〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 15.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The sundry workings of this Curiositie 4. Spiritual Pride Col. 2.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 8.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Effects of Philosophie Pride 1 Tim. 3.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 10.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. Carnal Presumption Col. 2.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hab. 2.4 Affected ignorance the effect of carnal Confidence Socrates's sense of his ignorance 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or contentious Logic. 1 Tim. 6.3 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The verbal contentiose amongst the Philosophers The effects of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Envie Strife Atheisme c. 1 Tim. 6.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. Opiniatretie and Dogmatising Col. 2.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its origine and vanitie 8. Carnal Policie Psal 119.113 118 163. 9. Judicial hardnesse Rom. 1.18 21 22 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 10. Idolatric inclination 11. Fabulose imitation § 1. HAving in the former Part contemplated Philosophie in its origine and progresse Vain Philosophie from ignorance 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 Righteousnesse 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 Corruptions 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 Vanitie 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 Philosophic elevation By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 endowments so far as he is void of the Spirit of God and opposite to the spiritual man ver 15. Thus Chrysostome interprets this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 largely proved These first Sophists or Philosophers finding themselves in the dark as to the origine and first principes of the Universe but much more as to the sublime Mysteries of Divinitie they considered how they might reduce their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 foment 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 Chaldeans 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 Perfections Operations and Modes of worship c. which forrein heavenly Plants of Divine Revelation they endeavored to transplant into the Garden of their natural Understandings and Philosophie hoping thereby to cultivate and elevate their own natural Principes But these Divine Mysteries being too big for their natural Acumen they soon degenerated into vain imaginations We find al this set forth to the life by Paul in his Discourse to the Athenian Philosophers Act. 17.27 Act. 17.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If happily they might by groping after him find him i. e. like blind men c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Supernatural This is excellently illustrated 2 Pet. 1.9 But he that wanteth these things is blind and cannot see afar off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not able to open his eyes Or as Beza Not able to see far So Aristotle defines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. according to Budaeus Myopes are such who from their birth see things next them but things remote they cannot see Or as Beza 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he addes a fourth which he closeth with I prefer saies he the fourth interpretation of them who render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shut the eyes to twinkle to blink with the eyes So Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Isa 6.10 Matt. 13.15 Act. 28.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they twinkled with their eyes Thus also the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often taken so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shut the eyes as Isa 33.15 Therefore this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he who is blind because he voluntarily shuts his eyes that he may not see or who seems to see what he unwillingly beholds Such are by Job 24.13 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rebels against the light John 3.20 This fully agrees to these Gentile Philosophers Rom. 1.18 who are said Rom. 1.18 To hold the truth in unrighteousnesse i. e. They had some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commun notions of a Deitie which they cultivated by studiose Contemplation 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 account 1. As by their unrighteousnesse they captivated the Truth Their unrighteous
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
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
these learned Fathers withal discovered the Vanitie and Corruptions of Pagan Philosophie as then constituted but this they were so far from undertaking as that they assumed a considerable part of the Pythagorean 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 amongst other Platonic Mysteries that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word on which Ammonius and Plotinus had much commented was taken and applied to the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word explicated by John which gave occasion and foundation to many Philosophic debates and contestes in the Schole and Church of Alexandria as also to the Heresie of Arius as it had done to that of Samosetanus 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 presumtion 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which supposed a real difference in nature betwixt the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 spirit and life from Pagan Philosophie is Pelagianisme 2. Pagan Philosophie the cause of Pelagianisme which strikes diametrically at the free efficacious Grace of Christ as Arianisme at his Divinitie and containes in it much of the spirit of Antichrist We have before in what was laid down touching 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right Reason their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free-wil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Exhortations 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 Origen laid the foundation for Pelagianisme 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 Pelagian Heresie than Origen who gave origine to many Heresies which for some ages after his death infested the Church specially by his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Julianus 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 against 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 Righteousnesse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans specially on Chap. 5. as also his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Religiose 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 Hieronymus Apolog. 1. adversus Ruffin saith that Origen held That God chose men not that they might be holy but for their foreseen sanctitie 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 Pelagianisme 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 Apathie or the exemtion from passions which the Stoics attributed to their wise man And albeit Aristotle and the New Academics held That a wise man is capable of passions but virtue 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deification So that it 's evident this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Antichrist was to introduce comprehendes his Ecclesiastic Canons at least such as refer to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saint-worship This suites with v. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which implies a Canonic prohibition against Mariage of which we find many branches 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 opposeth v. 9. a Divine Christian Cabala Canon or Tradition This is saies he a faithful saying and worthy of al acceptation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. as Paulus Fagius this is the true Christian Cabala or Tradition in opposition to al these Pythagoric Jewish Antichristian Cabala's as before Book 1. Chap. 4. § 1. But we find Antichrists Ecclesiastic Canons and their origine from Pythagorean Dogmes more fully laid open to us Col. 2.8 Col. 2.8 c. where he gives them 1 a strict charge that no one spoil them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. plunder them of their Christian libertie or lead them captive which exactly suites with Antichrist his plundering Christians 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 Gal. 5.1 Stand fast therefore in your libertie c. Where saies Grotius he cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the yoke of bondage not only that which the Hebrews cal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the yoke of the Law but also those Opinions or Rites whereby the Gentiles bound themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to be bound or to be brought under an obligation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to urge to ensnare to take al occasions of hurting others as Hesychius and Eustathius so Mar. 6.19 Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily signifies to be ensnared 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 Ecclesiastic Canons 2 Our Apostle Col. 2.8 Col. 2.8 laies down the medium or means by which Antichrist leads captive the Consciences of men and brings them under his Canonic yoke that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Philosophie and vain deceit Here is saies Grotius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said by the vain deceit of Philosophie By Philosophie here Grotius and Hammond understand the Pythagorean which was stuffed with Dogmes Institutes Traditions and Canons which al who were of Pythagoras's Church or College submitted unto as their Canon-Law or Rule of Discipline wherein they were followed by Antichrist and his Church as wel as the Primitive Gnosties so it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the tradition of men This Grotius applies also to the Pythagorean Philosophie and its Human Traditions and Canons imposed on al those of that Sect who have been herein followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Traditions and Canons It 's true he pretendes unto a Church-Autoritie as the fountain of al and so did the Pharisees for al their Talmudic Traditions or Oral Canon-Law and yet notwithstanding both one and t'other were but Traditions of men yea of blind Pythagoreans Thence it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is evidently used to signifie Injunctions or Canons And are not Antichrists Ecclesiastic Canons 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Institutes Traditions and Canons not to Christ his Royal Canon Law Col. 2.14 This is farther illustrated v. 14. Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Bill or Bond under a mans hand whereby he binds himself to some payment of money or dutie Thence Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Oblations 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 cancelled by nailing it to his Crosse this being one way of cancelling a Bond by striking a nail thorough it beware therefore how you suffer your selves to be brought under any fresh obligation by any Antichristian Canons or Injunctions That this is applicable to Antichrists Ecclesiastic Canons is evident by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appendant thereto It is wel known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence this hand-writing of Ordinances is stiled Ephes 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law of Commandments in Ordinances i. e. the Jewish Canon-Law consisting of many Ordinances 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 Col. 2.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judge is a Law-notion and as here applied to meat and drink supposeth some Ecclesiastic Canons
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 Ver. 20 21. 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 Philosophers 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 according to our Apostles prediction in 1 Tim. 4.3 And that al Antichrist's Canons for Abstinence and Fastes were indeed a part of the Doctrines of Demons which he by his lies and Pagan imitation 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 Popish Fastes and Abstinences even in the beginning of the second Centurie as it is wel observed by the Author of Traitè des Ancien Ceremon pag. 6 7. About the year 110 saies he there was introduced the diversitie of Junes or Fastes not as a Canon whereof the observation was necessary but only by custome 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 began 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 Vigils and Tapers were then without superstition So the forenamed Author pag. 29. About the year 320 together with the Monastic life there entered the rules for Abstinence for until 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 imposed 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. Popish Monastic life another part of the Doctrines of Demons 1 Tim. 4.3 We find another Species of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 introduced by Antichrist into the Church of Christ 1 Tim. 4.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forbidding to Marie i.e. Antichrist should under a pretext of lying devotion by virtue of his Canonic Supremacie institute several Orders of Monkes imposing on them certain Canons or Rules of Monastic life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in imitation of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Dan. 11.37 By Desire of Women which the Roman Antichrist of that time should not regard as he was wont is meant desire of Wiving expressed 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 imposed on his Collegiates in order to then Monastic life we have in part already proved S. 1. § 1. of this Chapter by a parallel drawen 'twixt one and t'other But to give a more ful demonstration hereof we shal adde the consent of Learned men hereto with the time and manner how these Monastic Constitutions 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 2.21 handle not This saies Grotius refers to the avoiding of Women which the Jewish Priests sometimes did but the Pythagoreans alwaies But learned Bochart against Veron part 3. chap. 25. § 4. Art 1. proves That the Law or Canon 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 Megalobyzes Priests of Diana at Ephesus and the Therophantes at Athens In brief the Celibat of Priests was in such estime amongst 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 superstitions which Pythagoras brought out of Egypt whence returning unto Grece he forbad Mariage to those of his Sect and constituted a Cloister of Nuns over which he placed his daughter Plato held the same opinion as also Heraclitus and Democritus and Zeno the Prince of the Stoics who never approched to a Woman By which it 's
we are to take notice that something hereof was found in them very early and that out of a symbolising humor thereby to induce the Gentiles to an embracement of the Christian Religion as we find it in Cyprian l. 3. Epist 15 16. Tertul. de Moneg Origen 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 departure 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 quantitie of Bread and other food Many also to keep alive their memorie 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 many of those Primitive Christians at least in the third and fourth Centuries did too much symbolise with the Gentiles Demon worship and particularly in these their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sacrifices for the dead This is incomparably wel explicated by Is Cas Exer. 16. N 43. where he shews that these Sacred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mysteries and the operation of these Sacreds was named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they who partaked of them were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The scope of these Sacrifices they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The scope of these Teletae is to reduce souls to that end from which they at first descended as from its principe By which it 's evident that they looked on these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Imitation of those Pagan Teletae Of which see more Court Gent. P. 1. B. 2. C. 9. § 10. This Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Purgatorie began indeed very early to gain footing in the Churches of Christ Antichristian Purgatorie from the Schole of Alexandria 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 improved and at last Antichrist stablished and confirmed by his Ecclesiastic Canons as before These Antichristian Teletae or Sacrifices and Prayers for the Dead were come to some maturitie even in Augustin'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 Tapers 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-treatments Orations Sermons Prayers at the Grave so much in request in the Roman Church seem al to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these Demon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Antichrist's Canonic Primatic an Imitamen of the Pagan which we may reckon also as a part of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foretold 1 Tim. 4.1 For as Mede wel observes the whole of Antichristianisme is comprehended under this Prophetic character of Antichrist And indeed that the whole of Antichrist's Primatie is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an Imitation 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 according 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 introduced 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 joined 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 demanded by what exemple chiefly the Episcopal dignitie was introduced 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 Discipline of the Druides teacheth us The Druides saies Caesar have one President who has the chiefest autoritie amongst them Druidibus praeest unus qui summam inter eos habet autoritatem Caes Comm. Also that the Preeminence of the Metropolitan Cities in Sacreds was very ancient Thucydides teacheth us who speaking of the Corcyreans Colonies of the Corinthians saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there
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