Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	epistle_n	paul_n	timothy_n	2,910	5	10.4803	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41681	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.	Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.	1677 (1677)	Wing G141; ESTC R10994	239,335	264

Hebraic and Enigmatic Therefore they embraced short speaking which is most apt for admonition and most profitable That this mode of Symbolic discourse 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 Divine and very useful for the infant-state of the world in that it affordes the phantasie most pleasant and lively colors or images of truth yet was it not without much vanitie and corruption as made use of by those ancient Philosophers both Pythagoreans and others The origine of Symbolic Philosophie and its vanitie And the great principe on which this Symbolic mode of Philosophising was founded was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Things sensible are but Imitamens of things intelligible 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 perfections 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 themselves 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 images 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 Philosophie cloudy dark vain and monstrose no way like its original 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 Monarchie 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 Antichrists throne which was founded on Lying-wonders or fabulose 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 against 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 poison about the same time that Timothie resided there Also there were many Jews at Ephesus who in this facultie of coining 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 Christians Theologie Whence we see the ground why Paul in both his Epistles to Timothie gives such severe censures of and cautions 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 Tim. 1.3 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 besought Timothie to continue at Ephesus and behave himself there as a stout Soldier of Christ against those Gnostic Antichristian false Teachers So it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 himself v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither give heed to fables Ver. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Philosophic notion and amongst them it signified a Symbol or Fable whereby they expressed some Philosophic mysterie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are much of the same import amongst the Philosophers Thus Plato oft makes mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of a Syrian and Phenician Fable also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of an ineffable fable whereby he understandes some Oriental Hebraic Tradition But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies also a feigned Oration Fable or fictitious discourse thence it is expounded by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does here also take in the Jewish Fables which these vain Gnostics so much addicted 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 before the beginning of the world of the first man which God made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. partly man and partly woman of his copulation with the bestes and with Lilith with the Demons that sprang thence of Behemoth and Leviathan of the Pre-existence 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 being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Pythagoreans and Platonistes asserted It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and endlesse Genealogies These Genealogies the Jews cal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they supposed successive Productions and Emanations one after another So Philo Judaeus discourseth much of such Genealogies The origine of these fabulose Genealogies began with the first Poets Orpheus Hesiod c. Pherecydes also had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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

the Seventy elsewhere render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius and others take the Metaphor from the accurate Section and division of the Sacrifices which the Levites according to a certain 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 Verses of the Scripture were stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 segmenta or particles Whence they who gave up themselves to the studie of the Scriptures were stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accurately to divide the word of truth which he opposeth to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. striving about words v. 14. So v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shun Ver. 16. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profane and vain bablings i.e. saies Grotius Mens comments or figments about Divine maters without any Revelation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. and takes in al Philosophic discourses or disputes which in maters Divine without a Divine Revelation are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profane and vain bablings For addes he they wil encrease unto more ungodlinesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. such vain Philosophisings though they seem to have some ressemblance to Divine Truth and but little error in them yet wil they in the issue determine in the foulest Heresies and Abominations even in Antichristianisme Ver. 17. Thence it follows v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Philosophic discourse or Ratiocination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie as wel as word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wil eat as doth a Cancer The word we translate Cancer signifies properly a Gangrene which is somewhat like though different from a Cancer That phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wil eat has a peculiar significance in it for we know a Gangrene mightily spreads and feeds upon the sound flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Lev. 13.22 Whence the Greekes derive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to eat as Hesychius It properly signifies the mortification of some carnose part by reason of an inflammation so that if there be not some opportune remedie immediately applied or the part cut off the Gangrene 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 Christians Nothing does so much hurt Christianisme as those Institutes which came very near to Christianisme and by certain interpretations mollified the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polutheisme Of whom is Hymeneus and Philctus v. 18. who concerning the truth have erred 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death so a reformed life was by them termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Resurrection and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a new birth and these sensual Gnoslics that they might the more freely enjoy 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 thereby the Philosophers symbolic allegoric Resurrection Then the Apostle concludes 2 Tim. 2.23 v. 23. foolish and unlearned questions avoid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolish i.e. because they no way tend to true Wisdome al these Philosophic Allegories and Questions are but a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolish wisdome See the like 1 Tim. 1.4 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlearned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uncorrigable impudent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Prov. 8.5 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 15.13 as also sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 17.22 Paul here saies Grotius understandes immodest Questions For the Greeks expresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of the same import Knowing that they gender to strife as Tit. 3.9 The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Grotius By al which it is evident that this Gnostic Gangrene had its rise from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie And indeed that the Philosophers 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 persuasion amongst the Fathers and Primitive Christians the truth whereof wil appear evident by an examen of Particulars and discoverie 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 The Gnostics Errors from Pagan Philosophic which as a Gangrene did overspread and consume much of the beautie glorie and vigor of the Primitive Churches was that of the Gnostics which had taken a considerable rooting in the Apostles daies as is gathered from the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians Ephesians Colossians 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 Saturninus 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 acknowleged by the

were the chief Rulers of the Priests On which place the ancient Scholiast addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Imitation of the Pagan which wil farther appear by the following particulars 1. This Papal Primatie began at Alexandria Papal Primatie began at Alexandria in in imitation of the Philosophers Scholes which as it was the chief Seminarie of Pagan Philosophie and Demon-worship so also the fruitful womb wherein al the principal Parts and Lineaments of Antichrist received their first conception and Formation And amongst other Parts of this Man of Sin his Head which consistes 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 Clemens's Epistle to the Corinthians was genuine he gives this as one argument namely That he never makes any mention of that extravagant Authoritie of Bishops which by the custome of the Church began after Marke's death to be introduced at Alexandria and by that exemple elsewhere c. Thus we see that Papal 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 observation 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 learned 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 2. The chief Seat of Papal Primatie at Rome and that from imitation of Pagan-Rome 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Imitation of Pagan Hierarchie or rather Demonarchie stablished at Rome and elsewhere we shal prove by its Parts First 1. The Popes Supremacie an Imitamen of the Pagan Empire The Head of this Papal Primatie is the Pope the whole of whose usurped Dignitie and Primatie is but an Image of and extract from the Demonarchie or Hierarchie of the Pagan Emperors as it wil easily appear to any that shal consider how exactly parallel they are Touching the first stablishment of the Roman Hierarchie 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 Pontifices 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 Maximus 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 instituted 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 Ludovicus 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 generoso 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 answering to the Proto-flamen's Apex But to carrie on this parallel a little farther the Roman Emperor as we just now observed of Numa Pompilius reserved to himself the Title and Dignitie of Pontifex Maximus the Great High-Priest by virtue whereof he was Head in al maters Ecclesiastic as wel as Civil 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 usurped 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 2 Thes 2.7 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 Dissolution 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 corruption 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

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. Ezech. 28.2 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 The King of Babylon and of Tyre also Antiochus and the Roman Emperor Types of Antichrist Dan. 11.36 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 Persecution against the Church of God Types of Antichrist his Spiritual Domination in the Churches of Christ by virtue of his usurped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea indeed this Tyrannic persecution of Antichrist in many regardes excedeth al those former Persecutions of the King of Babylon Tyre Antiochus and of the Roman 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 the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood here 1 Subjectively In the Temple of God 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra against Antichrist's sitting in or ruling over the Church being in order to its ruine Thus Mestrezat renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Temple of God i.e. Antichrist shal by his Empire ruine the Church Spiritually 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 Temple 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 Temple 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 Vicar 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 whereof 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 As God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 deportes himself as if he were God And has not Antichrist usurped such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 themselves the Title and Authoritie of Pontifex Maximus did thereby 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 usurping 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 Al Popish Traditions Doctrines of Demons 1 Tim. 4.1 with which his Canonic Theologie or Law is so greatly stuffed are al but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrines of Demons in imitation as 1 Tim. 4.1 2. We have before S. 2. § 3 4. spoken somewhat of Antichrist'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 corrupt Imitamens of and Derivations from the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Pythagoras's Institutes as Divine Traditions delivered to him their Master by the Divine Oracle For al those great Founders of Demon-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 pretended unto a Divine Tradition for al those Institutes or Canons they delivered touching the worship of the Gods Plato aboundes in expressions to this