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
THE COURT OF THE GENTILES PART III. THE VANITY OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHIE 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 LONDON Printed by A. Maxwell and R. Roberts for T. Cockeril at the Sign of the Atlas in Cornhil near the Royal Exchange M.DC.LXXVII PREFACE WHatever fals under the Law of Creation The Corruption of Philosophic is thereby limited and confined and by how much the more excellent and perfect the thing is by so much the greater is its Vitiositie and Vanitie if it excede its just limits For the corruption of the best things is ever worst This is in nothing more evident than in Philosophie which in its original and primitive Idea was most August and Gloriose but now alas alas what an inane confused sterile thing is it How difficult is it to separate any regular Use from the Abuse thereof The Designe of this following Discourse is to explicate and demonstrate the prodigiose Abuses which Philosophie by reason of the Vanitie Errors and Prejudices of mans corrupt mind has been obnoxious unto whereof we have prefixed an Introductorie Breviarie in our Preface to the second Part as also in the Contents of this third so that we shal not need to Preface any thing farther hereof That which we have now under Contemplation is a Proemial account of the grand Designe Moment and Vse of this Third Part touching the VANITIE OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHIE in order to a separation of its Abuse from the regular Vse thereof As for the grand Designe of this Discourse The Designe of this Discourse we must ingenuosly confesse it gave us some of the first and principal Ideas and Impressions of al our Contemplations for the Reformation of Philosophie For after long Observation and Inquisition made into the many prodigiose Errors and grand Apostasies of the Church in al Ages specially under Antichrist we find that Vain Philosophie lies as a latent root and conceled spring of this Mysterie of Iniquitie Whence springes al Apostasie in Profession but from some degree of Apostasie in Light and Affection As God's departure from Churches is gradual so the departure of Churches from God And what are the first steps of departing from God but when the Love of God and his Evangelie Truths is shut out of the heart Is there not a strange Infatuation and callose stupiditie in the least degree of backsliding from the love of the Truth and its simplicitie And was not this that which gave the first lines to the formation of that Man of Sin and his Antichristian Apostasie This the Spirit of God assures us of 2 Thes 2.10 11. 2 Thes 2.10 11. foretelling That the Man of Sin should come with al deceivablenesse of unrighteousnesse because they received not the love of the Truth that they might be saved And for this cause God shal send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie The whole stresse of this Antichristian Apostasie seems to be laid on this that men received not the love of the Truth or the Truth in the love thereof This was that maligne worme that lay at the root of the heart which caused a vital decay in Christianitie and so laid the foundation of that great Antichristian Apostasie even in those Primitive Churches As in Nature al withering begins at the root though it first appear in the branches so in al Apostasie the consumtion begins first at the heart And whence proceded this vital consumtion at the heart of the first Christians and Churches but from want of love to Evangelic Truth and its simplicitie Was it not hence that many of the Fathers specially Origen and such as were educated in the Schole at Alexandria labored under a libidinose insatiable thirst after Vain Philosophie vainly hoping thereby to beautifie and adorne Christian Theologie But did they really attain their End was not the whole Systeme of Antichristian Errors Apostasies and Abominations introduced hereby This we have copiosely demonstrated Book II. of this Third Part. If it be further inquired how it comes to passe The malignitie of Pagan Philosophie that Pagan Philosophie which containes in it so many useful Philosophemes and Contemplations should have such a venimous influence on the worst of Errors and Apostasies That which satisfies mine own Inquisition herein may be reduced to these three Heads 1. As considered in it self 1 The Vanitie and Malignitie of the Object 2 The Vanitie and Malignitie of the Subject 3 The Curse of God on both 1. The Object Pagan Philosophie considered in it self containes in it much of Vanitie and Malignitie This we have sufficiently demonstrated B. 1. throughout from the Causes Parts and Adjuncts of Pagan Philosophie But that wherein the Spirit of its malignitie seems to consiste is not so much its Mater Parts Adjuncts or effective springs as its principal End and Designe which is to reduce and advance lapsed man to a state of Integritie and Perfection by the force and improvement of his own Free-wil The grand Designe of Ethnic Philosophie in its original constitution was to put men under a Covenant of Workes thereby to keep them from Sin and to merit Life Proud nature ever affectes an Independence as to God and to procure a Divine life by its own forces What more pleasing to corrupt nature than to act from and for it self O! how fruitful is the root of the Old Covenant in corrupt nature How apt is every man by nature to run himself on a Covenant of Workes and deifie some righteousnesse of his own though never so unrighteous What latent venes of Pelagianisme are there in the hearts of al by nature whence according to Augustin Pelagianisme is the Heresie of Nature Now what was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or prime Error of al Ethnic Philosophie but this so to cultivate refine and elevate corrupt nature as to render it a sit Temple of the Deitie without the superaddition of Medicinal Grace It 's true that Socratic and Platonic Philosophie speakes much of the Divine Infusion of Virtue yet stil as the reward of mens endeavors without the least regard to the New Covenant or true Mediator 2. But yet the principal poison and malignitie of Pagan Philosophie arose from the Spirits and Principes of those who composed the same 2. As to its Subject or were conversant therein Had Philosophie been never so pure and virgin in it self yet falling on carnal proud and wanton wits how soon was it adulterated and rendred vain yea noxious We see by sad experience how soon the Evangel of our Lord and Evangelic Dogmes are turned into the greatest Errors when men of corrupt minds engage therein How much more then was Philosophie in it self so corrupt obnoxious to Vanitie and
but that the Apostle here takes in the worldly 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 composed a politic and flesh-pleasing Theologie of worldly Rudiments 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 Philosophie vain and cursed Judiciarie blindnesse and hardnesse 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 Rom. 1.18 21 22 28. 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 Verses discourseth of the Gentile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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-ever knowlege of Divine truth they had acquired either from Jewish Tradition or from the Improvements of their own commun 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 Idolwisdome c. Whence it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They waxed vain in their Discourses Reasonings or Philosophisings For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Philosophie terme the manner of Disputing amongst the Ancients both Jews and Grecians being by Dialogues The meaning is al their Philosophic reasonings and disputes proved by Gods secret judicial dereliction and permission of them vain yea cursed And thence it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. glorying in their wisdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were made fools God in his righteous judgement befooling them Which is more fully explained vers 28 as they did not like c. Here is an elegant Paranomasia or allusion in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they reprobate or reject God in their knowledge and God gives them up to a reprobate or drossy mind So we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reprobate money i. e. drossy c. Justly does God leave such to a reprobate mind who reprobate him 10. We might mention also Idolatrical inclination as another fruitful womb of vain Philosophie amongst the Pagans the universal Inclination of al more or lesse unto Idolatrie and Superstition as Rom. 1.23 24 25 26 which is Act. 17.18 applied to their Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of this more in the effects of vain Philosophie B. 2. Chap. 1. 11. Lastly Fabulous Imitation 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or contentiose Logic c. Rom. 1.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. 2.14 1 Tim. 1.6 Aristotle's Logic 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what Rom. 1.20 1 Cor. 2.6 Physiologie the cause of idolatrie Rom. 21.23 c. 3. The vanitie of the Mathematics its influence on Idolatrie and Atheisme 4. The vanitie of Ethics Eph. 5.6 1 Cor. 1.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. As to its principe which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Freewil or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Good-nature or seeds of Virtue Socrates opposed that Stoic Principe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Philosophie in its Causes and Roots The vanitie and corruption of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Logic. we shal now procede to demonstrate the said vanitie of Philosophie from its own essential Idea or Nature Parts and Proprieties The essential Idea Nature and parts of Philosophie as of other things consist in its Mater and Forme both of which have great mixture of vanitie in them As for the mater of Philosophie it contains Naturals Morals and Supernaturals Natural 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 concluding though indirect Arguments of their skil herein For Porphyrie tels us That Pythagoras had besides his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a plain and familiar way of Philosophising And we have already shewn how that Parmenides and Zeno the Eleatics who belonged to the Italic Sect did much Pythagorise as in other points so likewise as we may presume in this of Logic of which they are thought to be the first Inventors at least great promotors as it appears by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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 against 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They became vain in their disputes Rom. 1 21. For the way of Disputation in the Old Academie was by Dialogues which mode I presume they traduced from the Jewish Scholes And thus Grotius understands these reasonings here As the Academics disputed for and against 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 Phil. 2.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 whereof there were many in Macedon where Philippi stood So 1 Tim. 1.6 Paul mentions some who had turned aside 1 Tim. 1.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to unprofitable dissertation or disputation They who use such are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.10 This 1 Tim. 6.4 he termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ver 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he opposeth to sound Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.6 We find al this fully laid open and confirmed 2 Tim. 2.14 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. be thine Auditors dayly remembrancer of this The Hebrew expresse it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul chargeth him to inculcate this continually on his hearers yea to charge them as before the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they strive not about words to no profit That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 6.4 20. Contentiose Logic we have proved from 1 Tim. 6.4 20 Chap. 1. § 6. He is the more warme in his exhortation against this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was not only unprofitable but destructive to their Christian Faith and Communion So it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the subversion of the hearers For saies Grotius the hearers by such strifes are divided into parties they lose mutual love It answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eversion is in the Glossarie Subversion Destruction This Paul gives as a good Antidote against the contagiose infusions of the Pythagorising Gnostics who by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 The origine of this Eristic Legic passing under the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Aristotle 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 Philophising 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 indeed 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 Disputation which now reigns in our Scholes but rather the Arabians Aristotle's Logic sophisticated by the Arabians and Scholemen Averroes Avincenna his Commentators who being wholly unacquainted with the Greek Tongue were fain to depend upon the versions of Aristotle which being very imperfect 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 barbarous 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 Divinitie was first broached and England which had continual recourse to Paris for Learning with nothing but vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 A general consent against Eristic Logic. the vanities of this Dialectic Sophistrie was observed and decried by many of the old Philosophers Both the Sect of the Cynics and Stoics as Diogenes Laertius observes took away Dialectic Philosophie as vain holding that our end is 〈◊〉
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
He held with the Stoics That perfection in Virtue was attainable in this life Strom. 6 7. 5 He cals Martyrie the purgation of sin Strom. 4. But none imbibed more Philosophic Errors than Origen as in what follows How much Philosophie corrupted the Fathers has been taken notice of by many Reformers as by Amesius Bellarm. Enerv. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. It is evident that the Fathers by and from Philosophie introduced 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 Ornaments only from Rhetoricians but also Dogmes from the Philosophers Scholes specially from Plato's Academie some also from Zeno's porch which were incorporated by little and little 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about contingent 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 Origen's Errors from Philosophic 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 Philosophie 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 mixed with the Doctrines of Faith Ludov. Vives in August Civit 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or freewil his Pre-existence of Souls c. 1. The Pelagian Errors came from Origen Origen the Founder of Pelagianisme 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 Pelagians saith he were severely reprehended by Augustin for making Indifference to Good and Evil with the exclusion of Necessitie 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Justice and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As l. 4. in Rom. And in his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 sufficiently appears by his Comments on the Epistle to the Romans specially on Ch. 5. and his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word Arianism from Origen 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 because 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 Father was not Truth i.e. True God That God the Father was an incomprehensible Light but Christ if compared with the Father 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 Pastor 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 Trimtie he imbibed from that Platonic Philosophie then taught in the Schole of Alexandria wherein he was instructed which acknowleged a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitie namely 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father whom they made to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the supreme Being 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mind or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Reason whom they made inferior to the first And 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Pammachium 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 Poperic from Origen gave a great advance to
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 impietie 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 freewil to moral good has been before proved Part 2. Book 3. Ch. 2. § 4. which some called the seeds of virtue others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good nature others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a self-power others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 3. Pelagian Errors about Original Sin from Philosophie see more largely Jansenius Augut 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 punishment 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 Pelagians Armes from Philosophie 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 Philosophie 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 inveiglement 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 sufficiently understand those human mixtures which by their seeming 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 Pelagians withal Hence they would have althings doutful decided 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 Jansenius 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right reason among the Philosophers 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 Infirmitie of natural Abilitie to live wel of God to be loved in al acts of the Souls Purgation and Beatitude of the Necessitie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain ratiocination who being willing to carpe at the choisest Heads of Learning in his Master Plato and that either from his ignorance of Divine 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 ignorant 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 superfluous This is the Doctrine which the Scholemen have endeavored to moderate whilest they frame two men in one a Philosopher 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 Pelagian 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 Christians 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 Philosophic Virtues this they applie to the natural man Whence their distinction of Virtue and Happinesse into natural and supernatural as hereafter P. 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. § 4. Thus we see how al the Pelagian Dogmes have been revived by the Scholemen and that upon Philosophic Principes SECT II. A general Account of Antichrist's Canonic Theologie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with its Traduction from the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ANother great Pillar of Antichrist's Throne is Canonic Theologie §. 1.
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