like ob∣servation in Mede, Diatrib. 3. pag. 613.

The leaders of the Primitive Church, however they acknowleged their libertie in choosing any place where they would for the worship of God, yet they used to select for their Assemblies such places as God had any way dignified, either by some worke of mercie, or the gloriose sufferings of his Martyrs; whereupon the most an∣cient Momments of the Christian Churches do mention the

Assemblies of Christians in coemeteriis martyrum.

That this super∣stitiose usage was taken up in imitation of the Gentiles solemne Commemoration of their Demons celebrated at their Graves and Sepulchres, is farther evident by what we find in Tilenus, Syntag. part. 3. disp. 10.

Those solemne Panegyrics of the An∣cients at the Graves of the Martyrs, and their Assemblies in those places, although at first they were instituted with no il intent, yet have they eventually almost ruined the Church; and as they were brought into the Church in imitation of the Pagans, so have they by little and little been infected with Ethnic pollutions and Idolatrie.

We find the like in the Nonconfor∣mists Admonition to the Parliament in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, where they plead for the taking away of Funeral-Sermons, be∣cause they were taken up in imitation of this piece of Demon-worship. This also has made some Reforming Christians declare against Popish Temples, because consecrated to Saints in imita∣tion of the Demon Temples, erected at the Sepulchres of their dead bodies. Though these beginnings of Saint-worship at the Sepulchres of Martyrs had their foundation in the second and third Centuries, yet they came to no perfection til about the year 600, when Gregorie the first, setting Saints in the place of Demons, dedicates Temples to them, &c. which was afterward confirmed by the Canon of Pope Adrian, who Canonised the Saints about An. 880. Yea these Popish Commemorations, and De∣dications of Temples unto Saints at their Sepulchres, seem to have had the very same origine with the Demon-Commemorations and Temples. For what made the Pagans place so much Religion in the Sepulchres of their Demons, but a superstitiose presumption, (grounded on diabolic apparitions at such places) of some ex∣traordinarie presence and power of their Demons at their Se∣pulchres? And did not the sabulose Monkes coin many strange stories, of Wonders wrought upon those who frequented the Shrines of Martyrs, and made solemne Prayers and Commemo∣rations at their Sepulchres? Did they not make the Superstiti∣ose people believe many lying Wonders of Devils charmed, and Diseases cured, &c. by the Prayers of glorified Martyrs, upon notice they took of mens Devotions at their Sepulchres? Do not the Papists at this very day, specially on their Feste of Al-Saints, pray at their Sepulchres and Graves? What more exact 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or imitation could there be of Demon-superstition?

2.* 1.349 Another piece of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 introduced by Anti∣christs Canon-Law, under the forme of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, takes in al those Canonic Festivals, Hymnes, Playes, and other solemnities performed on certain Holy-dayes, consecrated and dedicated to their Saints. I have before observed out of Plato, that it was the custome of the Heathens to celebrate yearly the Commemo∣ration of their Demons on certain dayes dedicated to them, and that by Panegyric Orations, Hymnes, Playes, and such-like so∣lemnities: These Dayes they reputed very holy; whence Pytha∣goras (as Jamblicus relates) required that on such Holy-dayes they cut not their hair, nor pair their nailes. Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 468. gives an excellent Idea of these Pagan Rites, which ap∣pertained to their Demon worship: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For we in Sacrifices and suck-like Assemblies shal honor good men [or Saints made Demons] so far as their merits shal appear, with Hymnes, and that kind of honor whereof we even now spake, name∣ly with the dignitie of seats, and flesh, and ful cups; i.e. libamens. Then he addes, pag. 460. Therefore we wil consult the Oracle of God, in what ranke those blessed and divine men are to be had, and with what ensignes they are to be honored, — and for the future we wil worship their Shrines as Demons, &c.

1. That al the Popish Holy-dayes were but an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or personation hereof, I think wil not need much proof more than a pa∣rallel. We shal mention only their Festival of Epiphanie, which was but a Transcript of the Pagan Epiphanie.* 1.350 For we must know that these Demons had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epiphanies, or Appariti∣ons to their Devoti, (in imitation of Gods Apparition to Jacob, as we have proved, Court Gent. Part 1. B. 2. Chap. 7. §. 8, &c.) which dayes the Heathens made Sacred. This Feste the Sons of Antichrist transfer to the Apparition of the Magi, and cal it by the same name, Epiphanie. Of which we have this excellent ac∣count in Isaac Casaubon, Exercit. 2. An. 1. Num. 36.

Baronius erres, in that he judgeth, that the Epiphanie was instituted, in the Primitive times, in Commemoration of the Magi, their Apparition. This opinion is refuted first by the very Appella∣tion of Epiphanies, and thence by the use of Authors and Hi∣storie. The Appellation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Epiphanies was brought

into Ecclesiastic observation, from Pagan Rites on a pious ac∣count. Greek Writers cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epiphanie, the Apparition of a Deitie, whatever the manner were, by which such a Deitie was supposed to have given some signe of his presence. So Di∣odorus, l. 1. saith, that Isis was wont to appear by night, and to inject dreams, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, giving ma∣nifest Indices of her presence.

And Dionysius Halicarn. oft useth this word, and somewhere greatly reprehendes such as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, derided the Epiphanies of the Gods, by which they manifest themselves to men. The Grecians, in Commemorati∣on of these Ephiphanies, or Apparitions of their Gods, institu∣ted certain Festival-dayes, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epipha∣nies. So Athenaeus relates of King Demetrius, that he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, celebrated the memorie of his dead brother, whom he worshipped as one of the Celestial Divi, and called the day Epi∣phanie. According to this Ethnic Exemple, in the ancient Greek Churches, they had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epiphanies, wherein they solemnised the Day, not of the Magi their coming, but of our Lords Nativitie. For his very Nativitie is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epipha∣nie, by Suidas, Eusebius, and others. Thus also Schmidius, on Mat. 2.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Epiphanie, signifies an illustrious Apparition. This name was fixed in the Greek Church on the sixth day of Januarie. Neither was the name Theophanie, which signifies the Apparition of God, or the Gods, unusual even among the Gen∣tiles; which one of the Popish Monkes not understanding, as it is reported, he said, Perhaps this Theophanie, or Epiphanie was the Nurse of Christ.

2. As the Pagans had their Holy-dayes dedicated to their De∣mons,* 1.351 so also Sacred Hymnes, whereby they sung their Praises, and solemnised their Memorials. So Plato Rep. 5. saies, That the Commemoration of their Demons was celebrated with Hymnes. Thus the Greeks had their solemne Hymnes, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which they sung to their propitious Demons. So Bacchus had his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tragedies, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Comedies: the former so called from the sacrifising a Goat; the later, in that they were sung in the Villages, answerably to the Popish Wake-songs. The Romans also had their Assamenta, or peculiar Hymnes sung to some private God, as their Assamenta Janualia, Junonia, Mi∣nervalia, &c. And are not those Hymnes, which the Sons of Antichrist sing to their Canonised Saints on their Holy-dayes,

an exact 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Imitamen of these Pagan Hymnes? &c.

3.* 1.352 The Pagans had also their Playes, which were a part of those Solemnities they performed to their Demons on their Ho∣ly-dayes. So August. de Civit. l. 8. c. 26.

I omit, saies he, what Varro saies, that al those dead Demons were estimed Gods; and he proves it by those Sacreds which were performed to al those dead men; where he mentions Funeral Playes, as though this were the greatest note of Divinitie; because Playes were not wont to be celebrated to any but Gods. He saies also, that this dead Demon was worshipped at the place where his Sepulchre stood.

And what are al the Popish Masques, Mummings, and al such superstitiose playes, by which they so∣lemnise the memorie of their Saints on their Holy-dayes, but Imitamens of these Demon-playes?

4.* 1.353 The Pagans had their Festes, by which they solemnifed the memorial of their Demons on their Sacred dayes. And have not the Superstitiose Sons of Antichrist their Wakes, Revels, and other Sacred Festes, whereby they celebrate the memorial of their particular Saint, answerable to, and in imitation of these Demon-Festes. This indeed was commun amongst the Su∣perstitiose Christians in Augustins time, who, de Civit. l. 3. c. 27. makes mention of some, that

brought their Banquets to the Graves of the Martyrs, and then returning again fested upon the same, in Commemoration of those Martyrs.

Thus we have shewen, what an exact parallel there is betwixt Antichrists Holy-dayes, and al his Festivals, Hymnes, Playes, and other Solemnities performed to his Demons. By which it's evident, that the former were but Imitamens of the later.

And to speak a little of the manner of the derivation, we must know, that these Festival Solemnities had some foundation in the la∣ter end of the second Centurie; for the Christians, living then un∣der Pagan Persecution, were wont to make Annual Commemo∣rations of the sufferings and constance of the Martyrs, on that very day on which they suffered Martyrdome, thereby to en∣courage others to the like Christian sufferings and constance; and al this in imitation of the Pagans Panegyric Commemorati∣ons and Festival Solemnities, which they vouchsafed to their He∣roes and Demons. But yet stil these Primitive Christians medled not with those Idolatrous Rites, which the Pagans used in such Solemnities: neither were those Festival dayes and Commemora∣tions

made Sacred or Canonic in the second or third Centurie. But after Constantin had constrained al to make a publique pro∣fession of Christianitie, and Julian had revived the old Demon-worship, the carnal professors of Christianitie, who were most numerose, though they were content to assume the name of Christians, yet were they not content to part with their Pagan Rites and Customes: wherefore to comprimise the mater, they turne their Pagan Rites into Christian Solemnities; and so Chri∣sten their Demon-Festivals under the name of some Christian Martyr and Saint. And that which made this designe more plausible was this, some groundlesse hopes, by such symbolisings with the Pagans, to gain them over to the embracing of the Christian Religion: which vain attemt was so far blasted by God, as that it proved but a dore to let in Antichrist and al his De∣mon-worship into the Church of God. Yet these Demon-Festi∣vals, or Holy-dayes dedicated to Saints, came not to be establish∣ed by Antichrists Canon-Law, 'til about the beginning of the seventh Centurie, under Gregorie the first; who placing the Saints in the room of the Pagan Demons, dedicates to them Temples and Holy-dayes, &c. Yet were there not wanting some who opposed these Demon-Festivals: yea the whole Council of Antisiodorense in France (Canon 74.) declare,

That it was not lawful to observe the Festivals of the Gentiles, to keep their worship and observation of their Calends, to adorne Houses with Lawrel and green Bayes; (at Christmasse) for al these pra∣ctices (saith the Council) favor of Paganisme.

Thus much for Antichrists Canonic Festivals, which he introduced as a main part of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of the Demon-Fe∣stivals, as 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. and Col. 2.16. In respect of an holy∣day. Which strikes as wel against Antichrist, as the Pythagorising Gnostics, and their Impositions.

§. 3. As Antichrist has his Canonic Playes and Dayes,* 1.354 so also his Images, Crosses, Reliques, and other Idol-representations of his Saints, and al in imitation of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This also seems fully implied, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Doctrines of Demons, in Imitation, &c. i. e. al Antichrist's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Idol-worship, (which takes in a great part of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is but an Imitamen of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

1.* 1.355 One chief part of this Antichristian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Image-worship, which we need no way dout, was

but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Imitamen of Pagan Images or Representations of their Demons. For the more ful explication whereof we are to remember, that howbeit some of the vulgar Heathen (as some Papists stil do) might worship the Images of their Demons as Gods; yet the wiser of them, specially the Philosophers, were not so grossely stupid, as to conceit those Images to be Gods: no, they looked upon them only as Demon-traps or lures to al∣lure their Demons to be present; or as Bodies which their De∣mon-Ghosts informed and influenced. So Plotinus, Enn. 4. l. 3. c. 11. pag. 380. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And truely those Ancients seem to me wise, who desiring the presence of the Gods, framed Sa∣creds and Statues, directing the eye of their mind towards the na∣ture of the Ʋniverse, &c. Whence he shews,

That their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Image, being erected, the Deaster or Heavenly Demon, to which it is dedicated, presently descendes unto it, and informes the same, as the species or image of the Sun does a glasse held Di∣ametrically opposite thereto. For (addes he) there is nothing in nature, but there is some Heavenly power answerable there∣to, (according to that Oriental maxime, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence there being in the mater of the Image some ressemblance of that Divine Power, unto which it was erected, hence there ariseth a relation between them, &c.

We find this mysterie wel opened to us, by August de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. c. 23.

Hermes the Egyptian, whom they cal Trimegistus, saies, that some Gods are made by the great God, and some by men. He assertes, that visible Images are as the Bodies of the Gods, and that these Bodies are informed by Spirits invited thereunto, which have power to hurt men, or to fulfil their desires, who give them the Obsequies of Divine honor and worship. There∣fore to copulate or conjoin, by a certain art, these invisible Spirits to visible Images made of Corporal mater, which are as it were living bodies dedicated and subjected to these Spi∣rits; this is (saies he) to make Gods: which great and won∣derful facultie of making Gods men have received.

So agen, August. Civ. l. 8. c. 24.

A Demon being chained to an Image by a Diabolic art is made a God, &c.

These Images stood usually in their Temples, where they had a chair of state placed for them. So Plato lib. 5. de Repub. tels us, That they allowed

their Demons Royal seates, &c. Now that al the Popish Images dedicated to their Saints were taken up in imitation of these Demon-Images, is very apparent. This Mede, on the 1 Tim. 4.1. (touching the Apostasie of the later times, pag. 22, &c.) proves at large, viz.

That the worshipping of Images is by its original a piece of the Doctrine of Demons, &c.

Yea it's farther evi∣dent, that the very original ground or end for which the Sons of Antichrist have brought in this Demon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Image-worship, into the Church of Christ, is the very same with that on which the Pagan Philosophers at first took it up. For what made those blind Heathens at first erect these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Images? was it not a sense of their Demon-God being absent? with which the Prophet upbraides those Demon-Friests of Baal, 1 King. 18.27. For we must know that the wisest of them, their Philo∣sophers, supposed the main residence of their Demons to be in the Stars; whence they called them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deasters: as they sup∣posed their supreme God to have his residence in the Sun, which they termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Divine bodie of their supreme God, stiled Moloch, Saturne, Jupiter, Apollo, or such-like. Now they finding these Planetary Demons very remote, they erected 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Idols or Images, to allure them to their Temples, and re∣ceive their Influences, as Glasses do the Image of the Sun. And was not the origine of the Popish Images the very same? were they not at first introduced as Symbols and pledges of their Saints presence? As the Golden Calfe, Exod. 32.1. and Jero∣boams Calves were pretended pledges of Gods Presence. Do not the Papists vouchsafe their Saint-Images chairs of state in their Temples, and costly apparel, with supplications to them, &c. exactly conformable to the Pagans Demon-Images? hoping by such superstitiose honors to gain the presence, attention and in∣tercession of their Saints. It's true, this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Image-wor∣ship, being such an apparent grosse Imitamen of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, could not for a long time after the rise of Antichrist gain the privilege of Canonic Constitution: for it was opposed in the Ea∣sterne Greek Churches by diverse Emperors, with the greatest part of their Bishops and People, from the year 720 'til after 840, as Mede in his Apostasie of the later times, pag. 131, &c. Amongst these Popish Images we may reckon al their lesser Re∣presentations or Images of their Saints, which they wear about their necks, or carrie in their Pockets, as their Agnus Dei, &c.

answerable to the superstitiose Teraphim, and the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Diana's Shrines, and the like.

2.* 1.356 Another fort of Popish Idols, or Idolatrous representati∣ons of their Demon-Saints are their Crosses, erected in High∣wayes, as memorials and remembrances of some Saint, which also are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitation of those Pagan Baetylia, Columnes, Pyramids, and Pillars of stone, which they erected as memorials of their Demons, and their Apparitions. The most ancient of these Demon-columnes were their Baetylia; whereof Sanchoniathon, in his Phenician Historie gives us this account, according to the Version of Philo Byblius, in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The God Ʋranus con∣ceived the Baetylia, when he had framed the living stones. Learned Bochart, Geogr. S. par. 2. l. 2. c. 2. p. 785. for living, reads anoin∣ted stones;* 1.357 and makes these Baetylia to be an Imitamen of Jacob's anointed stone, Gen. 28.18, 19. Which he erected as a memorial of Gods Apparition to him. This rite the Idolatrous Phenicians trans∣ferred to their Baalim or Demon Gods, as a Commemoration of their Apparitions.* 1.358 These Sacred Columnes the Greeks cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; So they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lev. 26.1. Deut. 16.22. Here God forbids them to erect these Stela's or Columnes; because they were abused by the Pagans to Demon-worship, as Mede on this place. They had also their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. which Cle∣mens makes to be Imitamens of the Pillar of Cloud, that went before the Israelites in the Wildernesse. Now al the Popish Crosses, and Fillars, which they erect in places most notable, are but corrupt Imitamens of these Pagan Columnes. Thus Mede proves, Apost. lat. pag. 48, 49. That adoring Crosses came in the room of the Demons Idol-Columnes, &c. Yea 'tis very evident, if we compare the origine both of one and t'other: For as the Pagan Columnes were erected as memorials of their Demons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apparition, &c. So these Crosses were erected by the su∣perstitiose Sons of Antichrist, as memorials of their Saints, their famose acts done in such or such places.* 1.359

3. Under this head of Popish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we may reckon also the Templing and superstitiose Adoration of Saints Reliques, with which the Roman Church aboundes, and wherein they do but play the Apes or Mimes of Pagan Idolaters; who had a very great respect for the Reliques of their Demons: Of which see Mede, Apost. lat. pag. 40, 42. So Traitè des Ancien. Ceremonies, on the year 160, having shewed how the Christians imitated

the Pagans in the Commemoration of their Demons, he addes:

They had then a great care first to burie their Martyrs; and where they could not recover the bodie entire, they endea∣vored to gather up the least pieces, if the rage of persecutors had left any restes, or reliques. Now these Reliques were buried honorably, without those practices, which have since happened, &c. namely for the Templing and adoring of Re∣liques.

This is wel explicated by Cassander, that learned and moderate Papist, in his Consultation, Art. 21. touching the ve∣neration of Reliques:

In these things, saith he, abuse by little and little crept in. For Basil in Definit. Latior. c. 40. complains, that the custome of holy men was corrupted. — And it's evi∣dent, that in after-times there was too much attributed to the Reliques and Memories of Saints. — There happened also other Evils, namely that out of Avarice to delude the simple people, false Miracles were coined and cried up, whereby the super∣stition of the people was nourished; so that they were more ravished into an admiration of the Miracles, than provoked un∣to an imitation of the Saints, or unto an emendation of life: sometimes also by the crast and illusion of Satan, abusing the superstition of men, new Reliques were reveled, whereby also Miracles seemed to be wrought. Hence that Lugdunense De∣cree, c. 62. Let not Prelates suffer the people to be deceived by vain figments, as for profit sake it is wont to be. Also many are found, who make gain of the Saints Reliques, whether true or false, so that they are every-where carried about by vile and vagrant men, like the Sacreds of Isis, and are commended by many lies to the ignorant people. Whence he concludes, That feeing al are ful every-where of the Reliques of Saints, it is to be feared, that if Princes and Prelates would inquire into them, great numbers of them would be found to be im∣postures and cheats.

Thus we have shewen how al these Anti∣christian Images, Crosses, and Reliques, which fil up a great part of their Canonic Theologie, are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as 1 Tim. 4.1, 2.

§. 4. Another piece of Antichrists Canonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.360 con∣sistes in those Sacrifices and Offerings, which he brought into the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of those Sacrifices the Pagans performed to, and by their Demons. We have shewn before out of Plato, that one great office of the Philosophers Demons

was to conveigh mens Sacrifices to the supreme God, thereby to render them the more acceptable; and do not the sons of Antichrist transfer their Sacrifices to God by their Demon-Saints? But further, the Pagans had peculiar Sacrifices which they offered to their Demons. So Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 468. tels us, That herein they followed the Authoritie of Homer, wor∣shipping these Demons in their assemblies by sacrifices of flesh and ful cups, &c. And we have this expressely mentioned in Scrip∣ture. So Numb. 25.2, 3. where Israel is said,* 1.361 v. 2. To bow down or worship before the Gods of Moab, with their sacrifices: & v. 3. particularly, Israel is said, to join himself to Baal-Peor. Agen, Deut. 32.17. 'tis said, They sacrificed to Devils, or Demons. And that this is meant of these Deisied Baalim and Demon-Gods, is evident by David's Explication,* 1.362 Psal. 106.28. where he saies, They joined themselves to Baal-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead. By Sacrifices of the dead, is evidently meant, those Sacri∣fices they performed to their Baalim or Demons, which were but great personnages Deified after their departure out of this world, as Mede, Bochart, and Diodate have observed. Now that Antichrist's Sacrifices are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a personation or imitamen of these Sacrifices, which the Pagans gave their dead Heroes or Demons, wil be evident by the following parallel.

1.* 1.363 The great Sacrifice which the sons of Antichrist so much adore is that of their Masse; or Hostie, as they cal it, wherein they sacrifise and eat their Breaden God, in Commemoration, as they fancie, of Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse. Yet really it is no other, but an imitamen of those Heathenish Sacrifices of the dead, Psal. 106.28. Though we must acknowlege, that in this piece of Blasphemie against the Bodie of Christ mentioned Rev. 13.7. these Papists have much exceded the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship, or Sacrifices. For those devote Heathens had more honor for their Demon-Gods, than after they had made them such to eat them presently, as the Papists eat their Breaden God, which is a piece of Idolatrie so monstrose, that Averroes himself abhorred it,* 1.364 crying out, That he had rather his soul should be with the Philosophers, than with such as did eat their God. This Idol-Christ seems Prophetically strucke at by our Lord, Mat. 24.26. where he tels us, that some should pretend their salse Christ to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we translate, in the secret Chambers; but it is more properly rendred by the French,

es ciboires, i.e. say they, in the Cabinets, wherein meat is preser∣ved: and so it properly denotes the Priests Pixe, or Cabinet, wherein he laies up the Hostie, or Breaden God. And thus in∣deed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in its primary notion importes, namely a secret place or Cabinet, wherein any provision is laid up: whence also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Dispensator, or Steward that laies up, and bringes forth, as need requires, provisions, &c. Thus our Omniscient Lord foreseeing how much these sons of Antichrist would blas∣pheme him, by pretending the Transubstantiation of the Bread, that Sacred Symbol, into his bodie, and idolising the same, he gives this general premonition to al Christians, Not to believe those Antichristian Priests, who pretend to have Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in their Bread cabinets, or Pixe, wherein their Hostie lies hid. And O! what a world of contradictions lie involved in this Sacrifice of the Masse? Is it not an high contradiction to pretend, that the quantitie of the Bread should continue without the sub∣stance? Do not al Philosophers now grant, That Quantitie is not really distinct, much lesse separable from the bodie it apper∣tains unto? See the Contradictions that attend this Popish Tran∣substantiation wel demonstrated by Derodone, in his Funeral of the Masse. And as many Contradictions, so also many ridiculous ab∣surdities attend this Sacrifice of the Masse. We find this wel described by Learned Bochart, in his Conference with Veron, part. 3. chap. 24. Paragr. 122. pag. 1292.

In this Masse-Sacrifice what a world of ridicules are there? the Priest makes his re∣verences to the Altar, kisseth it, sprinkles Incense on it on so∣lemne daies, to chasse away the Devils: He runs on the right hand, and then on the left; and anon turnes towards the people; after he turnes his back, he bows himself, and then lifts himself up: he raiseth, and then lets fal the tone of his voice; he beates his breast, he grones, he joines his hands, and crosseth his thombes; he closeth and then ex∣tendes his armes; he makes many signes of the Crosse in the air; he seems to sleep, and then in a moment to awake; he shews his God in one hand over his shoulder, then hides it, and again lifts it up with both hands over his head; and af∣ter he has plaid with it, he eates it.

Thus Bochart. Who in what foregoes, Paragr. 15. of the same Chap. 24. pag. 1140. saies,

That hence it comes to passe, that the Priests vante, how they create their Creator.

So Gabriel Biel, on the Canon of the

Masse, Lect. 4. He that hath created me, has given me leave (if it be lawful to speak it) to create him. And in the Book called Stella Clericorum, the Priest is named, the Creator of his Creator, &c. This indeed excedes in some regards the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though it were originally an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thereof, as 1 Tim. 4.1, 2.

2.* 1.365 Another part of the Pagans Demon-Sacrifices takes in their Libamina, or Drinke-Offerings. So Plato in (the forementioned) Repub. 5. pag. 468. saies, They worshipped their Demons with ful Cups. So Jer. 44.18. we read of Drinke-offerings to the Queen of Heaven. But more expressely 1 Cor. 10.21. we read of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cup of [Devils, as we render it, but it is better ren∣dred] Demons; i. e. those Drinke-offerings they offered up to Demons, as Mede, Apostasie of later times, p. 29. The Pythago∣rising-Gnostics symbolised with the Pagans in partaking of their Demon-cup, or Drinke offerings. And do not the Papists come under this very condemnation? don't they turne the cup of the Lord into a Demon-cup? Surely this Popish Sacrifice of the Masse made up of their Breaden-God and Wine-God equaliseth, if it doth not excede, the Table and Cup of Demons, which our Apostle strikes at, 1 Cor. 10.21. and therefore comes under the same sentence.

3.* 1.366 The Heathens (in imitation of the Jews) had their Tenths, and other kind of Offerings, which they conferred on their De∣mons. So Tertullian, Apol. cap. 14. saies, That the Carthagineans paid their Tenths yearly to Hercules, who was their chief De∣mon, and of Phenician extract. And Diogenes Laertius tels us, in the life of Solon, That the Athenians separated their Tenths for public Sacrifices. And are not the Tenths, which the sons of Antichrist pay unto him their great Demon the Pope, an ex∣act 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Imitamen of these Demon-Tenths? Again, the Pagans had several other Offerings which they conserred on their Demons, when they drew near to their Temples and Al∣tars. And do not the sons of Antichrist, when they draw near to his Demon-Table or Altar (as the Apostle cals it, 1 Cor. 10.21.) give their Offerings to Antichrist, and their other Demon-Saints, exactly conformable to the Pagans Offerings to their De∣mons? Thus we see how Antichrists S crifices are al, as 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of Demon-Sacrifices.

§. 5. Another part of Antichrists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is his Exorcisme,* 1.367 Sorcerie, and power of working wonders, which he pretendes un∣to and claimeth, as a privilege appendent to his Chair, as suc∣cessor of Peter, but indeed had its origine from Pagan Divi∣nation and Sorcerie. That this also may be gathered from Pauls character of Antichrist's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. seems pro∣bable from Grotius's explication of these words;* 1.368 who under∣stands them of the Pythagorean Magicians, amongst whom A∣pollonius Tyanaeus was chief; 'Who (saies he) came to Ephesus while Timothie lived, and is here in a particular maimer deno∣ted. Though we have no shew of reason to restrain this famose character of Antichrist, with Grotius to Apollonius Tyanaeus, or with Hammond to Simon Magus and his Gnostic Disciples; yet thus far we may yield to these learned men, that these famose Pythagorean Magicians, as they were forerunners of Antichrist, may be allowed some room in this Text. For look as Apollo∣nius Tyanaeus was by reason of his Demoniac Wonders, made by the Pythagoreans and Platonistes, Porphyrie, &c. a counter Christ, or equal to Christ, as also Simon Magus by the Gnostics; so the great Roman Antichrist has, by his lying Wonders, Sorcerie, and Exorcisme or Devil-chassing power, made himself a corrival with Christ. This seems farther evident from v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speaking lies in Hypocrisie, or (as the proper idiome of the word inclines) in imitation. And so the meaning wil be this, Al the lying Wonders, Exorcisme, or conjuring power, which Anti∣christ shal, by his Ecclesiastic Canons, bring into the Church, are indeed but an Imitamen of the Pythagorean Sorcerie, and Ma∣gic Arts, which they, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by virtue of their De∣mon Theologie and power pretend unto. Of which see more Book 1. Chap. 3. §. 9. That the Pythagoreans were great Magi∣cians and herein types of Antichrist's Exorcistes, appears farther from what Grotius observes on Ephes. 4.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.369 &c.

We are to understand, saies he, that these men acted very cunningly, and that from an art of seducing, which they received from the Devil. The Pythagoreans are chiefly in∣dicated here, of whom the most part were Magicians. That Magic Arts were much exercised at Ephesus, appears Act. 19.9.

Thus Grotius, whom I cite only for this, to shew that the Py∣thagoreans, Apollonius Tyanaeus, &c. were great Sorcerers, and

so herein Forerunners of Antichrist, whose sons glorie in no∣thing

more, than in their lying Wonders,

whereby they make good their Fathers Prophetic character.* 1.370 2 Thes. 2.9. he saith, They should come, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by lying wonders, which yet they impose on the simple people as Divine Miracles. This Wonder∣working Power, which the Popish Exorcistes pretend unto, is also a part of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For (as we have observed before Sect. 2. §. 4, 5. of this Chapter) these lying Wonders were first brought into the Church by the fabulose Monkes, immediately after Julian the Apostates death, who coined many lying re∣portes of Wonders wrought at the Shrines and Sepulchres of the Martyrs, which they pretended to be wrought by the In∣tercession of those glorified Martyrs, upon notice taken by them of mens devotion at their Sepulchres. Whence Antichrist, when he came to the stature of a perfect man of sin, appointes by his Ecclesiastic Canons certain Exorcistes in his Church, for the con∣tinuation of this Wonder-working Power, which he at first recei∣ved in imitation of the Pythagorean Magicians, and stil exerted by virtue of compact with, and assistence from the Devil that great Demon. And as the Popish Exorcisme in general, so parti∣cularly al their lesser spels, for the chassing away of Devils, the healing of Diseases, &c. seem to be but derivations from, and Imitamens of Demon-Magic, practised by the Pythagoreans and others. So Bochart against Veron, part 3. pag. 888. tels us,

That in the Popish Church they make use of the signe of the Crosse to chasse away Devils, in imitation of that we find in Ovid. lib. 3. de Fast.

'Signa{que} dat digitis medio cum pollice junctis 'Occurrat tacito ne levis umbra sibi.

Baronius acknowlegeth, That the Agnus Dei, which they hang about their neckes, is made alike to those bulles or boulets of Waxe, which they hung about the neckes of Children to de∣fend them from charme.

So Aelian tels us, That the Egyptian Priests hung about their neckes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a little image of Saphir, whereby they divined, &c. unto which the Agnus Dei, which the Papists make so great use of as an universal spel, seems to answer. And the Jesuites generally have some spel or other hanging about their neckes or else-where.

§. 6.* 1.371 But the great and master-piece of Antichrists Saint-wor∣ship is his Invocation of Saints, which fils up a good part of his Canonic Theologie, and is indeed but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitation of the

Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship. That Invocation was a cheif part of that worship which the Pagans performed to their De∣mons, is evident by what Clemens Alexandrin. Strom. 6. menti∣ons of these Demons:

Which, saith he, they made Temples unto, placed their Images therein, and called on, &c.

This is farther evident by what we have afore cited out of Plato, who makes it one main office of the Demons, to transfer mens Pe∣titions to God. So 1 King. 18.20. Baal's Priests are said, to crie aloud to their Demons. And Christ, Mat. 6.7. bids us,* 1.372 not to use vain repetitions, as the Heathens do. For the Heathens would re∣pete over their Demon's name, on whom they called, an hundred times. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ye shal not use vain Repetitions. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is deduced from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which some derive from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bata, to blaterate or babble. Hesychius with others make this Battus to be a Lybian King, who stammered, and thence oft repeted the same syllable: others make Battus to be a certain Poet, who writ many Hymnes, in which the same things were repeted. But al grant, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which follows in our Lords admonition, Mat. 6.7. So Casaubon, Exerc. 14. Sect. 8. 'In Battologie there are two vices, (1) vain Repetition of the same words. (2) Multiloquie, or much speaking. And here∣in both the Pagans in their Demon-worship, and the sons of An∣tichrist in their Saint-worship, have been greatly guilty. As for the Heathens we find in Aeschylus an hundred times over such vain Battologies as these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Io, Io, Io, &c. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Phy, phy, &c. And have not the sons of Antichrist in imi∣tation of the Pagans, assumed the like Battologies in their Saint-worship? How oft do they repete their Ave Maria? so in their Psalterie they repete the name Jesu 15 times together: as Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, &c. The Athenian Philosophers, who were accor∣ding to Paul's character 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 17.22. had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consecrated places, where they worshipped and invocated their Demons. So Act. 17.19. we read of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mars's Page, Wel, or Columne, where he was invocated; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a fountain; whence they who drank of the same Wel were called Pagans. Now that the Popish Invocation of, or pray∣ing to their Saints, is but an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imitation of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is largely proved by Mede on this 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. Apost. lat. Times, pag. 31, 32, &c.

§. 7.* 1.373 There were many other Ceremonies used by the Pagans in their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship, which Antichrist has since reassumed, thereby to complete his Prophetic character, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. (1) The Pagan Phi∣losophers, specially the Pythagoreans, (who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) had their Purisications, Purgatories, and Washings, (as before Part 2. Book 2. Chap. 6. §. 8.) whence the Pharisees seem to have traduced their Purifications and Washings, as Christ hints to us, Mark 7.2, 3, 4. And did not al Antichrists Purifications and sprinklings of holy water receive their origine from this Pytha∣gorean fountain?* 1.374 (2) The Pagans had their Sacred sire, which the Grecks called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as some thinke from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and the Latins Vesta. This they honored as a God or Demon; so Stobae∣us, Serm. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, honor or worship Vesta: and for the con∣servation of this Sacred fire in their Temples they had their Ve∣stal Nuns, whose office it was to preserve the same. And has not Antichrist the very same Sacred fire, which is alwaies bur∣ning in his Temples, and sed by Tapers, Lampes, &c? Yea, has he not also his Covents of Nuns, whose main office it is to con∣serve this his Sacred sire, and other Pagan Rites?

(3) The Pagans had Sacred Groves and Trees which belonged to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.375 So here in Britannie the Oke was estimed most holy by the Druides; whence according to Plinie, l. 16. c. 44. they were called Druides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from an Oke. And has not Antichrist his Sacred Groves and Trees in Church-yards, &c? Deut. 16.21. God forbad the Jews planting Groves of Trees about their Altars, because these were usual amongst the Gen∣tiles.

(4) Another piece of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was their Ceremo∣nie of bowing and worshipping towards the East.* 1.376 For the Pagans universally worshipped the Sun as their supreme God, even the more Reformed of them the new Platonistes, Plotinus, Porphyrie and Julian the Apostate, as it appears by his Oration to the Sun. Whence it came to passe, that the Sun rising in the East, they usually worshipped that way: (as the Jews in Babylon usu∣ally worshipped towards the West, because Jerusalem stood west thence.) Hence also they built their Temples, and buried their dead towards the East. So Diogenes Laertius in the life of Solon, saies, That the Athenians buried their dead towards the East, the head of their Graves being made that way. And do not

Antichrist and his sons exactly follow this Pagan Ceremonie in building their Temples and high Altars towards the East, and in bowing that way in their worship?

(5) The God-fathers conferring gifts on the Baptized Insant, and al such gifts brought to women in child-bed are supposed to have flowen from the Heathens, specialty the Grecians, who observed the fifth day for the purification and naming their Children: on which day the neighbors sent in gifts called mu∣nera natalia.

(6) We might adde also al Antichrist's distinctive Garments,* 1.377 as Surplices, Gownes, Hoods, Caps, &c. which are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitation of Demon-Ceremonies as hereafter. Apulcius saith, l. 11. Miles. That the Priests of Isis were clothed with a white linnen gar∣ment. And Herod. l. 2. acquaints us, That the Egyptian Priests used a white linnen Vestment as most pure. The like we have pro∣ved of the Pythagoreans, P. 2. B. 2. C 6. §. 8. But at present we shal content our selves with a few Observations out of lear∣ned men. Bochart against Veron, Part 3. Par. 84. Chap. 23. ha∣ving given us the mention of several Pagan Rites taken up by Antichrist, (of which before) he addes;

from the same Pagan source comes their holy-water, their Tapers, their Incense, their extreme unction; for al these were in use amongst the Pagans. Also their baptising of Bels answereth to the Pagan Tubilu∣strium, i. e. the purification of Trumpets; their Canonisation, to the Apotheosis;

the spittle which they use in Baptisine is ta∣ken from that of Persius, Satyr. 2.

Lustralibus ante salivis expiat, &c.

Baronius, on the year 44. Num. 88. makes a long list of those Ce∣remonies which the Church has borrowed from the Pagans. The French Author, des Anciennes Cerem. pag. 24. gives us an account how these Pagan Ceremonies crept into the Christian Churches. He had shewen before,

That there were some rudiments laid in the second and third Centurie. But, addes he, about the year 300, and since prosperitie produced many Ceremonies. — The people (from Constantin's compulsion) presented themselves in troupes to croud into the Church: but the simplicitie of Christianitie disgusted many, who retained before their eyes the pompe and magnificence of Paganisme: wherefore it was thought expedient to clothe Religion with more splendid Ce∣remonies, that so the splendor of these Ornaments might ren∣der

it more august and recommendable. And to accommodate themselves to the Jewes and Gentiles, who talked of nothing but Sacrifices, the Christians gave to the Lords Supper the name of Sacrifice, and to the Table the name of Altar, though not in that sense the Papists now give.

The same Author ac∣quaints us, that the bodie of these Ceremonies came not to be formed into a complete Systeme of Canonic Rites 'til about the year 600, under Gregorie 1. So Traitè des Ancien. Ceremon. pag. 59.

The most notable changement, saies he, which hap∣pened in Religion, was about the year 600. Those times were already very tenebrose; Gregorie the first was then Bishop of Rome, who set up the Saints in the place of Gods, dedicating to them Temples, Festes, Sacrificators. Now according to the measure, that new Doctrines or new Ceremonies were intro∣duced, the forme of Divine service was also changed. Til now Liturgies had been alwaies different, &c. But Gregorie under∣took to melt al the Formularies of the Church; he changed and adjousted or adjoined many pieces; and out of this Me∣lange or mixture he composed the Office of the Masse, almost in the same forme as it standes at this day.

Though we must ac∣knowlege with this Author, that these Antichristian Ceremonies were not formed into a bodie, and imposed on al as mater of Ecclesiastic conformitie 'til about the year 600 under Gregorie, and his successor Boniface the third, who obtained the title and dignitie of Universal Bishop; yet we are also to know, that there was a very heavy yoke of Pagan Ceremonies imposed upon the Roman Churches, and some other in the foregoing Centuries, specially about the year 410. by Innocent the first, who brought in the worshipping of Reliques, the erecting of Altars, and offer∣ing of Sacrifices at the Graves of Martyrs: who also secretly permitted the superstitiose people at Rome to worship their De∣mon-Gods. Under him also the legenda aurea, or fabulose nar∣rations of Miracles wrought at the Graves of Martyrs, recei∣ved a great composure. He also it was that framed many Eccle∣siastic Canons for Fastes, Abstinences from Meats, prohibition of Mariage to Presbyters, and many Monastic Orders, (as Pla∣tina;) not to mention his expelling the Novatians (those god∣ly Reformers) from Rome, Excommunicating the Emperor Ar∣nadius, affecting an Universal Primatic in the Church, and Secu∣lar Domination, as Socrates the Scholiast & Antichristi, Excidium

Praefat. de Innocentio 1, &c. And Augustin, who was Contem∣porary with this Innocent 1. complaines, That Ceremonies were growen so numerose and burdensome, as that they wel nigh ex∣ceded the yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies. Thus we have shewen how al Antichrist's Saints and Saint-worship is but according to what was foretold of him, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. Demon-Doctrines, Canons, and worship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of the Pagan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon worship.

§ 8. Another part of Antichrist's Canonic Law comprehendes al those Ecclesiastic Abstinences, Fastes, bodily Severities,* 1.378 and o∣ther Purgatories, which he enjoines his sons, by virtue of his Canonic Supremacie. This also had its origine from the same foun∣tain of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to that discoverie which the Apostle makes thereof,* 1.379 1 Tim. 4.3. He having made menti∣on of Antichrist's Demon-Dogmes, or Canons in general, ver. 1. and then given the source or root of al, v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speaking lies, or lying wonders in imitation of the Pagans lying wonders, which they attributed to their Demons, and made the foundation of their Demon-worship; v. 3. our Apostle descendes to some particulars of these Demon-Dogmes or Canons, which Antichrist should introduce; whereof this is one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to abstain from meats. That those who were the great de∣voti and worshippers of Demons, were also greatly addicted to superstitiose Abstinences from flesh, &c. has been before once and and again observed. And herein none more exact than the Py∣thagoreans, (who were also followed herein by the Pharisees as before) whose Infusions were first sucked in by the Gnostics, those forerunners of Antichrist, and after re-assumed by Antichrist himself. And our Apostle Paul, having by the spirit of Prophe∣tie, a prevision of the dangerous consequences which would en∣sue upon these Pythagorean Abstinences, and their establishment in the Churches of Christ, gives many severe Prohibitions against them. So Col. 2.16. Let no man judge you in meat and drink, &c.* 1.380 These Canons for Abstinences Grotius conceives to belong more peculiarly to the Pythagoreans, than to the Jewes. For, saies he, to abstain from Wine was not perpetually a Jewish injunction, but in some few only; but frequent amongst the Pythagoreans. The Jews abstained from some Meats, but the Pythagoreans from many more. And this he laies down more Categorically and Positively, on ver. 20.

They are, saies Grotius,* 1.381 called the

Rudiments of this world, because commun to the Gentiles with the Jewes: for there is nothing in these Rites proper to the Jewes; yea they seem to procede rather from the Gentiles to the Jewes, than from the Jewes to the Gentiles.

So again on v. 21. Touch not, taste not.

Tertullian denies, that these words belong to the Jewish Canon. He seems to me to use words commun, which should comprehend both Jewes and Philoso∣phers, specially the Pythagoreans.

These Pythagorean Canons or Dogmes touching Abstinence were greedily embraced, first by the carnal Gnostics, and after them by the sons of Antichrist, accor∣ding to our Apostles prediction in 1 Tim. 4.3. And that al An∣tichrist's Canons for Abstinence and Fastes were indeed a part of the Doctrines of Demons, which he by his lies and Pagan imita∣tion brought into the Temple of Christ, see Mede on this Text, Apostasie of the later times, from Page 141, to 152. Edit. 2. And to speake a little of the time When, and the mode How these Pagan Abstinences crept into the Churches of Christ: If we may speak the truth, there was some foundation laid for these Po∣pish Fastes and Abstinences even in the beginning of the second Centurie, as it is wel observed by the Author of Traitè des An∣cien, Ceremon. pag. 6, 7.

About the year 110, (saies he) there was introduced the diversitie of Junes, or Fastes, not as a Ca∣non whereof the observation was necessary, but only by cu∣stome, proceding not from any public Authoritie of the Church, but from the simplicitie of private persons. The custome was then in the most part of the Churches to keep their Assemblies for the Celebration of the Sacraments and public Prayers on Wednesday and Friday; and for the better disposing themselves unto the due performance of their duties they fasted on those daies. — From the same root sprang the observation of Lent, which began only with the observation of a few daies before Easter, set apart as preparatory to that worke. Yet these Fastes and Abstinences were not made Canonic, 'til the Monastic life be∣gan to be in fashion.

The same account he gives of the Popish Vigils, or Watches:

In time of Persecution the Christians oft assembled in secret, and by night; and so when they came to enjoy peace they retained the same custome. Thence we read, that Constantin continued the Sacred Vigils even unto day, and caused Torches to be lighted throughout the Citie, and Lampes in the places where they kept their Assemblies. — Yet these Vi∣gils

and Tapers were then without superstition.

So the fore∣named Author, pag. 29.

About the year 320, together with the Monastic life there entered the rules for Abstinence: for un∣til this time the Fastes were left free and indifferent. At this time therefore, inasinuch as the profession of Monkes ought to consist in a more severe life than that of others, there was im∣posed on them certain Canons for the regulating of Fasting-daies, &c.

As for the Monkish Abstinences, we have spoken thereof before in the beginning of this Chapter, S. 1. §. 1.

§. 9.* 1.382 We find another Species of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intro∣duced by Antichrist into the Church of Christ, 1 Tim. 4.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, forbidding to Marie. i.e. Antichrist should un∣der a pretext of lying devotion, by virtue of his Canonic Supre∣macie, institute several Orders of Monkes, imposing on them cer∣tain Canons or Rules of Monastic life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exactly answering in this particular. That the Doctrines of Demons was greatly advanced by these Monastic Orders and Rules, Mede proves at large from this Text, in his Apostasie of the later times, pag. 141, &c.

I come now (saies he) to the last description of the means, whereby the Doctrine of Demons was to be advanced, viz. through the hypocrisie of such as forbid Mariage, &c. 1 Tim. 4.3.

To which we may adde what he pag. 97, &c. mentions touching Antichrist, from Dan. 11.37. Not regard the desire of Women:* 1.383 By Desire of Women, which the Roman Antichrist of that time should not regard, as he was wont, is meant desire of Wiving, ex∣pressed Gen. 2.24. And it might in this place have been rendered desire of Wives, as wel as desire of Women: for there is no other word used in the Original for Wives above once or twice in the whole Scripture, but this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The like use we find of the word Desire, Cant. 2.16, & 6.3. & 7.10. Ezech. 24.16. That al Antichrist's Canons for Monastic life and Orders are but Transcripts or Copies of those Institutes, which Pythagoras impo∣sed on his Collegiates in order to then Monastic life, we have in part already proved, S. 1. §. 1. of this Chapter, by a paral∣lel drawen 'twixt one and t'other. But to give a more ful de∣monstration hereof, we shal adde the consent of Learned men hereto, with the time and manner how these Monastic Constitu∣tions, Canons and Orders were introduced. As to the first, that the Pythagoreans were under a very severe prohibition against

Mariage, &c. appears by that great Pythagorean Canon, Colos. 2.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.384 handle not.

This, saies Grotius, refers to the a∣voiding of Women, which the Jewish Priests sometimes did, but the Pythagoreans alwaies.

But learned Bochart against Ve∣ron, part 3. chap. 25. §. 4. Art. 1. proves,

That the Law or Ca∣non of Celibat is the Doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. which was wel-nigh stablished throughout Paganisme, then when Christ came into the world. There were some Priests who castrated or gelded themselves, as those of Cybele, or of Phrygia, who were called Galli and Archigalli; and the Megabyzes or Me∣galobyzes, Priests of Diana at Ephesus, and the Therophantes at Athens. In brief, the Celibat of Priests was in such estime a∣mongst the Pagans, that Aeneas in Virgil, Aen. l. 6. passing through the Elysian fields, which they make to be Paradise, saw no other Priests there, but such as had passed their life in Celibat. There has been also a number of Philosophers, who have contributed to this Error. This was one of the supersti∣tions which Pythagoras brought out of Egypt, whence returning unto Grece, he forbad Mariage to those of his Sect, and con∣stituted a Cloister of Nuns, over which he placed his daugh∣ter.

Plato held the same opinion, as also Heraclitus and Demo∣critus, and Zeno the Prince of the Stoics, who never appro∣ched to a Woman. By which it's apparent, that Antichrist's prohibition of Mariage and Monastic Constitutions or Canons are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitation of the Pagan Celibat and Monastic Rules. That the Popish Nuns are but Imitamens or Apes of the Pythagorean Nuns, seems evident from their origine and office, as described, Traitè des Ancien. Ceremon. An. 240

Lo the ori∣gine of these Virgins: The Persecutions of those times obliged Christians not to engage themselves in the world more than need required: Now in as much as Mariage oft hinders the libertie of this profession, many Virgins took up a resolution, with the advice and consent of their Parents, to live in perpe∣tual continence, and so to join themselves more strictly to Christ, (according to Paul's Counsel, 1 Cor. 7.40.) Thence they pre∣sented themselves to the Church, who recommended them to God by solemne prayers, that they might take care of the poor and sick. Yet were not these Vows of Continence estimed then irrevocable; though afterward they were, in imitation of the Pythagoreans, &c.

But to procede to the origine of these Monastic Constitutions and Canons, stablished by Antichrist as part of his Demon-The∣ologie;* 1.385 it cannot be denied but that there was some foundation laid for Monastic life about the middle of the third Centurie after Christ, though it is as certain, that Celibat or Monastic life was never stablished by any Ecclesiastic Canon, or judged ne∣cessary 'til Antichrist came to some Head and Supremacie. This is wel observed by the Author of Traitè des Ancien. Ceremon. pag. 28.

In time of Persecution many Christians avoiding that tempest retired themselves into deserts, &c. When the Perse∣cution ceased, there were not wanting some who having turned this solitude into habitude, continued and passed the rest of their daies there; either because accustomed to such a mode of life; or because the simplicitie of it was more agreable to them than the noise of the Towns; or because they feared subsequent stormes. But others afterward, even in the midst of peace affecting such a solitarie life, made that voluntarie, which was before necessitated by reason of Persecution. And from hence sprang the origine of the Monastic life, the first foun∣dations whereof were laid in Egypt, about the year 300, by An∣tonius; which were afterward extended even unto Syria, by Hilarion; unto Armenia by Eustachius; unto Grece by Basil, unto Italie by Ambrose.

By which (as also by what we have a∣fore mentioned S. 1. §. 1. of this Chapter), it is evident, that this Monastic Celibat and Constitution began in Egypt, at Alexandria, where was then the most famose Schole in the world for Pytha∣gorean and Platonic Philosophie. For here the great Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyrie, and the rest of those Pythagorising Platonists, were bred up; who were great Patrons of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, De∣mon worship; and particularly of Celibat and Monastic life; for which Pythagoras laid down such severe Institutes and Canons, as Plato after him. Now Origen having been bred up in this same Schole of Alexandria together with Plotinus, under the famose Ammonius, (whom some take to be a Christian) he dranke such ful draughts at this fountain of Pythagorean and Platonic Philo∣sophie, as that being made drunken therewith, and thence for∣getting himself to be a Christian, he at last dranke in also much of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-superstition and dregges; and a∣mongst other Demon-superstitions this of Monastic life and Celi∣bat; which the Monkes his Successors, communly called Orige∣nists,

received from him as a foundation for Antichrist to ground his Demon-Canons upon, according to 1 Tim. 4.3. as before in our account of Origen, B. 2. C. 1. § 8, & C. 2. S. 1. §. 1. Thus we see how Antichrists Canonic Constitutions for Monastic life, re∣ceived their foundation in the Schole of Alexandria from the Greek Fathers, Origen, &c. their symbolising with the Pythago∣rising Platonistes in Demon Theologie. And here it's very observa∣ble, that the first entrance of Celibat and Monastic life into Bri∣tannie was by Pelagius the Britan, that eldest son of Antichrist; who having travelled unto Egypt, and there confirmed himself in his Pelagian Infusions, by conversation with the Origenistes, he was by them also initiated in the Orders and Rites of Monastic life, which he brought back with him into Britannie. For be∣fore the returne of Pelagius, Britannie knew not what belonged to Superstitiose Monachisme, as Balaeus de Script. Brit. Cent. 1. c. 38. Yet we must remember, that though Monastic life was introdu∣ced into these Countries by Pelagius, and embraced by some, it was not however brought under any Canonic Constitution 'til Augustin the Monk, that great 〈…〉〈…〉 of Antichrist, his en∣trance. So ••alaeus de Script. Brit.

〈…〉〈…〉 came into England with Augustin 〈…〉〈…〉 and the Canonic Regulars with Birinus, 〈…〉〈…〉 So agen, Cap. 97. of Centur. 1. Until Augustin the Monke's entrance the Aposto∣lic Monkes in Britannie had libertie of Marying, according to the exemple of Paulus Antonius, Hilarion, Macdrius, Jerome, and other pious Hermites, who led a Monastic life in the de∣serts of Egypt and Palestine, yet freely and without any prohi∣bition against Mariage.

By which it's evident, that albeit some pious persons might affect solitude and Monastic life in the third and fourth Centuries, yet there was no prohibition of Mariage or Canonic Constitution of Monastic life 'til Antichrist came to maturitie.

§. 10. Al Antichrist's Workes of Supererogation, Satisfactions, Merits,* 1.386 and other pieces of Wil-worship, may deservedly be recko∣ned as a part of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship, which he, by virtue of his Canonic Supremacie, stablished in his Church. Plato, Repub. 5. p. 468. speaking of the Deisication of their Demons, makes them to be originally nothing else but Good men, or Saints, whose merits were maenifest, &c. And whence sprang al Antichrist's Merits and Satisfactions, which he ascribes to his Saints, but

from these Demon-merits? And this indeed seems to be impli∣ed in our Apostles character of Antichrist his Demon-Theologie, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. For what designe could Antichrist have in Cano∣nising of Saints, forbidding of Mariage, enjoining of Abstinences,* 1.387 and such-like bodily mortifications, but thereby to fil up his Trea∣surie of Supererogations, and Merits, which he by his Indulgen∣ces would dispense forth, according to his Soverain pleasure. This seems more fully hinted,* 1.388 in what follows v. 7. where he exhortes Timothie, and in him al Christians, to shun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, profane and old wives fables. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a word much used amongst the Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, who were great Mythologists; under which they comprehended most of their Moral precepts or Canons: and it seems to be used here by our Apostle to signifie those fabulose mortifications and bodily severities, which the Gnostics then, and the Monkes afterward brought into the Churches of Christ, for the filling up Anti∣christs Magazeen of Supererogations and Merits. And that this is the true meaning of the words, seems evident from what fol∣lows in the same vers. But exercise thy self to Godlinesse. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Godlinesse is opposed here to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fables, before mentioned. As if he had said, instead of these Pythagorean fabulose Mortifica∣tions, which the Gnostics now, and Antichrist by his Monastic Canons hereafter, wil bring into the Church of Christ, I exhort thee and al Christians to exercise your selves in true Gospel∣mortification and spiritual Godlinesse; which though it has not those Supererogations, Satisfactions and Merits, which Anti∣christ's bodily mortifications pretend unto, yet it is far more profitable in al regards, both as to this life and that to come. And that this is the genuine sense of the words appears from what follows, v. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For bodily exercice,* 1.389 &c. Bodily exercice here signifies the same with, or is exegetic of old wives fables, v. 7. i.e. Al those Pythagoric fabulose Absti∣nences,* 1.390 Purifications, Severities, and other externe mortifications, which the Pythagorising Gnostics then, and the Antichristian Monkes since have foisted into the Christians Canon. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies primarily, an exercice in the Gymnade, which was greatly in use amongst the Grecians: it is also sometimes used to expresse intellectual and moral exercices. It has here an elegant reference to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 7. as if he had said, It's true, these Pythagorising Gnostics now, and the superstitiose sons of

Antichrist hereafter wil al pretend, by these their bodily exer∣cices and severities to promove Mortification and Godlinesse, but in truth they effect nothing lesse: For bodily exercice prosi∣teth but a little, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to little. i.e. Al those Pythagoric Absti∣nences, Severities, and other externe Mortifications, which the sons of Antichrist make the foundation of their Supererogati∣ons and Merits, are so far from meriting any thing at the hand of God, as that they are little or nothing worth, &c. But God∣linesse is profitable to althings, having the promisses of this life, and that to come. i.e. True Christian pietie, though it can merit no∣thing at the hand of God, yet it has a very great instrumental causalitie and influence, by virtue of Gods gratiose promisse, on our wel being, both in this and the coming life. Whence our Apostle addes,* 1.391 ver. 9. This is a faithful saying and worthy of al acceptation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers exactly to the Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cabala, which the fabulose Jews, in imitation of the Py∣thagorean Institutes, made their Codex, or Canon-Law, by vir∣tue of which they introduced al their Fables, and mixed them with the Divine Oracles. So in like manner the Pythagorising Gnostics, and fabulose Monkes had their Cabala or Systeme of Pythagorean Institutes, which they foisted into their Canonic The∣ologie, and thereby introduced al their bodily exercices or Mor∣tifications. To this Pythagorean, Jewish, Gnostic and Monkish Cabala, our Apostle here opposeth this Divine Cabala or Canon touching Christian Godlinesse: the like, 1 Tim. 1.15. B. 1. C. 4. §. 1. Thus we see how these Pythagorean Abstinences,* 1.392 Mortifications, and other bodily exercices were brought into the Church by the Monkes, those eldest sons of Antichrist, thereby to lay a foun∣dation for their workes of Supererogation and Merits; where∣of we find the like account given by Paul,* 1.393 Col. 2.23. Our Apo∣stle v. 20, 21, 22. had mentioned some Pythagorean Dogmes, Ca∣nons, and Institutes, which the Gnostics then, and Antichrist af∣terward imposed, as Ecclesiastic Canons, on the Churches of Christ: and in this v. 23. he runs them up to their spring head, Which things indeed have a shew of wisdome in Wil worship. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. an accurate, artificial Forme, Image, Idea, or Picture. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of wisdome; namely of some Divine mystic Cabala, or Traditi∣on dropt from Heaven. For both the Pharisees, Gnostics and Monkes pretended unto some Divine Cabala or Tradition for al their fabulose Abstinences and Mortifications; though in truth

they are al but, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in imitation of Pythagorean Dogmes and Institutes, as it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Wil-worship. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saies Grotius, is a middle word signifying Rites and Cere∣monies: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 implies, that these Rites were taken up of their own accord, &c. Our English Councils, pag. 449. Canonibus sub Eadgaro, Can. 60. amongst other particulars addes this, We teach that al Priests shal blot out al superstitions of the Gentiles, and we forbid Wilweorthunga. Which is there translated in Latin, Fictas ad libidinem adorationes, with a Marginal refe∣rence to this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Col. 2.23. But learned Hammond, to avoid the force of so great a Testimonie against Wil worship, for Wilweorthunga would read it Welweorthunga, i. e. Wel-wor∣ship; it being, saies he, commun then to worship Wels. But this is too poor a glosse to need consutation: yea he himself grants in his Annotations on this Text,

That the Pharisees pride and boasting was censured by Christ; and their forming those vo∣luntarie acts of Devotion into precepts, and entring them in∣to Books, and separating themselves from al that did not per∣forme their severe prescriptions, rendred them Pharisees, and divided them from the Hasidei, &c.

By which he grants, that the imposing human inventions is Pharisaic Wil-worship, and the cause of needlesse separation or division. But it's evident, that our Apostle here strikes at the very root of al bodily Abstinen∣ces and Severities, which he cals neglects of the Bodie; affirming, that they were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wil-worship. i. e. the original Idea of al these externe Mortifications was some Pythagorean Dogmes, Institutes, and Canons, as v. 8, 16, 20, 21, 22. Whence the superstitiose Pharisees transcribed al their, as also the fabu∣lose Gnostics and Monkes al their bodily Severities, in order to workes of Supererogation and Merits. For it's evident, that no∣thing can stablish a foundation for workes of Supererogation and Merits, but some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wil worship, or somewhat not commanded: and no Wil-worship has more suited with the pa∣late of proud Pharisees, Gnostics, and the sons of Antichrist, than the Pythagorean 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which by reason of its many externe Severities seemed most expedient to build human Merits and Satisfactions upon. Of which see more C. 1. §. 7. And far∣ther, that Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Canons for the stablishing Me∣rits and Satisfactions is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Imitation of the Pythagorean 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Wil-worship, appears by what

Grotius laies down,* 1.394 2 Tim. 4.4. And turne aside to Fables. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

These Fables are concerning the Expiations of Sins, taken from the Chaldean and Orphic Discipline: Amongst which Sea water had the first place, then fountain-water, Scilla, Sul∣phur, Bitumen, &c.

The Orphic Discipline, which Grotius here mentions, takes in also the Pythagoric which was but a branch thereof.* 1.395 And so Grotius on the foregoing, 2 Tim. 3.13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deceiving and being deceived.

These Doctors, (saies he, meaning the Gnostics) who deceived the people, were themselves deceived by the Philosophers, specially by the Py∣thagoreans, of whom there were many at Ephesus.

And it is apparent, that the whole of Pythagoras's Discipline was calcu∣lated to lay a foundation for human Expiations, Satisfactions, and Merits: whence Antichrist did the more chearfully close with it, as most proper to stablish his workes of Supererogation and Merits. 1 King. 18.28. We find the Priests of Baal cutting and lancing themselves as the sons of Antichrist now do: and there∣fore, Levit. 19.28. & Deut. 14.1. God forbids these Rites; be∣cause abused to Demon-worship. We find also in Cicero de leg. lib. 2. Sect. 46. That our merits carrie us to Heaven, as Bochart observes. Indeed this Doctrine of human Merits found too much footing amongst the Fathers, specially Origen, who being of the Alexandrine Schole, affected too great a mixture of Pythagorean and Platonic Dogmes, and amongst others this of Merits, (as in the foregoing Chap. 1. §. 8.) which opened a dore to Antichrist, for the introducing his Canonic Satisfactions, Merits, Indulgences, &c.

§. 11. Antichrist's Purgatorie and prayers for the dead is an∣other piece of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.396 which he introduced, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Imitation of the Pythagorean, Platonic, and Stoic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Purifica∣tion of Souls by fire after death. That the Pythagoreans and Plato∣nistes held some kind of Purgatorie or Purification of Souls sepa∣rated, has been before hinted. This they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Puri∣fication of the soul by fire; which the Stoics termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That the Purgatorie so much defended by the Devoti of Antichrist, is indeed but an Imitamen of the Platonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Purgati∣on of the soul by fire, brought into the Primitive Churches by Origen, we have before B. 2. C. 1. §. 8. intimated. And to make good this charge we may consult Origen's Comments on Exod. Hom. 6. Psal. 36. Hom. 3. & Luk. Hom. 6. Where he would needs

persuade men, That both Believers and Insidels must passe through that fire, which at last shal consume the world. This opinion was followed by his Sectators, the Oreginistic Monkes of Egypt, yet condemned by the Orthodoxe. But these disputes touching the condition and Domicile of Souls after death, came to be multi∣plied: and about the year 400, many had their minds corrup∣ted with those fabulose Platonic Philosophemes, That the souls of men were purged in a certain place, before they were taken into Heaven. Yet these Sentiments were laid down only as Problemes to be disputed, not in forme of Dogmatic Articles, as it's wel observed, Traite des Ancien. Ceremon. pag. 64. That the Anti∣christian Purgatorie is but an Imitamen of the Platonic Purga∣torie wil be evident to any that takes a view of Plato's Idea thereof: who in his Phaedo, pag. 113. treating professedly of the threefold state of Souls after their separation from the bodie, namely of the righteous in blisse; of the desperately wicked in Tartarie, or the Stygian lake; and of those who are wicked, but curable in a temporary Tartarie; he addes concerning these two last, But if by reason of the magnitude of their sins they may seem incurable, then an agreable destinie casts them into Tartarie, whence they never get out. But such as happen to be curable, though obnoxious to great sins, on these there is laid a necessitie of falling into Tartarie; but after they have continued there one year, the Lake casts them out again. Thus Plato. Where he evidently makes mention of a Temporarie Tartarie, (distinct from the eternal fixed Tartarie of such as are incurably wicked) which exactly answers to the Popish Purgatorie, or Temporarie Hel.

Now such as were in this Philosophic Purgatorie or Temporarie Tartarie,* 1.397 that they might have the more speedy egresse or dismis∣sion thence, Plato, Repub. lib. 2. tels us, That there were certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. mysteriose, sumtuose sacrifices offered for them. And that this is the proper import of Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Teleta, is made evi∣dent by Ludovicus Vives, on August. Civit. lib. 4. cap. 31.

Suidas, (saies he) affirmes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Teletam, to be the greatest and most sumtuose of al the mysteriose Sacrifices; so called because the greatest part thereof was consumed. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to con∣sume; although it signifies also to perfect: and therefore there are some who thinke these Teletae to be so called; because they were the most perfect Sacrifices, to which there was nothing wanting. Such were the Sacrifices of the Sun and Moon, and

of Bacchus, and some Expiations, by which the sins not only of private persons, but also of Cities, and of the Dead, as wel as of the living, were purged away by Sacrifices, plaies, and al kind of sportes; which Sacreds were called Teletae: and so Plato, Repub. 2. affirmes, That these Teletae belong only to the dead, and thence so called, namely from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being Sacrifices appoin∣ted to deliver us from the infernal sufferings, or the Temporarie Tartaries.

By which it's evident, that Plato his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were no other than certain Sacrifices performed to ransome mens Souls out of the Temporarie Tartarie, or Purgatorie. And further, that these Teletae, or Sacrifices for the Dead, were part of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship is manifest, by what Plato mentions thereof in his Symposium, pag. 202, 203. where having discoursed at large of So∣crates's Demon, his original nature and office, both to conveigh the Gifts and Commands of the Supreme God to men, and the prayers and sacrifices of men to the supreme God, he addes this as one, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Teletas, &c. So that the Teletae or Sacrifices for the Dead did in a more peculiar manner belong to their Demon-worship. Moreover Virgil (Aen. 5, 6.) teacheth clear∣ly a Purgatorie and prayer for the dead, as Bochart, Contre Veron, P. 3. C. 25. S. 4. Art. 1. hath observed. By which it is evident, that Antichrist's Purgatorie, Sacrifices, and Prayers for the dead are al but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as 1 Tim. 4.2.) in imitation of the Philosophers Purgatorie and Teletae, or Sacrifices and prayers for the dead, their being delivered out of the Temporarie Tartarie or Purgatorie.

Now to inquire a little when and how these Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or sacrifices for the dead, were introduced into the Christian Churches; we are to take notice that something hereof was found in them very early; and that out of a symbolising humor, thereby to in∣duce the Gentiles to an embracement of the Christian Religion; as we find it in Cyprian, l. 3. Epist. 15, 16. Tertul. de Moneg. Ori∣gen l. 3. in Job. & August. Epist. 68. And the manner how they were introduced seems this: After the death of any Christian; specially if a Martyr, the following year on the day of his depar∣ture they made public Commemoration in the public Assemblie, of his Faith, Christian Exploits, and Divine Assistances vouchsafed to him; with prayers to God, that he would vouchsafe them the like good issue. Then the Parents or Friends of the Deceased, to render the Commemoration more solemne, presented to the Church, or to the Poor of the Congregation then present, a quan∣titie

of Bread and other food. Many also to keep alive their me∣morie in the Church, would leave on their last Wil and Testament certain Legacies to be paid annually on the day of their death. And such were the foundations of these Anniversary Commemorations. Yet these Offerings were looked on in those Primitive Churches, not as Expiatory Sacrifices, but only as Memorials of the Faith and Christian Courage, with other good deeds of their deceased friends, as we are assured, Traitè des Ancien. Ceremonies, l'an 200. p. 20. But lastly to confesse the truth, it is certain that ma∣ny of those Primitive Christians, at least in the third and fourth Centuries, did too much symbolise with the Gentiles Demon wor∣ship, and particularly in these their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or sacrifices for the dead. This is incomparably wel explicated by Is. Cas. Exer. 16. N 43. where he shews, that these Sacred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Teletae, were in use among the Grecians, who performed their chief Sacreds by Night: and they were various, some greater, some lesser. They were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mysteries; and the operation of these Sacreds was named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as they who partaked of them, were said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The scope of these Sacrifices they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the end or consummation. This end they interpreted the perduction of the Soul to that state, in which it was before its descent into the Bodie. So Olympiodorus, in Platon. Phaedon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The scope of these Teletae is to reduce souls to that end, from which they at first descen∣ded as from its principe. By which it's evident that they looked on these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Teletae, to be as Purgatories for the purifying of the Soul. Thence Augustin, de Trin. l. 3. c. 10. saith, That Satan hath cast deluded souls headlong into Hel, by promising the purgation of their souls, by those which they cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Teletas. Which gives us a great account of that Antichristian Purgatorie, so much pleaded for by the Sectators of Antichrist, and taken up by them in Imita∣tion of those Pagan Teletae. Of which see more Court Gent. P. 1. B. 2. C. 9. §. 10.

This Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Purgatorie, began indeed very early to gain footing in the Churches of Christ,* 1.398 and as we need no way dout had its foundation from the Schole of Alexandria, where the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie was then in great vogue; whence Origen, with many other pieces of Demon-worship, sucked in this also of Purgatorie, Sacrifices, and Prayers for the Dead; which the Monkes his successors afterwards digested and impro∣ved;

and at last Antichrist stablished and confirmed by his Ecclesi∣astic Canons, as before. These Antichristian Teletae, or Sacrifices and Prayers for the Dead, were come to some maturitie even in Augu∣stin's time; for he de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 26, 27. tels us

of certain superstitiose persons, who carried their Junkets to the Graves of Martyrs, and there made their prayers, &c.

And the Author of Traitè des Ancien. Cerem. pag. 39. affirmes, that about the year 380, there was a considerable progresse wade in Prayers for the Dead. And the same Author, pag. 44. shews us, how the Vigils or Watchings of the Dead, as also the usage of Singing and Ta∣pers at their Burials was brought into the Church about the year 400, as before. Hence also sprang the Passing-Bel (as they cal it) at the Soul's departure out of the bodie; which is alwaies in the Roman Church attended with Prayers. Lastly, al Funeral-treat∣ments, Orations, Sermons, Prayers at the Grave, so much in re∣quest in the Roman Church, seem al to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of these Demon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sacrifices and Prayers for the dead, thereby to redeem their Souls from Purgatorie, &c.

SECT. IV. Papal Primatie and Traditions from Ethnic Philosophie.

§. 1. ANother piece of Antichrist's Canon-Law is that which concernes his Canonic Papal Primatie,* 1.399 which we may reckon also as a part of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, foretold 1 Tim. 4.1. For, as Mede wel observes, the whole of Antichristianisme is compre∣hended under this Prophetic character of Antichrist. And indeed, that the whole of Antichrist's Primatie is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or an Imi∣tation of the Pagan Primatie stablished at Rome and elsewhere, is evident from the confession of his own Canon-Law: for Decret. part 1. Distinct. 21. Edit. Colon. an. 1631. pag. 62. I find (accor∣ding to this exact Version) these very words: Amongst the Priests there is some difference kept, so that some are called simple Priests; some Arch-Presbyters; some Chorepiscopi; some Bishops; some Arch-Bishops; some Metropolitans; some Primates; some Patriarches; some [summi Pontifices] high Priests or Popes. This difference was intro∣duced chiefly from the Gentiles, who called their Flamens, some Arch-flamens, others Proto-Flamens. Thus the Canonist: who indeed gives us a good Genealogie of al their Canonic Primatie. I find this wel observed by learned Bochart, Contre Veron, part. 3. Paragr. 86. cap. 23. pag. 883.

To the Ceremonies of the Jewes they have joi∣ned

those of the Pagans. It is upon this Model that they have built al their Papal Hierarchie, &c.

I find the like observation in Grotius, de Imp. Sum. Potest. cap. 11. pag. 350.

It may be deman∣ded by what exemple chiefly the Episcopal dignitie was introdu∣ced into the Church? That there were Degrees of Priests amongst the Gentiles is most evident. Neither was this a new custome, or proper only to the Greeks, and their Descendents, as the Disci∣pline of the Druides teacheth us. The Druides, saies Caesar, have one President, who has the chiefest autoritie amongst them.* 1.400 Also that the Preeminence of the Metropolitan Cities in Sacreds was very ancient, Thucydides teacheth us, who speaking of the Cor∣cyreans, Colonies of the Corinthians, saies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there were the chief Rulers of the Priests. On which place the an∣cient Scholiast addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It was the custome to take the chief Priest from the Metropolis. Strabo makes mention of one chief Priest of the Catti: and Marcellinus, of a chief Priest amongst the Burgondians, &c.

Thus Grotius. So Bochart tels us, there were Priests in Phrygia called Galli and Archigalli as before, S. 3. §. 9. of this Chapter. By which it is evident, that the Pagans generally had an Hierarchie, and one chief Priest over the rest: and it is apparent, that the Papal Primatie was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Imitation of the Pagan; which wil farther appear by the following particulars.

1. This Papal Primatie began at Alexandria;* 1.401 which as it was the chief Seminarie of Pagan Philosophie and Demon-worship, so also the fruitful womb, wherein al the principal Parts and Linea∣ments of Antichrist received their first conception and Formation. And amongst other Parts of this Man of Sin, his Head, which con∣sistes in his usurped Primatie, was also formed in this Philosophie Church or Schole of Alexandria. Thus much I gather from Grotius his Gallic Epistles, Epist. 162. pag. 397. where proving, that Cle∣mens's Epistle to the Corinthians was genuine, he gives this as one argument, namely,

That he never makes any mention of that ex∣travagant Authoritie of Bishops, which, by the custome of the Church, began after Marke's death to be introduced at Alexan∣dria, and by that exemple elsewhere, &c.

Thus we see that Pa∣pal Primatie began very early in this Philosophising Church at Alexandria, soon after Marke's death; and we may presume from their too great symbolising with that Pythagorean Platonic Schole in point of Discipline. Neither is Grotius singular in this his observa∣tion,

for Jerome long ago observed the same, who makes Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria, the first Authors of advancing one Minister above another in power, about the year 140. And a lear∣ned Divine assures us, That Julianus Bishop of Alexandria was the beginner and breeder of Diocesan Government, which came in by little and little, &c. Yea so speedy was the growth of this Antichristian Primatie at Alexandria, as that at the Council of Nice it arrived to a Patriarchie.

§. 2. But albeit the Papal Primatie had its first conception and Fomentation at Alexandria,* 1.402 yet its chief Nurserie and Throne was at Rome: for here, according to Divine prediction, Antichrist, that Man of Sin, and Head of this Papal Hierarchie, has his main seat and residence. Now that the whole of this Papal Hierarchie stablished at Rome was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Imitation of Pa∣gan Hierarchie, or rather Demonarchie stablished at Rome and else∣where, we shal prove by its Parts.

First,* 1.403 The Head of this Papal Primatie is the Pope, the whole of whose usurped Dignitie and Primatie is but an Image of, and ex∣tract from the Demonarchie or Hierarchie of the Pagan Emperors, as it wil easily appear to any that shal consider, how exactly paral∣lel they are. Touching the first stablishment of the Roman Hie∣rarchie by Numa, Plutarch gives us a good account in the Life of Numa.

Numa Pompilius, saith he, erected the Pontific College; and he himself was the first Pontifex; the chief of those Pontifi∣ces, whom they cal the great Pontifex: Who has the dignitie and autoritie of the High Priest and Master of the Pontific Law; who was to see that none brake the ancient Ceremonies, nor brought in any new thing into Religion; but that every one should be taught by him, how they should serve the Gods, &c.

And has not the Pope assumed the very same Pontific Dignitie both Name and Thing? Has he not assumed the very Name of Pontifex Maxi∣mus? and is he not Master of the Pontific Law, or the Ecclesiastic Canons? Does he not take upon him to teach every one how they should serve his Demon-Gods, or Saints? Again Augustin, de Civit. l. 15 c. 15. tels us,

That the Romans made Romulus a Flamen; which was a sort of Priesthood so excelling in the Roman Sacreds, (witnesse the Apex) that they had only three Flamens institu∣ted to the three Gods; the Diale, to Jupiter; the Martiale, to Mars;

the Quirinale, to Romulus. Ludovicus Vives on this place, explicating what this Flamen dedicated to Romulus was,

tels us,

That amongst the Orders of Priests, Numa Pompilius made some, which he called Flamens; whose chief Ensigne was an Hat, as the Bishops now, wherein there was a thread of white wool;

whence they were called Filamines from fila lanae. And then as for the Apex, which Augustin makes mention of, Ludovi∣cus Vives gives us this account,

That it was in the Flamen, that which covered the Head, namely the fila lanea or Cap. This Apex, addes he, the Romans gave to none but their chiefest Priests, as now the Mitres. So Lucan, Et tollens Apicem gene∣roso vertice flamen.

And has not the Roman Bishop the very same dignitie and primatie, as it has been already observed, §. 1? Is he not the Proto-Flamen? and has he not his Mitre exactly an∣swering to the Proto-flamen's Apex? But to carrie on this paral∣lel a little farther; the Roman Emperor, (as we just now ob∣served of Numa Pompilius) reserved to himself the Title and Dignitie of Pontifex Maximus, the Great High-Priest; by vir∣tue whereof he was Head in al maters Ecclesiastic, as wel as Ci∣vil; and had an absolute disposition of the Pontific Hierarchie, College, and Law. This Title and Dignitie the Emperors affected 'til the dissolution of the Empire. Yea after Pagan Rome turned Christian, the Christian Emperors for some while retained the Title and Dignitie of Pontifex Maximus, both Name and Thing, 'til the Bishop of Rome, upon the declension of the Empire, u∣surped the same. Which is a good Clavis to that prediction of Paul, 2 Thes. 2.7. He who now letteth; i.e. The Roman Emperor,* 1.404 who had the very Title and Dignitie of the Pontifex Maximus, which Antichrist was to be invested with, but could not obtain 'til after the dissolution of the Empire. And the event has made this evident, that the Rise and Growth of Antichrist, and his Tyrannic Empire, was according to the Declension and Dissoluti∣on of the Civil Empire; yea in the same measure and proportion that the later decreased, the former encreased, as it was foretold, Revel. 13.1. That he should receive his power at the same time with the ten Hornes: which were to rise up out of the broken parts of the Empire. Thus was the generation of Antichrist out of the cor∣ruption of the Empire. Yea, that Antichrist exerciseth al the power which was exercised by the Pagan Emperor, seems clear from that part of his Character, Rev. 13.12. And he exerciseth al the power of the first Beste before him. So v. 15.* 1.405

But al this wil more fully appear by that Character which Paul

gives him,* 1.406 2 Thes. 2.3, 4. That man of sin, &c. I know Ham∣mond, in his Annotations on this Text, [Note E] understandes by this Man of Sin, Simon Magus, and that exclusively, without any respect to the Roman Antichrist. So Bellarmine also under∣standes it of a single person, as Grotius after him. But this fond conceit has been already refuted sufficiently out of Mede, S. 2. §. 3. of this Chapter, and the vanitie of it wil farther appear by an explication of the parts.* 1.407 It is said first, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there shal come a falling away, or an Apostasie; i.e. a total, universal, hor∣rid Defection of the visible Church. Which cannot be meant of any particular Heretics, or Heresie in those times: (1) Because he speakes of it Propheticly as a thing to come, not then exi∣stent. (2) He here speakes of an universal and total Apostasie of the visible Church, which can't be applied to any Heresie then in being; because al the Heresies of the Gnostics and others then on foot were but particular, and generally disowned by the Chur∣ches of Christ, &c.

2. He describes this general revolt by its Head;* 1.408 whom he cals,* 1.409 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That man of sin. (1) We may con∣sider him as a Man, and so he is stiled, That Man, in a way of Eminence and singularitie, which denotes him to be such a mon∣stre, as never had, nor shal have his parallel. If we have a cu∣riositie to know [1] his Names, he is stiled ver. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one that opposes Christ, or a counter-Christ, i.e. Antichrist. He is stiled also Rev. 13.11. The two-horned Beste; and Rev. 16.13, 19, 20. The false Prophet. [2] As for his Ancestors, we may run up his Gnealogie to Cain, and the Pharisees, from whom he received his Doctrine of Justification by Workes; to Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Antiochus Epiphanes, from whom he derived his Tyrannic persecution; to Balaam, Barchozba, Apollonius Tyanaeus, and Simon Magus, from whom he received his Impostures and Lying Wonders; to the Gnostics, from whom he received his Pythagorean Infusions and Superstitions. Yet his immediate Pa∣rents were the Old Serpent, Rev. 12.9, 15. and Babylon the mo∣ther of Harlots, or the Apostate Church, Rev. 17.1,-5. [3] As for his first conception, it was very early, even in Paul's time, as 2 Thes. 2.7. which John was more fully instructed in, as 1 Joh. 2.18. [4] His Nativitie and Birth, Cluverus on Revel. 11. Tom. 3. pag. 29, &c. refers to An. 440, or thereabouts: and so he makes Pope Leo Magnus, the first of the Antichristian line, in whom

the Number of the Beste began. And indeed his Arguments to begin the Antichristian Tyrannie with Leo Magnus seem weigh∣ty; because he was the first that assumed an Universal Domina∣tion, by virtue of the power of the Keyes given to Peter, Math. 16.18, 19. Of which see more Cluverus. And if we begin the Birth of this Man of Sin with Leo Magnus, then his Destructi∣on wil be about An. 1700 acccording to the Prophetic determi∣nation, Rev. 12.6, 14. where Antichrist's Duration is confined un∣to 1260 years. But (2) if we consider him as That man of sin, then observe here the abstract for the concrete, which implies an universalitie or perfection both of Parts and Degrees. He is a perfect man of sin, both Extensively and Intensively. [1 Exten∣sively, or as to the parts and kinds of sin, he is the complexe of al manner of sins. What sin is there so flagitiose and monstrose, whereof we have not some Idea in this Man of sin? Doth not his Head contain al the Heresies that were ever found in the Church? Are not the Pelagian Infusions the vital spirits of his heart? Is he not also a man of Schismes? Has not his Tyrannic Domination proved the wombe of the greatest Schismes in the Church? Is he not also a man of Idolatries and Superstitions? Are not al the Demon-superstitions to be found in him, as S. 3? Is not his mother-Church stiled, Rev. 17.1. the mother of Har∣lots, i.e. Idolatries? Yea is he not a man of Blasphemies, as Rev. 13.1, 5, 6? Doth he not blaspheme the Tabernacle or Bodie of our Lord, by his Doctrine of Transubstantiation? Are not the Hea∣venly Inhabitants, i.e. Angels and glorified Saints, blasphemed by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Saint worship? Is not also the Name of God, i.e. his Soverain Nature, Attributes, and Perfections, blasphe∣med by his Idolatrie and Wil-worship? What is Blasphemie, ac∣cording to its formal Idea, but the diminishing or blemishing the Name and Honor of God? (1) By taking that from God that belonges to him. (2) By ascribing that to God, that belonges not to him. (3) By ascribing that to the Creature that belonges to God? Is he not also a man of Pride, Ambition, and Ʋsurpa∣tion? Can there be a more Hel-bred piece of pride, than for a poor beggerly Priest to exalt himself above al the Princes of the world, as 2 Thes. 2.4? May he not also be justly stiled a man of blood, as Revel. 17.6? Yea is not al the blood of Saints that was ever shed from Abel to this day approved by him? Was there ever such a Murderer found as this man of sin, Rev.

11.7? And is he not likewise a man of avarice or covetous∣nesse? was there ever such an avariciose miser found as this, who measures al Godlinesse by Gain? Is not the Chamber of Rome wel Characterised by one, who stiles it an Infernal Golphe, which swallows up al that comes to it, without ever refunding any part? May we not also deservedly terme him a Man of Sorceries, and Witchcrafts? Is not Exorcisme or Conjuration one of the prin∣cipal Offices of his Church?* 1.410 Do we not read, Revel. 18 23. of his Sorceries?* 1.411 which we find explicated, Revel. 14.8. The wine of the wrath of her fornication. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here signifies not wrath, but poison, the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Revel. 18.23. namely those poisonous Philtres, or bewitching charmes, whereby the Whore of Babylon bewitches the Nations, in allusion to Whores, who were wont to drinke Philtres to their Paramors in a Golden cup, thereby to charme their affections, as Mede. Again, is he not a man of sensualities and impurities? was there ever any guil∣ty of such uncleannesses both corporal and spiritual? O! what Luxurie, Sodomie, and al manner of Sensualitie is to be found at Rome, under the Throne of this Antichristian Beste? And doth not al this procede from the just judgement of God, who usually punisheth spiritual fornication with corporal, as before? Is he not also a man of Ignorance? Is not his Kingdome subor∣dinate to that of Satan, a Kingdome of Darknesse? Is not Igno∣rance stiled by him the mother of his Devotion? How many in∣trigues has he to keep his subjects in darknesse? Doth not the power of his Sceptre consiste in the power of darknesse? With what black Curses doth he seal up the holy Scriptures from the peoples view? How do al his Devoti flie from the light of life, and turne their backes on the Sun of Righteousnesse? Is not Ig∣norance the main pillar of his Throne? What black darknesses covered Europe so long as this man of Sin gave Laws to it? Yea farther, may we not with justice terme him a man of Atheisme? Whence sprang al that Machiavellian Atheisme, which like a de∣luge hath overflowen al Europe, but from the Doctrines and Practices of this man of sin? What more potent to make men Atheists, than such a ridiculose superstitiose Religion, as that of this man of sin? Doth not carnal Policie, which is the quintes∣sence of Poperie, naturally tend to Atheisme? Moreover, is he not a man of Irreligion and Profanenesse? Hath he not for more than 1000 years profaned the Temple of God by his Abominati∣on

of Desolation? how has he polluted al the Ordinances, Sacra∣ments, and holy things of God? Again, may we not without in∣jurie terme him a man of Hypocrisie, Lies, and Deceit? Are not Lying wonders and fabulose Legends the main foundation of his Kingdome, as 2 Thes. 2.7, 10? Is he not said, Rev. 13.11. To have two hornes like a lambe; i.e. to counterfeit the power of Christ? So 1 Tim. 4.2. he is said to introduce al his Doctrines of Demons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the hypocrisie, &c. as before S. 3. §. 1, &c. Yea what is al Poperie but a profunde Mysterie of Ini∣quitie, a complexe of Pharisaic ranke hypocrisie, a mere carnal lie? Lastly, to sum up the Idea's of Antichrist, is he not a man of Apostasie? Are not al the Apostasies of the Church in al Age to be found in this man of sin? Is not this the principal reason why Babylon is stiled the mother of Harlots, Rev. 17.5? Thus we see how he is That man of sin extensively; i.e. of al kinds of sin; the systeme and complexe of al Heresies, sins, and blasphemies, &c. It's true, there were many errors and corruptions in the Primitive Churches, and many Antichrists, as 1 Joh. 2.18. yet none of them were this man of sin; but he is the aggregate and compende of al of them; he is as it were the Ocean, into which al those foregoing Heresies and Abominations did flow. Thus he is said to be that man of sin; i.e. of al kinds or sorts of Sin and Heresie, in whom al He∣resies met as lines in their centre. [2.] This phrase, That man of sin, implies an intensive universalitie, or perfection of degrees; i.e. in whom al sins meet in their highest degree; for it is wel known, that Abstractes speak, formes, essences, and quintessences of things. So that Man of sin, implies the most notorious sins, abominations, and blasphemies, enormities in the most soverain degree. Some con∣ceive this character given Antichrist to be borrowed from the like given by the Jewes to Antiochus his Type, 1 Maccab. 2.48, 62. who is there stiled, That sinner; i.e. such a sinner as outwent al that ever were. Hence the prodigiose sin of Antichrist is termed, 2 Thes. 2.7. a mysterie of iniquitie; i.e. a profunde infinite abysse of iniquitie. So it's said of Babylon, the royal seat of this man of sin, Revel. 18.5. For her sins have reached unto heaven; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.412 i.e. her sins following each other, and arising each from other grew so numerose and great, as that at last they reached up to Heaven, just like a pile of Wood, &c. Again, there is some emphasis in the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that man; i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he who is not only a disloyal servant, or a declared enemie, but a Traitor and Usurper of Christs

Empire. Oh! what a world of Treasons and Blasphemies against Christ is he guilty of, and that under a pretexte of being Christ's Vicar? In sum, if you should rake Hel, you could not find a sin∣ner either extensively or intensively equal to this man of sin.

Then follows the other part of his Character,* 1.413 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That son of perdition. i.e. (1) Actively, he who wil destroy him∣self, and al that adhere to him, as 2 Pet. 2.1. And bring upon them∣selves swift destruction. Antichrist's Perdition shal arise out of his own bowels; he shal perish in and by his own designes, endeavors, and oppositions. As Christ makes the necessities of his enemies to serve his Churches conveniences; so also doth he not make the oppositions of his Enemies subservient to their own ruine? Anti∣christ has been these twelve hundred years digging a grave to burie the Church alive; but wil he not at last fal himself thereinto, and fil up the living Churches place? Do not Antichrist and his Adhe∣rents, whiles they strike at Christ and his Members, break their own arme on that rocke? (2) Antichrist is That son of perdition, passively, [1] as worthy of perdition. So Ephes. 2.3. Children of wrath; i.e. who deserve wrath. If ever any deserved perdition, this man of sin doth. In which sense Judas as his Type is termed, Joh. 17.12. That son of perdition. [2] As under the curse of God, which at last brings perdition. So we read, 2 Pet. 2.14. of cursed Children, or Sons of the curse. And is not Antichrist a son of al the Curses in the Word of God? What curse is there which belonges not to him? [3] He is the son of that famose perdition, so much spoken of in the Word of God, and typified by al the great Per∣ditions of Gods Enemies: a perdition in which al other perditi∣ons meet, the perdition of the old world, Sodome, Pharaoh, Baby∣lon, Jerusalem, &c. So Revel. 17.8. it's said, that the Antichristi∣an Beste shal go into perdition; i.e. into that famose perdition so much spoken of. [4] He is that son of perdition, because devoted, adjudged, sentenced to perdition, as his proper Enheritance. As the Enheritance belonged to the Son, so Perdition to the man of sin. What is said of the destruction of the Ninevites, Nah. 1.9. He wil make an utter end: affliction shal not rise up the second time, shal be the portion of this man of sin. As Judas was that son of perdition, because adjudged to it; so the man of sin is that son of perdition; i.e. wholly devoted to perdition: it being an Hebrew idiome where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a son, being used with a Genitive case of Ap∣pellatives, signifies such an one as is wholly given up to such a thing, as Prov. 31.8.

But then follows Antichrist's formal Usurpation of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonarchie, which the Pagan Emperors assumed to them∣selves, v. 4. And lifting himself up above al that is called God;* 1.414 i.e. A∣bove the Roman Emperor, who was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, called God, and that (1) Truely, though Figuratively, as he was appointed by God, to be his Vicegerent in Civil affaires. So the Scriptures cal Civil Ma∣gistrates Gods, Psal. 82.1. I said ye are Gods, &c. in this sense the Emperor was truely called God. But this seems not the whole or chief import of this phrase here. Wherefore (2) by called God, we may understand the abused sense and opinion which Parasites and the vulgar people had of their Emperors, to whom they ascribed a Divinitie, specially after their decease. For we must know, that the Roman Emperors generally affected the title of Gods; and such as were deserving amongst them were estimed as such, spe∣cially after their death, passing for Demons, Deastri, or Medioxumi. Such were Romulus, Numa, Julius Caesar, and the rest of the more noble Emperors reputed. Now it's said, that Antichrist should lift himself up above al that is called God; i.e. he should usurpe al that pretended Hierarchie or Demonarchie, which the Emperor, as Su∣preme Head in al Maters Civil and Ecclesiastic, assumed; yea he should lift up himself at an higher pitch of usurped Empire, than ever the Emperor either as Civil Magistrate, or as Pontifex Maxi∣mus, affected. So much 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lift up, notes. Some render the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contra, against: the meaning is the same. That this is the proper import of the words, appears by what fol∣lows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or that is worshipped: the French renders it,* 1.415 Di∣vinitie. The Greek signifies whatever is in any soverain degree reverenced, be it Civil, be it Religiose. (1) It signifies that Ci∣vil worship which they gave to their Emperors: whence al the Emperors after Octavius were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Augusti, (which is of the same origination and import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place.) So Act. 25.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Augustus; and v. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Act. 27.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Augustus signifies Illustrious, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the lustre of the Sun. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also Religiose Worship, (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to wor∣ship,* 1.416 and this from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sabah to celebrate), which the Empe∣rors affected as wel as Civil. Whence the Roman Emperor was usually stiled Divus Augustus, and so worshipped as a Demon after his death. And that this is the genuine import of the words is acknowledged by Milletere, (after his Apostasie to the Roman Church) Positiones xii. Romae proponendae de fide propag. Posit. 3.

Paul (saies he) pointes out to the believing Thessalonians the son of perdition by these characters, 2 Thes. 2.4. That he exaltes himself against al that is called God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & Augustum. This is the proper name by which the Emperors were called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Augusti. The ordinary name of the Emperor was Di∣vus Augustus, Saint Augustus; which is formed of those two words used here by the Apostle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Thus Milletere, who here sufficiently laies open the nakednesse of his Father the Pope, who has indeed fully made good our Apostles character, in exalting himself above the Pagan Emperor, who was by his flaterers and the superstitiose people called and worshipped as God, or as one of their Divi and Demons. And is not the Pope indeed called Sanctissimus Papa, the most holy Pope; which is the very name the Gentiles gave their supreme God Jupiter. So Bochart, contre Veron, pag. 883. 'This name Papa is given him from that amongst the Pagans: Jupiter was called Pappas, i.e. Father. So Jupiter is by Muis derived from the Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, jah, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Father. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, jah, being pronounced by the Grecians first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whence Ju-pater, Father Jah: whereunto Pappas, and Papa answer. Neither does the Pope affect the name only,* 1.417 but also the Divi∣nitie of a Pagan Demon-God; and that in an higher degree than ever the Pagan Emperors did. For (1) does he not pretend to an extraordinarie Sanctitie and Divinitie, more than ever any Di∣vus Augustus did? (2) Does he not affect and usurpe an ab∣solute Supremacie both in Civils and Ecclesiastics, beyond what the Emperor either as Civil Magistrate, or as Pontifex Maxi∣mus assumed? (3) Does not the Pope assume a power of ma∣king Demons, or Saint-Mediators, more than ever any Emperor did? (4) Are not the Popes, at least some, Canonised as Saints, and so worshipped, as Demons were? (5) Yea, are not the Popes worshipped while living with great Ceremonies, both Sa∣cred and Civil, more than ever any Pagan Emperors were? Thus this man of sin has by his usurped 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonar∣chie, exalted himself above al that is called God or worshipped.

But then follows the description of his Papal Throne or Seat,* 1.418 in that phrase, Sitteth in the Temple of God: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to sit, according to the Scripture-Phraseologie, signifies to Rule, or Pre∣side. So Psal. 110.1. Sit thou at my right hand &c. The like Psal. 9.8. & 20.10. Revel. 17.15. & 18.8. So Thomas renders it, Principari, dominari; and Theodoret, to usurp the chief seat. In

this regard Antichrist is said to be a counter-Christ, or an Usur∣per of his Royal Throne; who is said,* 1.419 Heb. 1.3. out of Psal. 110.1. To sit at the right hand of God, which denotes his Pro∣phetic and Regal office: for to sit in the Schole belongs to the Do∣ctor; and on the Throne, to the King. Thus Antichrist, by sitting in the Temple of God, usurpes Christ's Dignitie and Mediatorie Office as Doctor, and King in his Church. Mestrezat, de l' Eglise, liv. 2. Chap. 20. pag. 430. refers this to what is mentioned of the King of Babylon, Esa. 14.12, 13.* 1.420 I wil sit also upon the Mount of the Congregation.

To sit, (saies he) in the Scripture signifies, to exercise Authoritie and Empire. And we are to remarque here, that the Apostle speaking of Antichrist, that he shal sit in the Temple of God, alludes to Esa. 14.12, 13. where the Prophet represents the words of the King of Babylon, Glorifying him∣self in having subjugated Judea, &c. The Apostle therefore be∣ing about to describe the Usurpation of Antichrist in the Church, does it by this of the King of Babylon, and by his pride; in as much as the King of Babylon was the type and figure of Anti∣christ, who does that spiritually upon Religion and the Consci∣ences of men, which the other had done corporally on the Church of the Jewes, &c.

Deodate, in his Annotations on these words, 2 Thes. 2.4. Sitteth, &c. saith,

That this circumstance is taken out of what is mentioned of the King of Tyre, Ezech. 28.2. I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, &c.

* 1.421 We may take in both; because they were both Types of Antichrist. Yea, we may adde hereto what is mentioned of Antiochus, Dan. 11.36.* 1.422 And he shall magnifie himself above every God, &c. Also what is mentioned of the Roman Emperor, Mat. 24.15. That he should set up his Abomination of Desolation in the Temple of God. For al these Pagan Monarchs were, by reason of their bloody Perse∣cution against the Church of God, Types of Antichrist his Spiri∣tual Domination in the Churches of Christ, by virtue of his usur∣ped 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yea indeed this Tyrannic persecution of Antichrist in many regardes excedeth al those former Perse∣cutions of the King of Babylon, Tyre, Antiochus, and of the Ro∣man Emperors, against the Jewish Church. So Augustin, de Civ. l. 18. c. 52, 53, &c. tels us,

That this last Persecution under Antichrist which he cals the Eleventh, would be of al the worst.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Temple. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may be understood here (1) Sub∣jectively,* 1.423 in, as we translate it, for his ruling in and over the

Church of Christ, not as an open enemie, but under the pretexte of being Christ's Vicar: and so it denotes the difference between the Usurpations of Pagans, Nebuchadnezar, Antiochus, and the Roman Emperors, who ruled over the Temple of Christ, but not IN it, as Antichrist, whose Tyrannie is not externe and open, but interne, and under pretexte of a Vicarious power from Christ, Revel. 13.11. This Man of sin is not a bare-faced, but Masqued enemie. (2) We may render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contra, against. Antichrist's sit∣ting in, or ruling over the Church, being in order to its ruine. Thus Mestrezat renders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, against the Temple of God. i.e.

Antichrist shal by his Empire ruine the Church Spiritu∣ally, as the King of Babylon did it corporally: for it is a sitting or Domination for ruine, as it arrives from a cancer on the bodie. (3) August. de Civ. l. 2. c. 19. gives this glosse hereon: We need no way dout, but that in this place, 2 Thes. 2.4,-11. The Apostle speakes of Antichrist, v. 4. he saies not, in the Tem∣ple of God, but for the Temple of God; as if he were the Temple of God, which is the Church; as we are wont to say, sedet in amicum, he sits for a friend, i.e. as a friend.

Though this be a truth, yet I conceive our commun version is most authentic, which also comprehendes both the former: For Antichrist sits in the Tem∣ple, or Church of God, as an absolute Monarch, or counter-Christ, for the Churches ruine, not edification: and thus, though his Session be in the Temple of God, yet is it also against the Temple or Church of God; yea al his Pretensions of sitting as Christ's Vi∣car in his Church, are but Politic expedients, by which he does more effectually ruine the Church, &c. That the Temple of God here, and else where in the Epistles, is used as an expression of the Christian Churches, which are the Bodie and truth of that where∣of the Material Temple at Jerusalem was but the Type and Figure, is evident from, 1 Cor. 3.16, 17. 2 Cor. 6.16. Ephes. 2.20, 21, 22. And thus the Fathers, (as Augustin, &c.) generally understand

Then it follows,* 1.424 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as God; which seems also to refer to the description of the King of Babylon, Esa. 14.12, 13. or of the King of Tyre, Ezech. 28.2.

For, addes Mestrezat, who ever attributes unto himself Domination over mens Consciences, and Empire over the Christian Church, he sits as God, and de∣portes himself as if he were God.

And has not Antichrist usur∣ped such a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonarchie to himself? does he not sit

on his Pontific Chair, (which he stiles St. Peters) in Christ's room? And has he not his Pontific Sceptre or staffe, i.e. his Canon Law, which he sets up in the room of Christ's Sceptre or Law? has he not usurped the Keyes of Christ, Revel. 1.18. to bind whom Christ absolves, and to absolve whom Christ bindes? Doth he not condemne what God commandes, and command what God condemnes? Is not that evil by his Law, which is good by Gods; and that good by Gods Law, which is evil by his? Do not al his Ecclesiastic Canons bespeak him an Idol-God or Demon? So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shewing himself that he is God; i.e. exhibiting himself as one of those great Demon Idols, which the Pagans erected in their Temples, and worshipped as Gods; attracting to himself the eyes, hearts, and Consciences of al his Adorers. Or, as the Roman Emperors, by assuming to them∣selves the Title and Authoritie of Pontifex Maximus, did there∣by virtually, if not formally, shew themselves to be Gods, and so were called Divi Augusti, and worshipped as Demons, at least after their death: Just so, this Man of sin, though he does not formally assume unto himself the Name of God or Christ, yet virtually he shews himself as God, or a Demon-Christ, by usur∣ping the Name and Power of a Pontifex Maximus, of the Head of the Church, St. Peter's Chair and Keyes, &c.

§. 3. Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Traditions,* 1.425 with which his Cano∣nic Theologie or Law is so greatly stuffed, are al but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Doctrines of Demons in imitation, as 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. We have before S. 2. §. 3, 4. spoken somewhat of Anti∣christ's Ecclesiastic Traditions, in relation to the Forme of his Canon-Law; we shal now treat a little of them as they are the chief Materials of his Canonic Theologie. And indeed the main bodie of Antichrist's Pontific Canon-Law is made up of certain Ecclesiastic Traditions, which he pretendes to have received down from the Apostles, by the hands of the Church; but to give them their true Genealogie, they are in truth no other than cor∣rupt Imitamens of, and Derivations from the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-worship. To make this clear, we must recollect what has been before mentioned of the Pythagoreans, (the great founders and Promotors of Demon-worship) who alwaies received Pythago∣ras's Institutes as Divine Traditions, delivered to him their Ma∣ster by the Divine Oracle. For al those great Founders of De∣mon-worship never presumed so much on their own Autoritie, as

to deliver any Institute or Canon, touching the worship of their Demons, without some pretension of Divine Tradition. So Numa Pompilius, Lycurgus, Solon, and al those great Legislators pre∣tended unto a Divine Tradition, for al those Institutes or Canons they delivered touching the worship of the Gods. Plato aboundes in expressions to this purpose, shewing, How al their Traditions touching the worship of their Demons, were received from the Oracle, as Repub. 5. and elsewhere. And the Pythagoreans had so particular a veneration for their Master Pythagoras, as that they looked upon al his Institutes to be Divine Inspirations: whence they stiled him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Divine; and judged his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Divine Tradition, specially as to such things as related to their Demon-worship. Now that al Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Tra∣ditions, with which his Canonic Theologie aboundes, are but corrupt Derivations from this Pythagorean fountain, we shal en∣deavor to evince from 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.426 That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies as wel a Tradition or Canon, as Doctrine, we have already proved,* 1.427 S. 2. §. 3. And this is very evident from Mat. 15.2, 6, 9. the consideration of which Scripture wil give us much light as to our present designe. The Pharisees v. 2. complain, that Christs Disciples transgresse the Tradition of the Elders. They cal them the Traditions of the Elders, because they pretended, these Traditions were delivered by God to Moses when on the Mount, and so delivered by him to Joshua, and from Joshua handed down by the Elders succeding in the great Sanedrim. But Christ tels them, that these Traditions were not, as they pretended, of Divine Origine; which he proves, because they make void the Commande∣ment of God, as v. 3,-6. And our Savior ver. 9. gives the true Genealogie of al those Pharisaic Traditions: Teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of men. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. These your Ecclesiastic Traditions, which you make to be so Canonic and Divine, are in∣deed but the Commandements of men, i.e. Pythagorean Dogmes and Institutes: for such these Pharisaic Washings and Purifications were, with al the rest of their Externe Abstinences and Severities, as it appears by Col. 2.20, 21, 22, 23. as before, S. 3. §. 10. see the like Mark 7.2, 3, 4, &c. Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 5. Under this description of the Pharisaic Traditions our blessed Lord laies o∣pen to us al those Canonic Traditions of Antichrist, and their ori∣gination. (1) It's true, the Sons of Antichrist pretend these their Traditions to be dropt from the mouth of Christ, and so handed

down by the Churches Oral Tradition in al Ages: and did not the Pharisees pretend the same for their Oral Law, as they cal it, or the Traditions of the Elders? Would they not fain persuade us, that those Oral Traditions were at first delivered by God to Moses on the Mount, by Moses to Joshua, by Joshua to the LXX Elders, and by them in continued successions down to their dayes? Which yet Christ tels us were but the Commandements or Institutes of men, as Mar. 7.8. i.e. as Paul explaineth Christ's words,* 1.428 Col. 2.8, 20, 21. of vain Philosophers; or according to 1 Tim. 4.1. Demon-Dogmes, Canons and Traditions. (2) The Sons of Antichrist a∣dorne and dignifie their Canonic Traditions with al manner of illu∣strious Titles of honor: and did not the Pharisees, and their suc∣cessors the Talmudistes, dignifie their Oral Traditions with as splen∣did Titles of honor? Do not both one and t'other estime it a far greater sin to break a Tradition of the Church, than to violate the Law of God? (3) Antichrist commandes that al his Canonic Traditions be swallowed down with an implicite faith, albeit never so contradictorie to commun sense, reason, and Divine saith: and did not the Pharisees and their Sectators the Rabbines enjoin the same? So R. Sal. Jarchi, on Deut. 17.11. Thou shalt not, saith he, recede from the words of the Elders, albeit they should say unto thee, that thy right hand is the left, and thy left the right. (4) The Pope doth anathematise al those that violate his Traditions: and did not the Pharisees of old, as the Rabbines do the very same? O! what an exact parallel is there between Pharisaic and Antichristian Tra∣ditions! Thus we see how these Demon-Doctrines or Traditions, which Antichrist's Canonic Theologie is ful of, owe their origine to the Pythagorean Demon Theologie, Canons, or Traditions.

§. 4.* 1.429 To conclude this Argument touching Antichrist's De∣mon-Dogmes, Traditions, and Canons, we have sufficiently proved, that the whole of Antichrist's Canonic Theologie is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imitation of Pagan Demon-Doctrines and Canons: We have also proved, that these Demon-Dogmes and Institutes were formed and shaped into a Natural Theologie by the Philosophers, and princi∣pally by the Pythagoreans and Pythagorising Platonistes. It's true Orpheus, Homer and Hesiod were the first that brought in Demons, and Demon-worship into Grece; but yet we must know, 'twas the Philosophers that formed and shaped these Doctrines of Demons into a complete bodie of Natural Theologie, constituting these De∣mons as Mediators with the supreme God, &c. For the Poets,

Homer, &c. confound their Demons with the supreme Gods: so Homer cals Jupiter a Demon; as Iliad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he saies, Jupiter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Plutarch, de cessat Oracul. tels us, that Homer made no difference between the Gods and Demons. It was indeed the Philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. those Founders of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natural Theologie, who formalised and shaped this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonologie, into its proper Forme and Figure; which afterwards the Pythagorising Platonistes of the Alexandrine Schole, Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyrie, Jamblichus, Proclus, &c. reformed and refined; so that it became a fit Idea or image for Origen, and his adherents the Monkes of Alexandria, to forme and fashion the first lineaments of Antichrist's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by: out of which Antichrist himself, when he came to the stature of a perfect Man of sin, extracted al his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with al the other parts of his Demonologie or Canonic Theologie, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. compared with Rev. 9.20.* 1.430 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demons, i.e. saies Mede, Dea∣sters; consecrated both of Angels and dead men, to be Mediators betwixt God and Men, which the Scripture cals Baalim, the like Act. 17.22.* 1.431 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i.e. Devoted to Demon-fear, or worship: so 1 Cor. 10.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. the Demons liba∣men or drinke offering, as before, S. 3. §. 4. By al which laid toge∣ther it is most evident, that al Antichrist's Canonic Theologie is but a reviving of the old Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demonologie, or Demon-Dogmes, Canons, and Traditions, formed into a Systeme of Natu∣ral Theologie, by Pythagoras and Plato, and since reformed by the Pythagorising Platonistes of Alexandria, Ammonius, Plotinus, Por∣phyrie, Origen, and the rest. Yea we have demonstrated, that the whole bodie and spirit of Antichristianisme had its conception and formation in the wombe of Pagan Philosophie, and was brought forth in this Schole of Alexandria; which proved the Nurserie of Antichrist, and al his Mystic, Scholastic, and Canonic Theologie; spe∣cially (1) of Monastic Life and Institutes. (2) Of al Pelagianisme. (3) Of al Demonologie and Demonolatrie. (4) Of al Abstinences, Satisfactions, and Merits. (5) Of Purgatorie. (6) Of Papal Pri∣matie, &c. By which we see how much Antichrist has been obli∣ged to Pagan Philosophie, and principally to the Schole of Alexan∣dria, for his Nativitie and Nurserie. Al which being superadded to our former Demonstrations from the Causes, Parts, Properties and Effects of Vain Philosophie, sufficiently prove our Conclusion tou∣ching the Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Vain Philoso∣phie from ig∣norance.
• * 1.2

  Act. 17.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.3

  2 Pet. 1.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.4

  Rom. 1.18.
• * 1.5

  2. Human In∣ventions.
• * 1.6

  Col. 2.8.
• * 1.7

  Col. 2.20.
• * 1.8

  Gal. 4.3, 9.
• * 1.9

  Col. 2.21.
• * 1.10

  Col. 2.22.
• * 1.11

  Curiositie and affectation of Novitie. Col. 2.18.
• * 1.12

  Act 17.21.
• * 1.13

  1 Cor. 15.32.
• * 1.14

  Spiritual Pride, the Cause of Vain Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.15

  Col. 2.18.
• * 1.16

  1. Cor. 8.1.
• * 1.17

  1 Cor. 8.2.
• * 1.18

  Pride brings al Divine my∣steries to the measure of car∣nal Reason
• * 1.19

  Pride makes men intemper∣ate in desires of knowlege.
• * 1.20

  Pride is much busied about trifles.
• * 1.21

  Pride exposed Philosophers to the Divine Curse.
• * 1.22

  1 Tim. 3.6,
• * 1.23

  Pride turned Philosophie into a seminary of 'Blasphemie, A∣theisme, Idola∣trie, Sensuali∣tie.
• * 1.24

  Psal. 10.4.
• * 1.25

  Carnal confi∣dence another cause of vain Philosophie.
• * 1.26

  Col. 2.18. Vainly puffed up. Hab. 2.4.
• * 1.27

  Affected igno∣rance the effect of carnal pre∣sumtion.
• * 1.28

  Socrates's sense of his depen∣dances on God for light.
• * 1.29

  The Vanitie of Philosophie from its vain contentions.
• * 1.30

  1 Tim. 6.3.
• * 1.31

  1 Tim. 6.4.
• * 1.32

  Illud semper egerunt sectae us{que} ab initio originis suae, ut quocun{que} modo a cateris distarent: unde quod uni pla∣cuit alteri dis∣plicuit: Om∣nia pugna∣bant adversis frontibus. Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 7. c. 13.
• * 1.33

  The effects of these verbal Disputes, Strifes, Rail∣ings, &c.
• * 1.34

  1 Tim. 6.5.
• * 1.35

  Vers. 6.
• * 1.36

  1 Tim. 6.20.
• * 1.37

  2 Tim. 6.21.
• * 1.38

  Opiniatrctie and a Dogma∣tising hum or, its origine and and vanitie.
• * 1.39

  Col. 2.20.
• * 1.40

  Carnal policie of Philosophers.
• * 1.41

  Psal. 112.113.
• * 1.42

  Ver. 118.
• * 1.43

  1 Cor. 2.6.
• * 1.44

  Judiciarie blindnesse and hardnesse.
• * 1.45

  Rom. 1.18, 21, 22, 28.
• * 1.46

  Idolatrical in∣clination.
• * 1.47

  Fabulous Imi∣tation.
• * 1.48

  The vanitie and corruption of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Logic.
• * 1.49

  Rom. 1, 21.
• * 1.50

  Phil. 2.14.
• * 1.51

  1 Tim. 1.6.
• * 1.52

  1 Tim. 6.4, 20.
• * 1.53

  The origine of this Eristic Le∣gic.
• * 1.54

  Aristotle's Lo∣gic sophistica∣ted by the Ara∣bians and Scholemen.
• * 1.55

  A general con∣sent against E∣ristic Logic.
• * 1.56

  1 Cor. 14.20.
• * 1.57

  The Vanitie of their Physics.
• * 1.58

  1 Cor. 1, 20.
• * 1.59

  1 Cor. 1.20.
• * 1.60

  Rom. 1.20.
• * 1.61

  1 Cor. 1.20.
• * 1.62

  1 Cor. 2.6.
• * 1.63

  Rom. 1.21.
• * 1.64

  Natural Phi∣losophie the cause of Idola∣trie.
• * 1.65

  Rom. 1.21, 23.
• * 1.66

  The vanitie of the Mathema∣tics.
• * 1.67

  Astronomie the cause of Ido∣latrie.
• * 1.68

  2. Of A∣theisme.
• * 1.69

  The Vanitie of Moral Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.70

  Ephes. 5.6.
• * 1.71

  Ver. 15.
• * 1.72

  Ver. 14.
• * 1.73

  1 Cor. 1.20.
• * 1.74

  The defect of Ethics as to its mater.
• * 1.75

  Pagan Ethics vain as to its end.
• * 1.76

  the Romans end vain-glory.
• * 1.77

  The Stoics end to live virtu∣ose.
• * 1.78

  The Moralists make self the first efficient of al good.
• * 1.79

  1. Their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is their rule.
• * 1.80

  The Heathen Moralists as∣sert a freewil, or seeds of virtue.
• * 1.81

  Socrates a∣gainst Free-wil.
• * 1.82

  This Doctrine of the seeds of virtue or free-wil the root of Pelagianisme.
• * 1.83

  No moral or natural virtue but what is divine and supernatural.
• * 1.84

  The Pelagians worse than Philosophers.
• * 1.85

  3. Other Es∣sential defects as to the Prin∣cipes of their Morals.
• * 1.86

  The Vanitie of Philosophic Politics. 1 Cor. 1.20.
• * 1.87

  Ezr. 4.8.
• * 1.88

  1 Cor. 2.6.
• * 1.89

  1. Their imper∣fection in com∣parison of Di∣vine Politics.
• * 1.90

  The imperfe∣ction of Hu∣man Politics. 1. As to their origine and extent.
• * 1.91

  Philosophle Po∣litics vain.
• * 1.92

  1. As to their End.
• * 1.93

  2. As to their Mater.
• * 1.94

  3. As to their effects.
• * 1.95

  1. Atheisme.
• * 1.96

  2. Idolatrie.
• * 1.97

  The Corruption of Natural Theologie.
• * 1.98

  The corruption of Natural Theologie as to its ultimate object, God.
• * 1.99

  The Philoso∣phers under∣stood not their own notions of God; nor how he was the Au∣thor of Eternal Life.
• * 1.100

  1 Cor. 1.21.
• * 1.101

  Col. 2.8.
• * 1.102

  2. They had no true knowlege of the Trinitie.
• * 1.103

  How far they had notices of a Trinitie.
• * 1.104

  That these Phi∣losophic notions about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c gace oc∣casion to the Arian Here∣sic, see B. 2. Chap 1. Sect. ••.
• * 1.105

  Their vanitie as to the Di∣vine Ideas and Decrees.
• * 1.106

  The vanitie of the Philoso∣phers Natural Theologie as to its mediate Object.
• * 1.107

  Al their De∣mon-Doctrines vain and cor∣rupt.
• * 1.108

  Col. 2.3.
• * 1.109

  Ver. 4.
• * 1.110

  Ver. 8.
• * 1.111

  Ver. 9.
• * 1.112

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. Really.
• * 1.113

  2. Essentially.
• * 1.114

  3. Personally.
• * 1.115

  4. Perfectly.
• * 1.116

  Ver. 10. Complete.
• * 1.117

  Col. 2.18, 19.
• * 1.118

  4 Demon-wor∣ship vain and corrupt.
• * 1.119

  5 The Vanitie of their Me∣taphysic Philo∣sophisings a∣bout the Soul.
• * 1.120

  Pre-existence of al Souls.
• * 1.121

  Metempsycho∣sis.
• * 1.122

  Purgatorie.
• * 1.123

  6. The hellish Corruption of their Magic.
• * 1.124

  The four waies of Divination amongst the Jews imitated by the Pagan Diviners.
• * 1.125

  The Art of Di∣vication part of their Doctrine of Demons.
• * 1.126

  Apollo their great Oracle.
• * 1.127

  Deut. 32.17.
• * 1.128

  The origine of the Delphie Divination.
• * 1.129

  The nature of Divination out of Plato.
• * 1.130

  1. Its origine not by Art but divine Afflati∣on.
• * 1.131

  The Instru∣ments, Poets and Prophets.
• * 1.132

  3. These Di∣viners in an exstatic rap∣ture or furie.
• * 1.133

  4. Divination by Enthusiasme.
• * 1.134

  These Enthusi∣astic Diviners could not judge of their own Divination, but had there Judges.
• * 1.135

  1 Cor. 12.10.
• * 1.136

  The end of Di∣vination to breed a friend∣ship with God, and restore Natural The∣ologie.
• * 1.137

  The sundry kinds of Di∣vination.
• * 1.138

  1. Divination by Dreams.
• * 1.139

  Of Divination by Magic.
• * 1.140

  Apollonius Tyanaeus his Magic and Demon-Do∣ctrines, a type and forerunner of Antichrist, and his Saint-worship.
• * 1.141

  1 Tim. 4.1.
• * 1.142

  2 Thes. 2.9.
• * 1.143

  Divination 1. by Birds.
• * 1.144

  2. From four four-footed Bestes.
• * 1.145

  3. From Men.
• * 1.146

  4. From Herbs.
• * 1.147

  5. From Inani∣mates.
• * 1.148

  [1] From Na∣tural Ele∣ments, Water, Earth, Fire.
• * 1.149

  [2] From Ce∣lestial Bodies, Stars, Meteors, &c.
• * 1.150

  [3] From things Artifi∣cial.
• * 1.151

  The Corruption of Philosophie from its Sym∣bolic forme or mode.
• * 1.152

  The origine of Symbolic Phi∣losophie and its vanitie.
• * 1.153

  1 Tim. 1.3.
• * 1.154

  Ver. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.155

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.156

  Vers. 5.
• * 1.157

  Ver. 6.
• * 1.158

  Ver. 7.
• * 1.159

  1 Tim. 1.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.160

  The origine of the Jewish Ca∣bala.
• * 1.161

  1 Tim. 4.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.162

  Tit. 1.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.163

  The Vanitie of Philosophie in regard of its Proprieties.
• * 1.164

  1. The desici∣ence of Philo∣sophie as to truth.
• * 1.165

  1. It was for the most part false.
• * 1.166

  2. Philosophie but a night-day.
• * 1.167

  1 Tim. 6.20.
• * 1.168

  2. Proprietie of vain Phi∣losophie, that it is only Tradi∣tional, Equivo∣cal and Artifi∣cial, not Intui∣tive and na∣tive.
• * 1.169

  Pagan Philoso∣phie but an equivocal pi∣cture, not an univocal image or idea of truth.
• * 1.170

  Col. 2.18.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.171

  Rom. 2.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.172

  Prov. 2, 7.
• * 1.173

  3. Pagan Phi∣losophie vain; because only general, not particular and experimental.
• * 1.174

  4. Pagan Phi∣losophie cloudy and confused, not evident and distinct.
• * 1.175

  Heb. 11.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.176

  5. Pagan Phi∣losophie incer∣tain and Opini∣ative only.
• * 1.177

  1 Cor. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.178

  Col. 2.2.
• * 1.179

  Luk. 1.1.
• * 1.180

  Gal. 3.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.181

  6. Pagan Phi∣losophie not truely discur∣sive, but sophi∣stic or paralo∣gistic.
• * 1.182

  Rom. 1.21.
• * 1.183

  1 Tim 6.4, 5.
• * 1.184

  Pagan Philoso∣phie not truely Noetic, or In∣telligent.
• * 1.185

  8. Pagan Phi∣losophie defe∣ctive as to Pru∣dence, viz. 1. Part of Prudence self-reflexion.
• * 1.186

  2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Providence.
• * 1.187

  3: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.188

  4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.189

  5. Practical knowlege.
• * 1.190

  9. Pagan Phi∣losophie defe∣ctive as to that transforming power they pretended to
• * 1.191

  2 Cor. 3.18.
• * 1.192

  Pagan Philoso∣phie vain as to its Effects. (1.) It came short of its End.
• * 1.193

  Prov. 7.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.194

  Eccl. 10.2, 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.195

  Pagan Phi∣losophie soul∣deceit and de∣lusion.
• * 1.196

  1 Cor. 3.1.
• * 1.197

  Ver. 10.
• * 1.198

  Ver. 18.
• * 1.199

  Ver. 19.
• * 1.200

  Ver. 20.
• * 1.201

  Phil. 2.14.
• * 1.202

  Ephes. 4.14.
• * 1.203

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.204

  Ephes. 5.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.205

  Col. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.206

  Jam. 1.22.
• * 1.207

  Col. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.208

  Ver. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.209

  Ver. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.210

  3. Effect of Pagan Philoso∣phie was Ido∣latrie.
• * 1.211

  Observatum est ibi maximè vi∣guisse super∣stitionem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ubi maximè flo∣rebant philoso∣phi. Quod vel Athenicasium exemplo pater, de quo Act. 17.16. Hine fa∣ctum est, ut ex ipsis Philoso∣phis Dcorum Saccr otes le∣gerenlur. Hor∣nius Hist. Phi∣los. l. 3. The origine of Demons from Pagan Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.212

  1. Demons worshipped by Images.
• * 1.213

  2. By Sepul∣chers, Shrines, and Temples.
• * 1.214

  3. By Cuttings. 1 King. 18.28. Deut. 14.1.
• * 1.215

  Levit. 19.28.
• * 1.216

  Jer. 41.5. 4. By Col∣umnes, Festi∣vals, Abstinen∣ces, sacred Vestments, &c.
• * 1.217

  1 Tim. 4.1.
• * 1.218

  What Influence al Idolatrie received from Philosophie.
• * 1.219

  Rom. 1.20, 21.
• * 1.220

  Ver. 23.
• * 1.221

  Atheisme the effect of Pa∣gan Philosophie. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a preparative to Atheisme.
• * 1.222

  Act. 17.18, 27.
• * 1.223

  2. Pagan Phi∣losophic had a formal influ∣ence on Atheisme.
• * 1.224

  1. What Influ∣ence Physiolo∣gie hath upon Atheisme.
• * 1.225

  Medicine how the cause of Atheisme.
• * 1.226

  2. How the Mathematics are influential on Atheisme.
• * 1.227

  Specially Astronomie.
• * 1.228

  3. Philosophic Politics pro∣ductive of Atheisme.
• * 1.229

  Dan. 4.30.
• * 1.230

  4. Eristic Phi∣losophie or Lo∣gic the cause of Atheisme.
• * 1.231

  Psal. 10.4.
• * 1.232

  Pagan Philoso∣phic the cause of Jewish Apostasies.
• * 1.233

  The Jewish Baal-worship the Effect of the Philosophic Demon-Theo∣logie.
• * 1.234

  Deut. 14.1.
• * 1.235

  1 King. 18.28.
• * 1.236

  1 Cor. 8.5.
• * 1.237

  1 King. 16.31, 32.
• * 1.238

  1 King. 18.22.
• * 1.239

  Rev. 2.20.
• * 1.240

  The Apostasie of the Jewish Church after the Captivitie from Pagan Philosophie.
• * 1.241

  Esa. 47.10.
• * 1.242

  Tie Jewish Cabala from the Grecian Symbolic Phi∣losophie.
• * 1.243

  1 Tim. 1.4.
• * 1.244

  2. The Jewish Talmud of Traditions.
• * 1.245

  3. The Jewish disputation from the Gre∣cian Philoso∣phie. Tit. 3.9.
• * 1.246

  Pagan Philoso∣phic the cause of the greatest Errors in the Christian Churches.
• * 1.247

  2 Tim. 2.14, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.248

  Ver. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.249

  Ver. 16.
• * 1.250

  Ver. 17.
• * 1.251

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.252

  2 Tim. 2.23.
• * 1.253

  The Gnostics Errors from Pagan Philo∣sophic.
• * 1.254

  1. The origi∣nation of their Name.
• * 1.255

  1 Tim. 6.20.
• * 1.256

  2. The Gnostics mystic Theolo∣gic. Jude v. 19.
• * 1.257

  Col. 2.8.
• * 1.258

  1. The Gnostic Theologie my∣thic and fabu∣lose.
• * 1.259

  1 Tim. 1.4.
• * 1.260

  1. The Gno∣stics Aeones, their office as Mediators and origine from Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas and De∣mons.
• * 1.261

  1 Tim. 4.1.
• * 1.262

  Col. 2.10, 19.
• * 1.263

  1 Joh. 2.18.
• * 1.264

  2. The Gno∣stics wil-wor∣ship from Pa∣gan Institutes. Col. 2.16, 18.
• * 1.265

  Ver. 23.
• * 1.266

  Col. 2.18.
• * 1.267

  3. Forbidding Mariage Py∣thagorean.
• * 1.268

  1 Tim. 4.3.
• * 1.269

  4. Abstinen∣ces.
• * 1.270

  5. Their Sorce∣rie, Divinati∣on, &c.
• * 1.271

  6. Their sensu∣alitie and un∣cleannesse. 2 Pet. 2.18.
• * 1.272

  Jude 12.
• * 1.273

  7. Their Expi∣ations, &c. 2 Tim. 4.4.
• * 1.274

  8. They turned the Resurrecti∣on into an Al∣legoric, as §. 6.
• * 1.275

  Pagan Philo∣sophie the cause of many Errors a∣mongst the Fa∣thers, &c.
• * 1.276

  Origen's Er∣rors from Phi∣losophic.
• * 1.277

  Ludov. Vives in August. Ci∣vit. lib. 9. cap. 11. tels that from Plato's Demons Origen without dout derived his Error in asserting that Mens Souls were changed into Demons, and these again into Mens Souls, as in Lib. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.278

  Origen the Founder of Pelagianisme.
• * 1.279

  Arianism from Origen.
• * 1.280

  Poperic from Origen.
• * 1.281

  Other Errors of Origen.
• * 1.282

  Rev. 8.10, 11.
• * 1.283

  Of these Tele∣tae, see Court of the Gentil. par. 1. B. 2. c. 9. §. 10.
• * 1.284

  1. The Samosa∣tenus & A••ian Heresie from Pagan Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.285

  2. Pagan Phi∣losophie the cause of Pe∣lagianisme.
• * 1.286

  Origen laid the foundation for Pelagia∣nisme.
• * 1.287

  A Summarie of Pelagianisme.
• * 1.288

  Augustin's Zele against Pelagianisme.
• * 1.289

  The Jansenistes Zele against Pelagianisme.
• * 1.290

  1. The Monkes drew Mystic Divinitie from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie in the Alexan∣drine Schole. 1 Tim 4.3.
• * 1.291

  1. Antichristi∣an Monkes an Imitamen of Egyptian and Pythagorean Colleges.
• * 1.292

  The Monkes Mystic Theo∣logie from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie.
• * 1.293

  Mater of my∣stic Theologie Pythagorcan.
• * 1.294

  Mystic Theo∣logie as to its Forme, Pytha∣gorean & Pla∣tonic.
• * 1.295

  1 Tim. 1.4.
• * 1.296

  1 Tim. 4.7.
• * 1.297

  The Origine of the Schole-men and their Theologie from Aristotle.
• * 1.298

  Scholasticorum apud Graecos Johan. Dama∣scenus, apud Latinos Petr. Lombard. fuit Pater. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 6. c. 2.
• * 1.299

  The Eristic mode of Scho∣lastic Theolo∣gie from the Eleatic and Peripatetic Scholes.
• * 1.300

  How far the Arabians con∣tributed to Scholastic The∣ologie.
• * 1.301

  Quanquam du∣bium non sit, quin, si ipsos Arabes sua lingua, quae scripserunt, le∣ctitaremus, aut purior saltem versio adorna∣retur, propius ad mentem A∣ristotelis ac∣cessuri essent. Horn. Histor. Philos. l. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.302

  1 Tim. 6.4, 5.
• * 1.303

  The mater of Schole Divini∣tie, specially Pelagian Infu∣sions from Philosophie.
• * 1.304

  1. The Pelagi∣an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.305

  2. Free-wil from Philoso∣phic.
• * 1.306

  3. Pelagian Errors about Original Sin from Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.307

  Pelagians Armes from Philosophie.
• * 1.308

  §. 1. 3. Canonic Antichristia∣nisme from Pa∣gan Philoso∣phie.
• * 1.309

  The forme of Antichrists Canon Law from the Chur∣ches Autoritie, taken up in imitation of the Pythagore∣an Dogmes or Canons. 1 Thes. 2.13.
• * 1.310

  1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.311

  Col. 2.8.
• * 1.312

  Gal. 5.1.
• * 1.313

  Col. 2.8.
• * 1.314

  Col. 2.14.
• * 1.315

  Col. 2.16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.316

  Ver. 18.
• * 1.317

  Col. 2.20.
• * 1.318

  Ver. 22.
• * 1.319

  Ver. 23.
• * 1.320

  2. The Mater of Antichrists Canon-Law from Pagan Philosophie.
• * 1.321

  1 Tim. 4 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.322

  1 Tim. 4.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Doctrines of Demons what.
• * 1.323

  1. Antichrist's Canonised Saints in imi∣tation of Pa∣gan Demons.
• * 1.324

  The Origine of Popish Saints the same with that of the Pa∣gan Demons.
• * 1.325

  1. The Origine of Canonised Saints answer∣able to that of Demons from a fond conceit of some great excellence in them.
• * 1.326

  1 Tim. 4.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.327

  Luk. 20.20.
• * 1.328

  Revel. 13.15.
• * 1.329

  The Canonisa∣tion of Saints an Imitamen of the Demon-〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.330

  3. The Saints Mediatorie Office in imita∣tion of the Pagan Demon-Mediators.
• * 1.331

  1 Cor. 8.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.332

  Col. 2.9, 10, 18, 19
• * 1.333

  Joh. 2 4.
• * 1.334

  Revel. 13.6.
• * 1.335

  Antickrist's Canonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an imitation of the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Tim. 4.1, 2.
• * 1.336

  The essence of Antichrist's Apostasie in Idolatrie. Revel. 17.5. The Mother of Harlots. Why Anti∣christs Idola∣trie is stiled Adulterie.
• * 1.337

  2 Pet. 2.1.
• * 1.338

  Revel. 17.5. Babylon the great. 2 Thes. 2.7.
• * 1.339

  Rom. 13.2.
• * 1.340

  Rev. 13.1. The name of Blasphemie.
• * 1.341

  Ezech. 20.27.
• * 1.342

  Isa, 65.7.
• * 1.343

  Deut. 31.20.
• * 1.344

  Revel. 13.6.
• * 1.345

  2 Antichrists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is really 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.346

  Saint-worship an imitation of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Demon-wor∣ship.
• * 1.347

  1. The Comme∣moration of Martyrs at their Graves by Panegyrics and Temples from Demon-Panegyrics and Temples.
• * 1.348

  Mark 5.2, 3.
• * 1.349

  2. Popish Festi∣vals, Hymnes, Playes, &c. from Demon-worship.
• * 1.350

  Antichrists E∣piphanie front Pagan Epipha∣nie.
• * 1.351

  2. Popish Hymnes from Demon-Hymnes.
• * 1.352

  3. Popish Plays, and Mummings from Demon-Playes, &c.
• * 1.353

  4. Popish Festes from Demon-Festes.
• * 1.354

  3. Al Idol-worship from Demon-wor∣ship.
• * 1.355

  1. Popish Ima∣ges from Pa∣gans.
• * 1.356

  2. Popish Cros∣ses Imitamens of the Pagan Columnes.
• * 1.357

  Gen. 28.18, 19
• * 1.358

  Dent. 16.22.
• * 1.359

  3. Templing of Reliques.
• * 1.360

  Anticlrists Sa∣crifices from Demon Sacri∣fices.
• * 1.361

  Num. 25.2, 3.
• * 1.362

  Psal. 106.28.
• * 1.363

  1. The Sacri∣fice of the Masse an Imi∣tamen of De∣mon Sacrifices.
• * 1.364

  Anima mea sit cum Philoso∣phis. Mat. 24.26.
• * 1.365

  The Cup in the Lords-Supper turned by the Papists into a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 10.21.
• * 1.366

  Popish Tenths and Offerings in imitation of the Demons.
• * 1.367

  5. Popish Ex∣orcisme and lying Wonders from Demon lying Wonders.
• * 1.368

  1 Tim. 4.1, 2.
• * 1.369

  Eph. 4.14.
• * 1.370

  2 Thes. 2.9.
• * 1.371

  6. Invocation of Saints from Demon-Invo∣cation.
• * 1.372

  Mat. 6.7.
• * 1.373

  Many Popish Rites and Ceremonies which they de∣rived from the Pagans. 1. Their Holy-water, and other Purisica∣tions.
• * 1.374

  2. Their Sa∣cred fire.
• * 1.375

  3. Their Sacred Groves and Trees.
• * 1.376

  4. Their bow∣ing towards the East.
• * 1.377

  6. Al distin∣dive Gar∣ments.
• * 1.378

  Al Antichrists Canonic Fastes and Abstinen∣ces from De∣mon-worship.
• * 1.379

  1 Tim. 4.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.380

  Col. 2.16.
• * 1.381

  Ver. 20, 21.
• * 1.382

  Popish Mona∣stic life ano∣ther part of the Doctrines of Demons. 1 Tim. 4.3.
• * 1.383

  Dan. 11.37.
• * 1.384

  Col. 2.21.
• * 1.385

  The origine of Monastic Con∣stitutions.
• * 1.386

  Al Antichrists workes of Su∣pererogation and Merits parts of Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.387

  1 Tim. 4.1, 3.
• * 1.388

  Ver. 7.
• * 1.389

  Ver. 8.
• * 1.390

  1 Tim. 4.9.
• * 1.391

  1 Tim. 4.9.
• * 1.392

  Bodily exerci∣ces and Wil∣worship.
• * 1.393

  Col. 2.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.394

  2 Tim. 4.4.
• * 1.395

  2 Tim. 3.13.
• * 1.396

  Antichrists Purgatorie from the Phi∣losophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.397

  Plato's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Sacrifice for the dead.
• * 1.398

  Antichristian Purgatorie from the Schole of A∣lexandria.
• * 1.399

  Antichrist's Canonic Pri∣matic an Imi∣tamen of the Pagan.
• * 1.400

  Druidibus praeest unus, qui summam inter eos habet autoritatem. Caes. Comm.
• * 1.401

  Papal Prima∣tie began at Alexandria in in imitation of the Philoso∣phers Scholes.
• * 1.402

  2. The chief Seat of Papal Primatie at Rome, and that from imitation of Pagan-Rome.
• * 1.403

  1. The Popes Supremacie an Imitamen of the Pagan Em∣pire.
• * 1.404

  2 Thes. 2.7.
• * 1.405

  Antichrist's Character by Paul.
• * 1.406

  2 Thes. 2.3, 4.
• * 1.407

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That Apostasie.
• * 1.408

  That man of sin.
• * 1.409

  2 Thes. 2.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.410

  Rev. 14.8.
• * 1.411

  Rev. 18 23.
• * 1.412

  Rev. 18.5.
• * 1.413

  2 Thes. 2.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That Son of Perdition.
• * 1.414

  2 Thes. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. called God. The Roman Emperors cal∣led Demons.
• * 1.415

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.416

  The Emperor called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i.e. Divus Augustus.
• * 1.417

  The Pope a∣bove the Em∣peror.
• * 1.418

  Ver 〈…〉〈…〉, to rule, notes the Popes Em∣pire
• * 1.419

  Heb. 1.3. Psal. 110.1.
• * 1.420

  Esa. 14.12, 13.
• * 1.421

  Ezech. 28.2.
• * 1.422

  The King of Babylon, and of Tyre, also An∣tiochus and the Roman Empe∣ror, Types of Antichrist. Dan. 11.36.
• * 1.423

  In the Temple of God.
• * 1.424

  As God.
• * 1.425

  Al Popish Traditions Do∣ctrines of De∣mons. 1 Tim. 4.1.
• * 1.426

  1 Tim. 4.1.
• * 1.427

  Mat, 15.2, 6, 9.
• * 1.428

  Mark 7.8.
• * 1.429

  An 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this Chapter.
• * 1.430

  Rev. 9.20.
• * 1.431

  Act. 17.22. 1 Cor. 10.21.