THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. PART III. THE VANITY OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHY DEMONSTRATED, From its Causes, Parts, Proprieties, and Effects; namely Pagan Idolatry, Judaic Apostasy, Gnostic Infusions, Errors among the Greek Fathers, specially Origen, Arianisme, Pelagianisme, and the whole Systeme of Papism or Antichristianisme, distributed into three Parts, Mystic, Scholastic, and Canonic Theology. By Theophilus Gale.  
LONDON, Printed by A. Maxwell and R. Roberts, for T. Cockeril, at the Sign of the Atlas in Cornhill, near the Royal, Exchange. M.DC.LXXVII.   

PREFACE.  
WHatever falls 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 vitiosity and Vanity, if it exceed its just limits: For the corruption of the best things is ever worst. This is in nothing more evident than in Philosophy, 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 Design of this following Discourse is to explicate, and demonstrate the prodigiose Abuses, which Philosophy, by reason of the Vanity, Errors, and Prejudices of man's corrupt mind, has been obnoxious unto; whereof we have prefixed an introductory Breviarie in our Preface to the second Part, as also in the Contents of this third; so that we shall not need to Preface any thing farther hereof. That which we have now under Contemplation is a Proemial account of the grand Design, Moment, and Use of this Third Part, touching the VANITY OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHY, in order to a separation of its Abuse from the regular Use thereof.  
As for the grand Design of this Discourse, 
The Design of this Discourse.  we must ingenuosly confess, it gave us some of the first and principal Ideas and Impressions of all our Contemplations for the Reformation of Philosophy. For after long Observation and Inquisition made into the many prodigiose Errors, and grand Apostasies of the Church in all Ages, specially under Antichrist, we find that Vain Philosophy lies as a latent root, and concealed spring of this Mystery of Iniquity. Whence springs all Apostasy in Profession, but from some degree of Apostasy 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 evangely Truths is shut out of the heart? Is there not a strange Infatuation and callose stupidity in the least degree of backsliding from the love of the Truth and its simplicity? And was not this that which gave the first lines to the formation of that Man of Sin, and his Antichristian Apostasy? 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 all deceivableness of unrighteousness; because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. The whole stress of this Antichristian Apostasy 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 malign worm that lay at the root of the heart, which caused a vital decay in Christianity, and so laid the foundation of that great Antichristian Apostasy, even in those Primitive Churches. As in Nature all withering gins at the root, though it first appear in the branches; so in all Apostasy, the consumtion gins first at the heart. And whence proceeded this vital consumtion at the heart of the first Christians and Churches, but from want of love to Evangelic Truth, and its simplicity? Was it not hence that many of the Fathers, specially Origen, and such as were educated in the School at Alexandria, laboured under a libidinose insatiable thirst after Vain Philosophy; vainly hoping thereby to beautify and adorn Christian Theology? 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 pass, 
The malignity of Pagan Philosophy.  that Pagan Philosophy, which contains in it so many useful Philosophemes and Contemplations, should have such a venomous 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 itself.  (1) The Vanity and Malignity of the Object. (2) The Vanity and Malignity of the Subject. (3) The Curse of God on both. 1. The Object, Pagan Philosophy, considered in itself, contains in it much of Vanity and Malignity. This we have sufficiently demonstrated, B. 1. throughout, from the Causes, Parts, and Adjuncts of Pagan Philosophy. But that wherein the Spirit of its malignity seems to consist is not so much its Mater, Parts, Adjuncts, or effective springs, as its principal End and Design, which is to reduce and advance lapsed man to a state of Integrity and Perfection, by the force and improvement of his own Freewill. The grand Design of Ethnic Philosophy, in its original constitution, was to put men under a Covenant of Works, thereby to keep them from Sin, and to merit Life. Proud nature ever affects 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 itself? 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 Works, and deify some righteousness of his own, though never so unrighteous! What latent venes of Pelagianisme are there in the hearts of all by nature! whence, according to Augustin, Pelagianisme is the Heresy of Nature. Now what was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or prime Error of all Ethnic Philosophy but this, so to cultivate, refine and elevate corrupt nature, as to render it a sit Temple of the Deity, without the superaddition of Medicinal Grace? It's true, that Socratic and Platonic Philosophy speaks much of the Divine Infusion of Virtue; yet still as the reward of men's endeavours, without the least regard to the New Covenant or true Mediator.  
2. But yet the principal poison and malignity of Pagan Philosophy arose from the Spirits and Principes of those who composed the same, 
2. As to its Subject.  or were conversant therein. Had Philosophy been never so pure and virgin in itself, yet falling on carnal, proud, and wanton wits, how soon was it adulterated and rendered 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 than was Philosophy, in itself so corrupt, obnoxious to Vanity and corruption, when the minds of men engaged therein were so vain and corrupt! Thus much the Scripture takes notice of, touching the Philosophers, 
Rom. 1.21.  Rom. 1.21. But became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. The natural imagination is the most vain thing in the world: how doth it like the silkworm, lie entangled in those Philosophemes, which came out of its own bowels! How soon did lust in those blind Philosophers, put out the light of Reason, and so darken their foolish hearts! 
Ver. 22.  Hence it follows, v. 22. Professing themselves to be wise [i.e. great Sophistes] they became fools. There is nothing more worthy of compassion, than the blindness of such proud sophists, who profess themselves the most quicksighted and sage in the world. Is not the terrible pestiferous darkness of such, by so much the more deplorable, in that they take it for Light, which they follow with pleasure, as Children do the Ignis fatuus, which leads them to precipices and ruin? Are not such greatly to be pitied, who use their Reason only to render them more unreasonable? And has not this been a principal cause of the Vanity of Philosophy, and its pestiferous influences on all great Apostasies?  
3. We may add hereto the Curse of God on Philosophy and Philosophers, 
3. As to the Curse of God.  for the abuse of that Natural or Traditional Light vouchsafed to them. This is more than intimated by Paul, in his Sacred Discourse of the Gentiles Philosophy, Rom. 1.28. 
Rom. 1.28.  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things that are not convenient. He saith, (1) They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies [1] in the general any Agnition, whereby a thing is acknowleged to be what it is. So Rom. 3.10. Col. 1.2. & 2.2. as elsewhere. And then the sense is, they did not like to retain God in their acknowledgement; i.e. to acknowledge him such as indeed he is, most perfect, alsufficient, simple, pure, just, etc. [2] Science, Intelligence, right Reason, as Rom. 10.2. And thus the sense is; albeit they had some notices of God, yet they did not like to retain him in the true science or right understanding of him. [3] More particularly, a faithful, salutiferous, obediential acknowledgement. Thus Ephes. 1.17. & 4.13. Phil. 1.9. So it implies, a more accurate, exact, active knowledge, according to that Greek Gloss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Agnition, is knowledge superadded to knowledge, i.e. to speak in the Scholastic idiom, cognition practically practic; affective and effective knowledge; distinct exact knowledge. They had many sublime notices and Metaphysic Contemplations of God, but not such as did work their hearts to any real love, and obedience of God. Whence it follows: (2) God gave them over to a reprobate mind. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes, [1] Rejected. So Hebr. 6.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rejected and nigh unto cursing. Thus the sense is, they rejected God in their mind, and God delivered them up to a rejected mind. [2] Adulterine, spurious, and thence rejectaneous: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rejectaneous, adulterine money. Thus it's taken, 2 Cor. 13.5, 6, 7. 2 Tim. 3.8. Tit. 1.6. and so the sense is, God gave them up to a drossy, vain, adulterine mind. [3] Perverse, contrary to right Reason. And thus it's primarily to be understood here; and so there is an elegant allusion between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they did not approve of, and acknowledge God in their practic Judgements or Consciences; and therefore God did not approve of, or own their practic judgements, but delivered them up to a reprobate or perverse judgement; which hurried them into all manner of Idolatry and wickednesses, as is specified v. 26, 31. Thence it follows, (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To do things not convenient. These proud sophists, specially the Stoics, boasted greatly of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is congruous and convenient: wherein they placed the whole of Philosophy. So Clemens Alexandr. Paedag. pag. 101. The Stoics call that which is done according to the obedience of Reason and Virtue, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, congruous and convenient. And O! how much did they vainly glory in this Congruity and Convenience of their actions! Yea, did they not as many nowadays, measure the Great God, and his Divine Perfections by Rules of Congruity and Convenience, coined by their vain imaginations? But Paul gives us their true Character, that being delivered up to a reprobate mind, they did things not convenient; i. e. they fell into the most prodigiose Immoralities, notwithstanding all their pretended Morality. And how justly doth God leave such as place their own Wisdom and Morality in the Throne of God, to commit the most undecent Immoralities? Thus God bemisted the degenerate minds of those proud sophists and Moralistes, causing their very light and Moral Virtue to play the Knaves with them, and betray them into the hands of the worst Immoralities; as v. 29, 30, 31. Oh! how mysteriose & invisible are God's ways of giving men up to a Reprobate mind! How soon doth light harden those whom it doth not soften! Can there be a more severe judgement, than for men to be given up to a Reprobate mind, and the lusts of their own hearts? May we then wonder that Ethnic Philosophy should prove in itself so vain and venomous, as also in its influences on the Church of God, when it was under so great a curse of God?  
Neither hath this Judiciary curse terminated only on Pagan Philosophy, but also diffused itself throughout almost the whole of Scholastic Theology. Yea, I must confess myself to be in this point of the same persuasion with pious Jansenius, that great Patron of Medicinal Grace, who, in his August. Tom. 2. l. 2. c. 2. pag. 326. tells us, That he could not but vehemently wonder, that many of the Gentile Philosopher's Philosophised far more piously and rightly, of the principal heads of Moral Doctrine and Grace, than many Christian Schoolmen, etc. Of which see more Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. § 4. of this Part 3. And a great Prelate of this Age and Nation assures us, That there hath not been a greater plague to Christian Religion than Schole-Divinitie. And he gives this reason of it: When men will be wiser than God, and think by their foolish wisdom to add to God's Word; God, to convince them of their folly, suffers Satan to sow seeds of Heresy and Division among them. Such is the vanity and malignity of Philosophy, and all human wisdom, when abused by men of reprobate minds, and so brought under a Divine Curse.  
Hence we see how necessary it is for any, 
The right use of Philosophy.  that will make a right use of Philosophy, to separate therefrom its vanity and abuses: and how can this be duly performed, but by a curiose Contemplation of, and Inquisition into the Causes, Adjuncts, and Effects of vain Philosophy; which is the principal Intendment of the following Discourse. And if we will indeed render Philosophy useful we must observe these general Rules: (1) That all Philosophy be reduced, 
See more of these Rules Philos. Genera. Disser. Prooem. p. 7, etc.  to and measured by its original and perfect Exemplar, the Divine Word and Light. Had the first Fathers, Origen, etc. as also the Scholastic Theologues, their Successors, taken this course, what great use might they have made of Ethnic Philosophy, and preserved the Church from those monstrose Errors, and Abuses that followed the same? (2) That so much only of Pagan Philosophy must be admitted as may subserve Christian Theology, not oppose the same. (3) That not the end of Ethnic Philosophy, or Philosophers, may be assumed by us, but only such Philosophemes as may serve to explicate Dogmes in Theologie. The End both of Pagan Philosophy and Philosophers, being to exalt the Lights and Heats, or Forces of corrupt nature, and to reduce men to the old antiquated Covenant of Works, this may in no regard be admitted by Christians, who are under a New Covenant: yet there are many excellent Philosophemes and Notions both Moral and Metaphysic, which if improved by an humble fidele mind, on Evangelic Principes and Motiyes, may be of great use, not only for the Moralising of Persons and Republics, but also for the Explication of many momentose Verities in Christian Theology. Hereof we have given many Specimens in our Fourth Part of the Court of the Gentiles, as also in our Philosophia Generalis, Part 1. Lib. 3. Chap. 3, 4. and Part 2.  
We are also to premit something touching the Form and Method of this following Discourse, 
The Form of this Discourse.  which we have endeavoured to suit to our Mater, as Nature doth her Forms. And whereas we have explicated and insisted on so many Texts of Scripture, we presume that will not be thought impertinent, sithat our main subject is the Vanity and Abuses of Philosophy, which are best evidenced by Divine Light. We may not also pretermit without some mention the many Citations and Explications made use of by us out of Grotius; whose Annotations and Illustrations we have frequently cited; not as if we esteemed him an authentic Judge in matters of Faith or Scripture; but as he was a good Critic, wel-skilled in Antiquity, and a person of great estime for his Learning; so that it cannot be conceived, that his Indignation against Pagan Philosophy should proceed from any groundless prejudice against the same, but rather from a just and deserved apprehension of the many evils and pestiferous effects that attended the abuse thereof. I must ingenuously confess, that when I did read Grotius' Annotations on the New Testament, and diligently observed, how much he decried vain Philosophy, by reason of its noxious Infusions, and venomous influences on the principal Errors in the Christian Church, it put me on more curiose Inquisition and diligent researches into this matter: wherein I found the Abuses of Philosophy much greater than ever I imagined.  
As for Grotius himself, if it may not seem too great presumption to give the world my Character of so Learned a man, I conceive he did the Church and Learned men good service, before he, by reason of Interest or Discontent, fell off to Socinianism, and Cassandrian Popery, which his Controversies with Rivet demonstrate him greatly propense unto. And to make good this my Charge, I shall give a Specimen of some Socinian and Popish Errors, which lie scattered in his Annotations on the New Testament. On Joh. 8.58. he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eram, I was. i.e. saith he, Christ was before Abraham in Divine appointment. So Joh. 10.38. he saith, That the Father was in him by his influence, and he was in the Father by perfect obedience. So Joh. 17.5. he understands, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Divine Decree. All which overthrow Christ's Deity. Again, Joh. 17.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. saith he, I have by my daily precepts and exemple endeavoured it, etc. Where he makes Christ a Mediator only by Precepts and Exemple, according to the Socinian Mode. And then he adds, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Son of perdition, is said not of any Destination of God, but of his own merit, whereby he denies Reprobation. And ver. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they may be all one; i.e. saith he, one in faith and love: which notes only a Moral union with Christ. So ver. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. saith he, by Dogme and Exemple. Again, 1 Cor. 8.11. he saith, that Christ died altogether for all men, that they might be converted by the Gospel; therefore also for them that perish. Which is both Pelagian, Socinian, and Popish. Ephes. 6.19. he hath this expression, Shall we think, that the prayers of Paul reigning with Christ profit us nothing? where he assertes the Intercession of Saints. And ver. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he thus explicates: He hath joined the principal cause with the second cause. Where he makes Christ a second cause, which is rank Socinianism, and Arianisme foisted into the Primitive Churches by Origen, as we have demonstrated, Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 8, 9 So Philip. 2.6. he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be locked on as God. And on Phil. 3.11. he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, showeth the thing to be uncertain; whereby he agrees with the Papists, in denying Assurance. So in ver. 12, 13. he assertes falling from Grace. Also Col. 2.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dead in sins, he understands with a diminution, as it were dead. Moreover on 2 Tim. 4.7. he upbraids such who trusted in imputed Righteousness, which is the spirit of Popery. And 1 Tim. 3.16. God was manifest, etc. he leaves out God, and applies all to the Gospel: which he learned from the Socinians. Again, Tit. 1.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he interprets of Election by or for faith. And on Heb. 6.4, 5. he concludes, that the best of Christians may fall from Grace. And Hebr. 10.5. he interprets Christ's coming into the world, of his passing from a private life to his Ministerial Office, which subvertes the Deity of Christ. And ver. 18. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Remission of sin, he understands the sanation or curing of the soul from sin, which is manifest Papism. And Hebr. 10.29. he saith, that justified persons, who have received the spirit, may fall away. And James 2.23. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imputed, he understands, that faith was reputed by God as an egregious thing, which is rank Socinianism. And Revel. 20.15. on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he saith, that it sufficeth not, that the name be sometime written in the book of life, etc. How much he endeavoured to elude and evade all those Characteristic notes of Antichrist given by Paul and John, affixing them on Simon Magus, or some other, is evident by his Notes on 2 Thes. 2.3, 4, 5, etc. as also by his Epistles, specially Epist. 199. to Curcellaeus.  
These Reflections on Grotius I conceive expedient, as a Premonition to young Students, that they imbibe not his erroneous Infusions, together with his Learned Annotations. I am not ignorant that by opposing Grotius, I greatly incur the censure and displeasure of some Learned men, which is no way desirable to an ingenuous spirit, or to any that love their repose; but this I can truly say, that I would differ from none farther than they differ from Truth, which ought to be more esteemed by us than the estime of men, or our own quiet, of which more fully in the close to our Preface, Part 4.   

BREVIARIE of CONTENTS. THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. PART III. The Vanity of PAGAN PHILOSOPHY.  



PREFACE.  
THe Corruption of Philosophy 1  
The Design of this Discourse 2  
The malignity of Pagan Philosophy in regard 

(1) of itself; (2) of its subject, man's vain heart 4  
(3) Of God's Judicial Curse 5    
The right Use of Philosophy 6  
The Form of this Discourse 9  
Some Reflections on Grotius' Errors, dissused throughout his Annotations 9    


BOOK I. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, from its Causes, Parts, and Proprieties.  


CHAP. I. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its Causes  
The Vanity of Philosophy from its Causes.  


(1) Ignorance 2  
(2) Human Inventions 3  
(3) Curiosity, and affectation of novity 8  
(4) Spiritual Pride 9 

Pride brings Divine Mysteries to the measure of Carnal Reason 11  
Other evils of Pride 12  
Pride the Cause of Atheism, etc. 13    
(5) Carnal Confidence 14 

Socrates' sense of Dependence 15    
(6) Litigations about Words 16 

The effects of these Contentions 18    
(7) Opiniatretie and Dogmatising 21  
(8) Carnal Policy of Philosophers 22  
(9) Judiciary Blindness 24  
(10) Idolatry: (11) Mythology 25      


CHAP. II. The Vanity of Philosophy from its Mater, Parts, etc.  
(1) The Vanity of Eristic Logic 26 

The Origine of Eristic Logic 28  
Aristotle's Logic Sophisticated by the Arabians and Schoolmen 29    
(2) The Vanity of Ethnic Physies 30 

Physics the cause of Idolatry 32    
(3) The Vanity of the Mathematics 33 

Astronomy the cause 

[1] of Idolatry Ib.  
[2] Of Atheism 34  
(3) The Vanity of Ethics 35 

Their Defect as to Mater and End 36  
Their Defect as to Principes 37  
Right Reason their Rule Ib.  
Ethnic Moralists Free-willers 38  
Socrates against Freewill 39  
Freewill the root of Pelagianisme 40  
No Moral or Natural Virtue but what is Supernatural Ib.  
The Pelagians worse than Philosophers 41  
Other Defects as to Principes Ib.    
(4) The Vanity of Philosophic Politics 42 

[1] As compared with Divine Politics 43  
[2] As to their End, Mater, and Effects 44          


CHAP. III. The Vanity of Metaphysics and Divination.  
The Corruption of Natural Theology 45 

(1) As to its ultimate Object, God 47 

[1] Few understood any thing of God Ib.  
[2] They had no knowledge of the Trinity 48 

Their notions about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave rise to Arianisme 49    
[3] Their Vanity as to Divine Ideas 50    
(2) As to its mediate Object Ib. 

Al their Demon-Doctrines vain 51      
The Vanity of their Metaphysic Philosophemes about the Soul, it's 56 

(1) Pre-existence, (2) Metempsychose, (3) Purgations 57    
Pagan Divination most corrupt Ib.  
Judaic Divination imitated by Pagans Ib.  
Divination part of their Demon-Doctrines 58  
Apollo their great Oracle 59  
The Origine of Delphic Divination Ib.  
The nature of Divination out of Plato 60 

(1) It's Origine by Divine Afflation 61  
(2) The Instruments, Poets and Prophets Ib.  
(3) Those Diviners Ecstatic 62  
(4) Divination by Enthusiasm 63  
(5) Those Enthusiastes had their Judge's Ib  
(6) The End of Divination, friendship with God 64    
The sundry kinds of Divination Ib. 

(1) By Dreams Ib.  
(2) By Sternutation 65  
(3) By Magic strictly termed 66    
Apollonius Tyanaeus his Magic and Demon-Doctrines a type of Antichrist Ib.  
Divination by Bestes, Men, and Plants 68  
By Elements and Things Artificial 69    


CHAP. IV. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its form, and Proprieties.  
The Corruption of Symbolic Philosophy 70  
The Origine of Symbolic Philosophy 71  
The Jewish Cabala, its Origine, etc. 76  
The Vanity of Philosophy in regard of its Proprieties 78 

(1) The Deficience of Philosophy as to Truth Ib. 

Philosophy but Nocturne Science Ib.    
(2) Pagan Philosophy only Artificial and Equivocal, not real 82  
(3) Pagan Philosophy only general, not experimental 85  
(4) Pagan Philosophy only obscure and cloudy, not distinct 87  
(5) Pagan Philosophy incertain 89  
(6) Pagan Philosophy not truly discursive, but sophistic 91  
(7) Pagan Philosophy not truly Noetic 92  
(8) Pagan Philosophy defective as to Prudence, 93 

[1] Self-Reflexion, [2] Providence, [3] Good Counsel, etc. 94    
(9) Pagan Philosophy not Transformative 95        


BOOK II. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy in regard of its Effects.  


CHAP. I. Pagan Philosophy the cause of Pagan Idolatry, Judaic Apostasy, and Errors in the Primitive Churches.  
Pagan Philosophy vain, 

(1) as it came short of its End 98  
(2) As it proved Soul-deceit 99  
(3) As the cause of Idolatry 102 

Demons from Pagan Philosophy 103  
Demons worshipped 

[1] by Images 104  
[2] Bianca Shrines, [3] by Cuttings, [4] by Columns 105 

What Influence Idolatry received from Philosophy 106        
(4) Philosophy the cause of Atheism 108 

[1] Natural Philosophy and Medicine 110  
[2] The Mathematics, Astrology, etc. Ib.  
[3] Politic Philosophy 111  
[4] Eristic Philosophy or Logic 112    
Israelitic Apostasies from Pagan Philosophy 113  
The Judaic Cabala from the Grecian Philosophy 117  
The Judaic Talmud from Pagan Philosophy 119  
Judaic Disputation from Pagan Philosophy 120  
Pagan Philosophy the cause of the greatest Errors in the Christian Churches 121  
The Gnostics Errors from Pagan Philosophy 123  
The Origination of their Name Ib.  
Their Mystic Theology Pythagorean, Mythic and fabulose 124 

(1) Their Aeones, Origine and Office as Mediators, Pythagorean, etc. 125  
(2) Their Will-worship Pythagorean 128  
(3) Their forbidding Marriage 129  
(4) Abstinence, (5) Sorcery, (6) Sensuality Ib.  
(7) Expiation, (8) Allegoric Resurrection 130    
Pagan Philosophy the cause of Errors among the Fathers, Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, etc. 131  
Origen's Errors from Philosophy 132 

(1) Origen the Founder of Pelagianisme Ib.  
(2) Arianism from Origen 133  
(3) Popery from Origen 134    
Other Errors of Origen 135 

Origen's Character 136  
Origen's Errors from Platonic Philosophy 137    
Primitive Errors from Philosophy 138  
The Samosatenan and Arian Heresy from Philosophy 139  
Philosophy the cause of Pelagianisme 141  
A summary of Pelagianisme 143  
Augustin's Zele against Pelagianisme 144  
The Jansenistes Zele against it 146      


CHAP. II. Pagan Philosophy the cause of all Antichristianisme.  


SECT. I. Antichrist's Mystic and Scholastic Theology from Ethnic Philosophic.  
Antichrist's Mystic Theology from the Egyptian Monks 149  
These Egyptian Monks Apes of Pythagoreans and Egyptian Priests 150  
Mystic Theology from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy 151 

(1) The Mater of Mystic Theologie, Pythagorean and Platonic 152  
(2) Mystic Theology as to its Form, Pythagorean and Platonic 153    
The Origine of the Schoolmen and their Philosophy from Aristotle 154  
The Eristic mode of Scholastic Theology from Philosophy 155  
How far the Arabians contributed to Scholastic Theology 156  
The Mater of Schole-Divinitie, specially Pelagian Infusions, from Philosophy 159  
The Pelagian Apathy, Freewill, etc. from Philosophy 160  
Pelagian Arms from Philosophy 161    


SECT. II. A general account of Antichrist's Canonic Theology and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with its Traduction from the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Canonic Antichristianisme from Pagan Philosophy 163  
The Form of Antichrist's Canon-Law, from the Church's Authority, taken up in Imitation of Pythagorean Dogmes 165  
The Mater of Antichrist's Canon-Law from Pagan Philosophy 170  
Antichrist's Canonised Saints Imitamen of Pagan-Demons 171  
The Origine of Popish Saints the same with that of Pagan Demons 174  
Both from a fond conceit of some great excellence in them 176  
The Canonisation of Saints an Imitamen of Demon-Apotheosis 178  
The Saints Mediatory Office in Imitation of Demon-Mediators 180    


SECT. III. That Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but an Imitamen of the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, demonstrated from its parts.  
Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Imitamen of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 184  
The Essence of Antichrist's Apostasy in Idolatry 184  
The Antichristian Church termed, 

Revel. 17.5. Babylon the great, the mother of Harlots 185  
Rev. 13.1. The name of Blasphemy 186    
Antichrists Saint-worship an Imitamen of Demon-worship 187  
The Commemoration of Martyrs at their Graves, by Temples and Panegyrics, from Demon-Temples and Panegyrics 188  
Popish Festivals, Hymns, Plays, etc. from Demon-worship 192  
Antichrists Epiphanie from Pagan Epiphanie Ib.  
Popish Hymns from Demon-Hymnes 193  
Popish-Playes from Demon-Playes 194  
Popish-Festes from Demon-Festes Ib.  
Popish Images from Demons 195  
Popish Crosses Imitamen of Pagans 198  
Templing of Relics Pagan Institutes Ib.  
Antichrists Sacrifices from Demons 199  
The Sacrifice of the Mass an Imitamen of Demon-Sacrifices 200  
The Cup in the Lord's Supper turned by the Papists into a Cup of Demons 202  
Popish Tenths and Offerings from Demons Ib.  
Popish Exorcism and Lying Wonders from Demons 203  
Invocation of Saints from Demon-Invocation 204  
Pagan Rites assumed by Papists, 

(1) sprinkling Holy Water, (2) Sacred Fire, (3) Sacred Groves, (4) Bowing towards the East 206  
(5) Godfathers Gifts, (6) Distinctive Garments, and other Rites 207    
All Antichrists Canonic Fasts and Abstinences from Demon-worship 209  
Popish Monastic Life another part of the Doctrine of Demons 211  
The Origine of Monastic Constitutions 213  
All Antichrists Works of Supererogation and Merits, parts of Demon-Dogmes 214  
Bodily Exercices and Will-worship from Demon-Institutes 216  
Antichrist's Purgatory from the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 218  
Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Sacrifices for the Dead 219  
Antichristian Purgatory from the School of Alexandria 221    


SECT. iv Papal Primatie and Traditions from Ethnic Philosophy.  
Antichrists Canonic primaty an Imitamen of the Pagan 222  
The Different Orders of Priests, Arch-Presbyters, Chorepiscopi, Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates and patriarchs in the Roman Church from the Gentile Flamens, Arch-flamen, and Proto-flamen Ib.  
Hierarchy among the Pagans 223  
Papal primaty began at Alexandria, in imitation of the Philosophers Scholes Ib.  
The chief Seat of Papal primaty at Rome, in Imitation of Pagan Hierarchy 224  
The Pope's Supremacy an Imitamen of the Emperors being Pontifex Maximus Ib.  
Antichrist's Character by Paul, 2 Thes. 2.3, 4. 225  
V 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 

That Apostasy 226  
That Man of Sin, both Intensively and Extensively 226-229  
That Son of Perdition 230    
V 4. Called God 231  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worshipped, what Ib.  
The Pope above the Emperor 232  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Rule, what Ib.  
The King of Babylon and Tyre, also Antiochus, and the Roman Emperor Types of Antichrist 233 

In the Temple of God Ib.  
As God, what it notes 234    
All Popish Traditions Doctrines of Demons 235  
The Sum of Demon-Doctrines espoused by Antichrist 237          

Table of Hebraic Words Explicated.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bidden sense 76  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vesta 206  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baalim, who 104, 182  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ben, a Son, addicted 230  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a kind of prophety 58  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pride 13  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to blaspheme 187  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Investigator 31  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bidden sense 76  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to convince of folly 31  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 121  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to deceive 52, 101  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to blaspheme 187  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wise, who 35  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God save you 65  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Coresh, Cyrus 182  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the practic Judgement 98  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Disputation 31  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain Questions 74  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proprieties 120  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Proverbes 35  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to provoke to wrath 187  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prophety 57  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, human Rites 169  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wives 211  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Scribe 42  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the yoke of Law 166  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Essence or Body 53  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cabala 75, 76, 117, 216  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to approach for worship 17  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rabbi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 171  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the spirit of prophety 58  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to deceive 52, 101  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Destroyer 59  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hear 118  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sound Wisdom 85  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Talmud, what 119    

Table of Grecanic Words Explicated.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Image 58, 196  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Love-Festes 130  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sagacity 87  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Aeones 126  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 226  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contradiction 20  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Demonstration 90  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acception 216  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apollo 59  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luxury, whence 129  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to err 75  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lustre, thence Augustus 231  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Freet-wil, what 39  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baetylia, what 198  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Gangrene, what 122  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Genealogy 73, 120, 125  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ethic Characters 35  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gnostic Science 10, 74, 123  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gnostics 74, 124  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Daemon, what 67, 103, 171, 180  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship 171-176, 181, 236  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dialecticks 91  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ratiocination 24, 26, 93-99  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Obtesting 121  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perverse Dispute 18  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an accurate Disputation 18  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Constitution, or Canon 165, 169, 171  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what 67, 165, 171  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Institutor 171  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Dogmatise, what 7, 169  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to presume 10  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship, what 128, 169  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image-worship 105, 197  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Temple 233  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to awake 9  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Purgation by fire 218  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ecstasy, what 62  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Evidence, what 88  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Invade 8, 84  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be Entangled 166  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Enthusiasm 63  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphanie 192  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Good counsel 94  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Good nature, what 39  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Agnition, Pref. 5  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to desire ardently 75  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, T●●ogonie, what 127  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, handy, or touch 212  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Religiose worship 128  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Poison 228  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thence Jupiter 232  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Congruous, Pref. 6  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Rule 232  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to beguile 55, 102  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Condemn 168  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be abolished 42  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a vain Reason 101  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain Babbling 20, 121  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fluctuating 100  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sleight, or Dice 100  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyrus' 182  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Comedy 193  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called God 231  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to strive about words 121  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain Contention 17, 28, 158  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, among the Platonistes 46, 84, 141  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eristic Logic 16, 17, 26, 28  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a show of Wisdom 216  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what 17  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Magic, or Divination 66  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain Dispute 27  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Art of Cheating 100  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Form or Picture 84  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Fable or Tradition 73  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to shut the eyes 3  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Intelligence 93  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Right Reason, what 37  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rightly to divide 121  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Origen, his Errors, etc. 132  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Allegoric Resurrection 130  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Tradition 5, 120, 167  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Depositum 20  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to impose a sallacie 101  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plausible sophistry 101  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Providence 94  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Worshipped 231  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Augustus' 231  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wise, who 35  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Stela, a Column 198  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Constitution 5, 6, 167, 169  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that spoils 5, 48, 101  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Disputer 30  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, personally, essentially 53  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Pixe wherein the Hostie is kept 120, 121  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superstitiose Humility 55  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Sacrifice for the Dead 219-221  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Particles of the Law 121  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Tragedies 193  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, proudly list up 12  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Adumbration 90  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to simulate, personate 176  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitation 176, 178  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitator, or Simulator 176, 177  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lover of an opinion 89  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prudence 39  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be puffed up 10  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bond 168  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, salsely named 20, 123  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to touch 3  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Animal, what 1  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as God, what 234    

Table of Scriptures Explicated.  
Genesis. Chap Ver. Pag. 28. 18, 19 198 Leviticus. 19 21. 105 Numbers. 25. 2, 3. 120 Deuteronomic. 14. 1. 105, 114 31. 20. 187 32. 17. 59 1 Kings. 16. 31, 32. 115 18. 22. 135 18. 28. 105, 114 Esra. 4. 8. 42 Psalms. 10. 4. 13, 113 106. 28. 120 Proverbes. 2. 7. 85 7. 7. 98 Ecclesiastes. 10 2, 3. 98 Esaias. 14. 12, 13. 233 47. 10. 116 65. 7. 187 Jeremy. 41. 5. 105 Ezechiel. 20. 27. 187 28. 2. 233 Daniel. 4. 30. 111 11. 36. 233 11. 37. 211 Habakkuk. 2. 4. 14 Matthew. Chap. Ver. Pag. 6. 7. 205 15. 2, 6, 9 236 24. 26. 120 Mark. 5. 2, 3. 189 7. 3, 5, 7, 8. 100, 237 Luke. 1. 2. 90 20. 20. 176 John. 2. 4. 182 Acts. 17. 18 108 17. 21. 9 17. 22. 238 17. 27. 3, 108 Romans. 1. 18. 4 10. 20. 31, 32 1. 21, 22. 24, 25, 27, 32, 92, 107 1. 28. Pref. 5 2. 20. 84 1 Corinthians. 1. 20. 30, 31, 35, 42 2. 4. 90 2. 6. 42 2. 14. 2 3. 18, 19, 20. 99 8. 1, 2. 10 8. 5. 115, 182 10. 21. 202 12. 10. 63 14. 20. 30 15. 32. 9 2 Corinthians. 3. 18. 94 10. 21. 238 Galatians. Chap. Ver. Pag. 3 1. 90 4. 3. 6 4. 9 6 5. 1. 166 Ephesians. 4. 14. 100, 203 5. 6. 35, 101 5. 14, 15. 35 ‛ Philippians. 2. 14. 27, 100 Colossians. 2. 2. 90 2. 3. 52 2. 4. 52, 101 2. 8. 5, 47, 53, 101, 116, 124, 166 2. 9 53 2. 10. 54, 126, 182 2. 14. 168 2. 16. 168, 209 2. 18. 8, 10, 14, 55, 84, 102, 128, 168 2. 19 55, 183 2. 20. 6, 169 2. 21. 7, 212 2. 22. 7, 169 2. 23. 84, 128, 169, 216 2 Thessalonians. 2. 3. 226, 230 2. 4. 231, 232 2. 7. 225 2. 9 67, 204 2. 10, 11. 2 2 Timothy. 1. 3, 4. 72, 73, 118, 125, 128 1. 5, 6. 27, 74 1. 7. 75 1. 19 75 3. 6. 12 4. 1. 64, 106, 165, 170, 171, 203, 236 4. 2. 176, 184 4. 3. 129, 149, 209, 215 4. 7. 76, 153 4. 8. 215 4. 9 216 6. 3, 4. 16, 17 6. 5, 6. 18, 19, 92 6. 20. 21. 19, 21, 81, 125, 126 2 Timothy. 2. 14, 15, 16, 17. 121 2. 23. 122 3. 13. 218 4. 4. 218 Titus. 1. 14. 77 3. 9 100 Hebrews. 1. 3. 233 11. 1. 88 11. 3. 89 James. 1. 22. 101 2 Peter. 1. 9 3 2. 1. 184 2. 18. 129 1 John. 2. 18. 127 Judas v. 12. 130 Revelations. 2. 20. 115 8. 10, 11. 136 9 20. 238 13. 1, 2. 186 13. 6. 183, 186 13. 15. 178 14. 8. 228 17. 5. 184-186 18. 5. 229   

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

BOOK I. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, from its Causes, Parts and Proprieties.  

CHAP. I. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, from its Causes.  
The Causes of vain Philosophy; (1.) Ignorance, Act. 17.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Pet. 1.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (2.) Human Inventions, Col. 2.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ver. 20, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 22, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (3.) Curiosity, Col. 2.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 17.21, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 15.32, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The sundry workings of this Curiosity. (4.) Spiritual Pride. Col. 2.18, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 8.1, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Effects of Philosophy 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' sense of his ignorance. (6.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or contentious Logic. 1 Tim. 6.3, 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The verbal contentiose amongst the Philosophers. The effects of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Envy, Strife, Atheism, etc. 1 Tim. 6.5, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ver. 20, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (7.) Opiniatretie and Dogmatising. Col. 2.20, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, its origine and vanity. (8.) Carnal Policy, Psal. 119.113, 118, 163. (9) Judicial hardness, Rom. 1.18, 21, 22, 28, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (10.) Idolatry inclination. (11.) Fabulose imitation.  
§. 1. HAving in the former Part contemplated Philosophy in its origine and progresse, 
Vain Philosophy from ignorance.  we are now to take view of it in its degenerate, corrupt and deformed Idea or visage: For though it were in its origine a weak imperfect reflection of that gloriose Divine Revelation, which shone from the Sun of Righteousness on the Jewish Church; yet falling on proud, carnal, indisposed hearts, it did but harden them the more: So that, Holding the truth in unrighteousness, 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 Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, we shall consider it, (1.) In its Causes. (2.) In its Mater and Parts. (3.) In its Form and Proprieties. (4.) In its Effects.  
We shall begin with the Vanity of Philosophy, as considered in its Causes. And the first prolific seminal cause of all the Vanity and corruption of Philosophy, was the innate congenite darkness, 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 chrysostom 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 less invested the souls of all 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 Divinity; 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 undertaken many tedious Travels and Labours; they went far and near, to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Chaldeans, but principally to the Hebrews, who were scattered amongst all these Nations; from whom they received immediately, or by the mediation of those neighbouring Nations, some fragments and broken traditions of the first origine of things; their Connexion's, Causalities, Effects, etc. Also of the first Eternal Being, his Perfections, Operations, and Modes of worship, etc. which foreign heavenly Plants of Divine Revelation, they endeavoured to transplant into the Garden of their natural Understandings and Philosophy; 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 all 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, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, primarily and properly signifies, to touch, as they who play on a Music Instrument. But thence, in a more lax 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 always blink with their eyes. Thus learned Bochart, in his elaborate Book De Animalibus Sacris, part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 31. Where having laid down three interpretations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he adds a fourth, which he closeth with: I prefer, says 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 unrighteousness: i. e. They had some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commun notions of a Deity, which they cultivated by studiose Contemplation of the invisible perfections of God in his visible works, as ver. 19; and farther, by some broken Tradition; borrowed from the Church of God. Yet all 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 calls it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a night-day knowledge of Divine things, which rendered them only skilful in coining vain imaginations, etc. They may be said to hold the truth in unrighteousness, on a twofold account. (1.) As by their unrighteousness they captivated the Truth: Their unrighteous lusts were too strong for Truth. Or (2.) As they did captivate Truth unrighteously, against all equity and justice. Had they given Truth fair play, it would have dealt roundly with them, and made them sensible of their Crimes; but their unrighteous lusts, did against all rules of equity, unrighteously captivate Truth, that so it might not disturb them in their wicked practices.  
§. 2. A Second Cause of the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, 
2. Human Inventions.  was the human Figments and Inventions of their own, which they mixed with those broken Traditions, they received originally from the Jewish Church; whence the whole of their Philosophy, according to Divine estimation, is judged to be at best but human Invention and Tradition. This is fully laid down, Col. 2.8, Through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, etc. 
Col. 2.8.  The Apostle seems to strike primarily at the Pythagorean Philosophy, as it appears by the following, vers. 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, which were Pythagorean Doctrines. Thence Grotius, and Hammond out of him, understand this Discourse of the Gnostic Theologie, composed for the most part of Pythagorean Principes. Now here the Apostle exhorces them First, That no man make a prey of them through Philosophy. What the proper import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, we shall hereafter show. He says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Grotius observes, that here is the figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one and the same thing signified by two expressions: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Philosophy and vain deceit, availeth as much, as if he had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the vain deceit of Philosophy. Thence the Apostle proves, that it was vain Philosophy, from its Causes, (which is the highest kind of demonstration) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the tradition of men. Very right: (adds Grotius) for that which these Greek Philosophers taught, proceeded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the most part, from their human ingeny, or own invention. But what true account can we have of God, and of his Decrees, unless we are taught of God? Hence therefore those perpetual and inexplicable dissensions amongst the Philosophers: Hence also their industrious labour and study, in things that were neither in themselves certain, nor yet rendered men better. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the institution, which came not from Heaven; but from this world: and thence is partly false, partly imperfect. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies the Elements, which the Philosophers suppose to be the first principes of Natural bodies. Thence in Philosophy the word was used to signify the first principes, or rudiments of any Science, which have an analogy with the natural elements. So that by rudiments, or elements of this world, is evidently meant those principe, of Philosophy, which had their main origine from the world; that is, the invention of man, though grounded on some Jewish traditions. So it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not according to Christ: i. e. says Grotius, Not such rudiments or institutions, which were brought by Christ from Heaven. 'Tis true, much of their Philosophy, its first Rudiments and Elements, descended originally from Heaven by Christ. For, as it hath been proved, the chief principes of all Philosophy were but corrupt traductions, or broken traditions derived originally from God's sacred Oracles: Ay, but in as much as the manner of traduction, or conveyance was but human, not according to God's Ordinance; yea very broken and imperfect; and moreover, these purblind Philosophers mixed their own figments and inventions with their Jewish Traditions, which they understood not, neither emproved to any other use or end, than a little to elevate their own common principes; hence the Apostle styles the whole of their Principes and Philosophy but Traditions of men, worldly rudiments, which were partly false, partly imperfect; but wholly vain and useless as to Divine Institution and Instruction of men, in the saving knowledge of God in Christ. Not that the Apostle condemns all Philosophy as vain, because it was of human Invention or Tradition; but his design here, is to preserve these Collossians from the contagious infusions of the Gnostics, and other Heretics, who mixed Pythagoric Traditions and Rudiments, with Divine Revelations and Institutions; and so rendered both vain and useless. This our Apostle over and again inculcates, 
Col. 2.20.  vers. 20.21, 22, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ to the rudiments of the world, etc. i. e. saith Grotius, Christ has delivered you from this human Institution. He that is dead, is freed from the incommodities of life. Therefore to die here, is taken in the better part, as Rom. 6.2. 
Gal. 4.3, 9  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rudiments, are every institution, as Gal. 4.3, 9 Where you'll see the reason, why they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rudiments of the world; namely, because they were commun to the Jews with the Gentiles. For there was nothing in these Rites peculiar to the Jews, yea they rather came by God's permission from the Gentiles to the Jews, than from the Jews to the Gentiles. And indeed it is evident, That these Rudiments or Institutes here mentioned, ver. 21, 22, were not Jewish but Pythagorean, (as Grotius observes) which the Gnostics transplanted out of the Pythagorean Philosophy, into their Theology. This further appears by what follows, ver. 20, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject unto ordinances? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Grotius, signifies here, Why do you suffer yourselves to be thus taught, as though your life were to be composed according to the exemple, not of Christ, but of the World? Or, as Schmidius, Why do you bind yourselves, ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Dogmes, Rites, and Institutes of men? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is well known, is a Philosophic term, and signifies to impose a Dogme, or Doctrine, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to impose a Law. The Pythagoreans had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dogmes, imposed on all their Sect; so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he said it, was a Law to them. Now, says the Apostle, Why do you suffer these Pythagorean Dogmes to be imposed on your Consciences, instead of Christ's Laws? Why do you subject your Consciences to these worldly Rudiments, or Pythagorean Ordinances, which are vain and useless, in point of salvation; as to matters of Faith and worship, & c? Then our Apostle proceeds to lay down some of these Pythagorean Dogmes or Ordinances, ver. 21, 
Col. 2.21.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That these are no Mosaic Ordinances, is affirmed by Tertullian. It seems to me (saith Grotius) that he useth words commun, which comprehend both the Jews and the Philosophers, principally the Pythagorist, etc. Then it follows, 
Col. 2.22.  ver. 22, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the commandments and Doctrines of men. This, says Grotius, aught to be referred to the remoter, namely to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ordinances, ver. 20, which were the inventions of men, not of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are such things as are commanded by men's Laws: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are the Injunctions or Dogmes of the Philosophers. So that we see the sum of our Apostles Discourse, and scope in these forecited places, is, to show the vanity and deceit of this Pythagorean Philosophy, which these Gnostics (pretenders to wisdom) had foisted into their mystic Divinity. And this he doth fully demonstrate from its main cause; namely, that all these Pythagoric Principes (which these foolish Gnostics so much doted on) were but men's Traditions and worldly Rudiments, as ver. 8, or Dogmes, Mandates and Doctrines of men; as ver. 20, 22: i e. Though they might have some origine Idea in, and Tradition from God's sacred Oracles; yet, in as much as this Tradition was only human, broken and corrupt, and no way apprehended, much less rightly improved, but rather abused to vanity, pride and idolatry, by these foolish Sophists; hence the whole of their Philosophy, according to Divine estimation, was judged at best but of human. Invention and Tradition; and therefore vain and deceitful, when made the measure of Divine things, or rule of faith and worship, as here it was. And this indeed the wiser of the Philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato, seemed sensible of; as also of their need of an higher and more Divine light, than what they had attained unto by Traditions received, and the improvements of their own natural principes thereon. What else mean those Pythagoric Symbols, Look not in a glass by Candle-light? Discourse not of Pythagorean things without light, etc. And Plato gives us many great acknowlegements of his natural ignorance, and of the need he had of a Divine light, to direct him into the knowledge of Divine Mysteries, etc.  
§. 3. Another Cause of the corruption and vanity of Philosophy, 
Curiosity and affectation of novity. Col. 2.18.  was Curiosity, and affectation of novity. This is more than hinted in that of the Apostle, Col. 2.18, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. (says Grotius) Penetrating into those things, which he hath not seen or known; claiming a privilege of discoursing concerning things unknown or hidden. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the glossary, signifies to dive or pry into. It is placed for the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 19.51. They preferred Angels to what Offices they pleased, coining Names for them, distributing them into Classes, etc. Schmidius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Invading, or proudly intruding on things he hath not seen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly signifies, to place the foot on somewhat; and thence sometimes, proudly to undertake a matter beyond a man's capacity. Our Apostle here strikes immediately at the Pythagorising Gnostics, their proud and curiose speculations, concerning the Pythagorean Aeones or Angels; whose Natures, Proprieties, Orders and Offices, they so busily, but vainly pried into: As after them, the Popish Monks and Schoolmen, who exactly follow the Gnostics and Pythagoreans herein; and so are without doubt struck at here, by this Apostolic charge. This curiose inquisitive humour was an original sin amongst the Greek Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans; who having had some dark notices of Divine Jewish Mysteries, were greatly inquisitive into them, even beyond sobriety and modesty; in so much, that being, as it were, drunken with their own curiose conceits and speculations, they grew extreme vain in all their Imaginations and Philosophy. This sin of curiosity, and affectation of novity, was that which Luke charged upon the Athenians, as the source of their vain Philosophemes, Act. 17.18, 21. ver. 18, we are told, that he was encountered by certain Philosophers, Epicureans and Stoics, who ver. 20, seem very inquisitive to know what Paul's new Doctrine meant; and ver. 21, Luke gives us the root of all their Vain Philosophising, namely, their Curiosity, 
Act 17.21.  who spent their time in nothing else but some new thing. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. they were wholly busied, or, they counted their time in nothing else well spent but in Novities. This humour of Curiosity was that which the Corinthian Sophists or Wisemen were drunken with; for which Paul frequently rebukes them, specially, 1 Cor. 15.32, 
1 Cor. 15.32.  Awake to righteousness, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (says Beza) to awake, properly belongs to persons Drunken, who at length after sleep grow sober. He speaks here of the sobriety of the mind, to which he exhortes them to return, who had been, as it were, drunken with their many and curiose speculations. This itch of Curiosity is that which has ever proved noxious (yea, perniciose where it prevails) not only to Pagan Philosophy, but also to Schole-Divinitie; and 'tis like to prove as destructive to Sacred philology or Scripture-Criticisme, (according to the Prophetic fears of Pious Usher) if Critics awake not to righteousness. This peccant humour of Curiosity, as Aquinas has well observed in 2a 2ae, Quaes. 167. is not directly opposed to a thorough disquisition and knowledge of Truth, but to the irregular Appetite thereof, or Studies therein; which Irregularity may be occasioned several ways. As (1.) when our Curiosity leads us to the study of Truth only upon some lower motive or base ends; namely, to feed our Pride, or gratify Lust. (2.) When our very Appetite or desires and studies after knowledge are inordinate and excessive. (3.) When the matter of our Studies and Inquiries is irregular, i. e. things secret, and above our capacities: or else things forbidden and sinful. (4.) When the manner of our disquisitions and contemplations is irregular; which happens sundry ways. [1.] When we are preposterous in our studies, and make that subservient which should be ultimate, and that ultimate which should subserve. [2.] When we violently pursue shadows or things less useful, and neglect substantials or matters of moment, etc. [3.] When all is done in our own strength and confidence. All these pieces of Curiosity the Pythagoreans, with the rest of the Philosophers, were greatly guilty of, which rendered their Philosophy exceeding vain and degenerate: and the Schoolmen have herein followed, if not outgone them. 
Spiritual Pride, the Cause of Vain Philosophy.   
§. 4. Another great Mother-root of the Vanity of Philosophy, was Spiritual Pride, which attended and influenced all the Disquisitions and Contemplations of those Pagan Philosophers. This is sufficiently expressed by our Apostle, 
Col. 2.18.  in his forecited caution to the Colossians, Chap. 2. ver. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (says Grotius) here is spoken of human Knowledge, not reveled by God. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken, Matt. 16.17. This knowledge swells them like to the wind. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have 1 Cor. 4.6, 18, 19, etc. They much pleased themselves in vain matters, as Ezech. 13.3. It is most evident, that our Apostle pursues his great undertaking begun ver. 8, to prove this Gnostic Theologie, composed for the most part of Pythagorean Philosophy, to be vain and deceitful. He had showed, in the former part of the Verse, the Vanity of these their Pythagorean speculations from the Curiosity that attended them: he here proceeds to a more pregnant Cause, which had an universal influence both on the Curiosity and Vanity of their Philosophy; and that was their Pride. Vainly puffed up, i. e. swollen with Pride, as an emty Bubble or Bladder full of nothing but Wind; which all proceeds originally from their fleshly mind, i. e. as Grotius well observes, their human knowledge or Philosophy; which springing from their proud carnal minds tended to no other than the puffing up and exaltation of carnal self or fleshly interest: For we know nothing ascends higher than its springhead and origine: When the proud fleshly mind is the source, proud fleshly self will be the centre or end of all our contemplations. 
1. Cor. 8.1.  We have the like anatomy of Vain Philosophy, 1 Cor. 8.1, 2. Ver. 1, Knowledge puffeth up, but Charity edifieth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He doth, as some conceive, here also strike at those Pythagorising Gnostics, who were carnal Gospelers, but yet pretended to an high spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Knowledge; whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gnostics: which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sophists or Wise men; whose pretended Wisdom or Theology was nothing else but a degenerate composition of Judaisme and Pythagorean Philosophy; which puffed them up with a proud, vain, windy conceit of, I know not what, Mystic knowledge. Thence saith the Apostle, Knowledge puffeth up, 
1 Cor. 8.2.  etc. So it follows, Vers. 2, If any man thinketh he knoweth any thing, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. says Grotius, if any man pleaseth (or prides) himself in this, That he is ingeniose, that he is learned, that he knows Dialecticks Disputations, or is skilled in Philosophy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here notes one that fond conceits, presumes, or arrogantly persuades himself, that he knows something: It imports a proud self flattery and groundless presumption of what he hath not indeed. So it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He does in no wise know any thing as he ought to know it. i e. He is ignorant of the principal thing. That Knowledge is not saving which tends not to love. To know as one ought, is to use his Knowledge for the salvation of himself and others. The sum of all is this, That conceited, windy, emty, speculative Knowledge or Philosophy does but puff up the mind, and sil it with Pride, Vanity and Ostentation; which is but conceited Ignorance. And this was an Epidemic Disease and Universal Contagion, which tainted all Pagan Philosophy and Philosophers, though some had more skill than others to conceal their Pride and Vanities under modest Titles and Habits, as Pythagoras, Socrates, and Diogenes the Cynic, etc. Yea this original sin of Pride and Vanity so much reigned amongst these first Philosophers, as that they themselves could easily discern it in each other, although they could not or would not see it in themselves. Thus Plato and Diogenes accuse each other, as Diogenes Laertius, in the Life of Diogenes the Cynic, informs us: Diogenes, says he, trampled upon Plato 's Bed (where he Philosophised) saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I tread upon Plato 's vain study. To whom Plato replies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O Diogenes, how much Pride dost thou discover, in seeming not to be proud (but to tread on others Pride)? So Antisthenes, seeing the Vessel wherein Plato's Vomit lay, said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I see Plato 's Choler, but I don't see his Pride; meaning that Plato's Pride was too deeply rooted to be vomited up. This Spiritual Pride was an universal contagion which infected all the Philosophers: Whence, says Minutius Faelix, We contemn the proud looks of the Philosophers, whom we know to be Corrupters, and Adulterers, and Tyrants, and yet always eloquent against their own vices. We Christians) who boast not of our wisdom by habit, but keep it in our mind, do not speak, but live great things. Now the Pride of these Pagan Philosophers rendered their Philosophy and Imaginations vain in these particulars. 
Pride brings all Divine mysteries to the measure of carnal Reason   
1. In that they endeavoured to measure things Reveled and Divine (concerning which they had received some broken notices by Jewish Traditions) by their corrupt, proud, and vain understandings. Thence, says Minutius Faelix, It is a piece of the greatest sacrilege to seek that on the ground which thou oughtest to find above. And indeed there is nothing in the World, that hath been a greater enemy to God's Word, or Divine Revelation, than proud and vain Philosophy: which, albeit it received the first rudiments and elements of all its contemplations about God and Divine Mysteries from the sacred Oracles, yet hath it ever rejected, yea opposed the same, endeavouring, by its vain and curiose searches into sacred Mysteries, to comprehend and reduce the same to the measure of its proud conceivings. This, says Calvin, is the greatest arrogance, not to allow God his secret Reasons, which our Reasons can't fathom.  
2. The Pride of their vain Philosophy, 
Pride makes men intemperate in desires of knowledge.  appears in their intemperate desires of Knowledge, which indeed is of all the worst intemperance. So Seneca: To desire to know more than we ought, is an high degree of intemperance.  
3. The Pride and Vanity of Pagan Philosophy appeared in their busy Disputes and Contemplations about trifles and unprofitable matters. 
Pride is much busied about trifles.  This Plato himself was sensible of, when he said, (in his Meno,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We account such mad, whom some count most wise. And Calvin pronounceth universally of such vain Philosophers, Sedulo in hoc omnes incumbunt, ne absque ratione insipere viderentur, They all labour with all their might in this, that they might not seem to play the fool without Reason. We find this proud vain Philosopher notably Characterised by Paul, 1 Tim. 6.4, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He is puffed up (as hydropical bodies, or Toads swollen with poison) with his aerial, proud, vain speculations, without true solid knowledge which humbles, etc. of which hereafter.  
4. That which rendered the proud Philosophers so vain in their Disquisitions and Inquiries, 
Pride exposed Philosophers to the Divine Curse.  was the peculiar curse of God upon them for their Pride. This was observed by some of the soberest amongst themselves. For Chilo (as Diogenes Laertius) being asked, what Jupiter did? Answered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He casts down the high things, and lifts up the low. This is more fully expressed by the Spirit of God, 1 Tim. 3.6. 
1 Tim. 3.6,  Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the novice in Christ's School is dehorted from Pride, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lest being lifted up, or waxing mad, [So Physicians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that labours under a Frenzy.] he falls into the condemnation of the Devil i e. passively, the Devils cursed condition, etc. Thus through the Fever of their Pride they lost the understanding of their frail condition. God is said to resist the proud: And thus he did those proud Philosophers, by leaving them to be entangled and ensnared in their own proud Imaginations, and Philosophic Contemplations.  
5. Hence this Pride of their hearts caused their Philosophy to determine in Atheism, Blasphemy, Idolatry and Sensuality. 
Pride turned Philosophy into a seminary of ' Blasphemy, Atheism, Idolatry, Sensuality.  For God leaving them in judgement to their own proud Imaginations, they fell first into doubtful Disputations, thence into Sceptic Conclusions, and at last arrived unto Atheism, Blasphemy and Sensuality: for their Scepticism ended in Epicurism, as we shall after show. And all proceeded from the Pride of their hearts, according to that prophetic saying of the Psalmist, Ps. 10.4, The wicked through the pride of his countenance. 
Psal. 10.4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is causal, denoting the cause of all their Atheism to be Pride. The Countenance is here put as that which is the Index of the heart. The Thargum reads it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his spirit. God is not in all his thoughts, or all his thoughts are, that there is no God. This is the effect of all his proud vain Philosophy, to believe there is no God. It is certain, that Atheism was the effect of proud Philosophy, as hereafter.  
It's a good observation of Senault, that sober Jansenist: There is no one but knows, that Pride hath always accompanied the Sect of the Stoics, who to elevate man, have abased God; and who oft have made their Wiseman more blessed than their Jupiter. What greater Pride can there be than this, for a man to say, unless he be lest to his own corrupt will, he will do nothing? Which was the case of the Stoics, and most Philosophers, who walked in the sparks of their own fire, pleased themselves in their own abilities, both Contemplative and Active, but had not the least regard to God's glory. It was well observed by Austin, That they who will ascend to God, must descend in self-abasement and humility. The further from Pride, the nearer to God: He that ascends in himself, descends and falls from God. Pride and Vainglory are the prime elements of vain Philosophy; whereas sacred and sound Philosophy is sounded in Humility. Ships that are heaviest laden, fail lowest: So a Mind laden with sound Philosophy is most humble.  
§. 5. The Vanity of Philosophy sprang much from the carnal presumptions or confidences of these Philosophers in their own wisdom or conceited ignorance. 
Carnal confidence another cause of vain Philosophy.  This was another Master-Vice, which originally sprang from the forementioned Pride of their hearts, and had a potent influence on the Vanity of their Philosophy. This also is implied in Paul's Anatomy of the Pythagorising Gnostics, 
Col. 2.18. Vainly puffed up. Hab. 2.4.  their proud vain Philosophy, Col. 2.18, Vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind, i. e. by carnal presumption and confidence on their own fleshly human wisdom. So Hab. 2.4, we read of an heart lifted up, i. e. with its own swelling proud confidences, or self-dependences on its own wisdom and strength; 
Affected ignorance the effect of carnal presumption.  which indeed turns the best human Knowledge into the worst ignorance: Whence, says Seneca, (de Tranquil.) I think many might have attained to wisdom, if they had not thought they had already attained to it. Therefore we are unwilling to learn, because we conceit ourselves already learned. If thou desirest to learn, or know any thing with profit, learn first to know thine own ignorance. There is nothing that proud nature more affects, than to be reputed wise; and thence it is most prone to slater itself into a fond presumption of its own knowledge; and so to aquiesce therein. It's rare, that such as are wise in their own conceit, have so much humility as to suffer themselves to be taught by others. Whence it is accounted by wisemen better to have little of knowledge with humility, and a teachable heart, than treasures of Sciences with vain self-complacence and confidence. For affected Ignorance is usually the fruit of such presumptuous confidence: When ever a man leans on his own understanding, he usually falls into some conceited Folly, or vain Imaginations. This Aristotle, Rhet. l. 2. c. 14. makes the cause why young men, or Novices, so often fall into foolish, indeliberate actions: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Young men think they know allthings, and thence are strong in confidences. And as this is usually the crime of Novices in Philosophy, so was it generally of all the Pagan Philosophers; and so the root of much Vanity in their Philosophy. Man indeed naturally affects a kind of Divinity: he would fain (with his first Parent Adam) be a God to himself, and thence he makes an Idol of his own wisdom, which is an high piece of Idolatry, and therefore provokes the great God, to leave such to all manner of foolish conceits, and vanity of Imagination. That this was a main cause of those vain Pagan Philosophising, is excellently laid open by Owen, Theolog. l. 1. c. 7. The Philosophers, says he, being instructed by the advantage of some Revelation in the works of Creation and Providence, with some notices of the Power and Divinity of God, endeavoured with all their might to promote their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their own common principes; and this gave origine to Philosophy, etc. These their endeavours being grounded only on the presumption of their own wisdom and parts, proved altogether vain. This Socrates, one of the wisest of them, seems sensible of, as Plato in his All ibiades brings him in thus Philosophising: 
Socrates' sense of his dependences on God for light.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou knowest that errors in practice come from this ignorance, that men think they know what they know not, etc. Then he adds, When men are conscious of their own ignorance, they are willing to be taught by others. Again, But believe me and the famous Delphic Oracle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Know thyself. This Plato, in his Charmides, ingenuously confesseth; Many have erred from their scope, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by trusting to their own opinion without judgement. Again, It is a great piece of temperance for a man to know himself. It would be a great advantage, if none would act beyond their knowledge and strength. We seem to know allthings, but indeed we are ignorant of every thing. It is an absurd thing to Philosophise of things we know not: When any attemtes a thing above his strength, he greatly errs. Thus Plato, out of what he had learned from his Master Socrates. So again in his Legib. 5. Plato discoursing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, self-love; From this, say he, proceeds this great error, that all men estime their ignorance to be wisdom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence knowing nothing, we think we know allthings. Thence (adds he) not permitting ourselves to be taught what we are ignorant of, we fall into great errors. We have indeed a great saying of Plato, in his Epinom. pag. 980. showing, That we can get no true knowledge of God, but by dependence on, and prayer to him. His words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Trusting in the Gods, pray unto them, that thou mayest have right notions of the Gods. Thus it shall be, if God as a Guide shall show us the way; only help thou with thy Prayers. Had Plato really practised what he here teacheth of Faith, Dependence, and Prayer to the true God, it's probable his Philosophy had not been so vain as it is. Lastly, Plato, Legib. 4, tells us, That he who is humble and modest will adhere to Divine Justice: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But he that is lifted up in his own proud confidences, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as though he wanted no Guide or Governor, he is deserted by God; and being deserted disturbs others; and although he may for a while seem some body, yet at last he is sufficiently punished by Divine Justice, etc. Which indeed was Plato's own case, as well as the rest of the Philosophers, whose presumptuous confidences in their own wisdom and reason proved the bane of their Philosophy; as it proved also with the Jews, Rom. 2.17, 18, 19, 20.  
§. 6. The Vanity of Philosophy received a great foundation and improvement from their vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
The Vanity of Philosophy from its vain contentions.  or Litigations about words and trifles. For we must know, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That vain contentiose, mode of disputing, so much adored by the Greek Philosophers, had its foundation in the Italic or Pythagoric School: For the Eleatic Sect, where it first flourished, was but a branch of the Italic: And Parmenides, with Zeno the Eleatic, who were the great promoters of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dialecticks vain Disputation, did herein, as in other matters, Pythagorise. And the Gnostic Christians sucked in this itching humour of vain Disputation, together with their other Pythagorean Dogmes; which Paul does most professedly set himself to beat down, as that which he, by a Prophetic inspiration, foresaw would prove a mighty Engine to promote Antichrist's throne; as indeed it did, when the Schole-Divinitie, which is wholly composed of vain Disputations, came in fashion. Therefore Paul lays in many precautions against this vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Litigiose Dialecticks Sophistry, hatched in the Pythagorean and Eleaatic Schools, and foisted into the Christian Theology by the Gnostics, and after them by the Scholastic Divines. And the seat of our Apostles Dehortations against this itch of vain Disputation lies manely in his Epistles to Timothy, who, as supposed, was very much infested by those Pythagorising Gnostics. So, 
1 Tim. 6.3.  1 Tim. 6.3, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If any one bring in any other Doctrine: Which was the design of the Pythagorising Gnostics, who abounded at Ephesus, where Timothy had his residence, and endeavoured to compose a new Mystic Theologie, out of Judaisme and Pythagorean Philosophy, tempered with some Christian Dogmes. Thence it follows, and consent not to wholesome words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Grotius, answereth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a Temple-Phrase, belonging to such as approach to the Altar, as Leu. 9.7: as if our Apostle had said, These Gospel-Dogmes are sacred things, and aught to be handled with as much reverence as the Jewish Sacreds' were. They are indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wholesome words, without any corrupt or poisonous mixtures; not like the Gnostic Infusions, composed of the venomous ingredients of Rabbinical Fables and Pythagorean Philosophy. And to the Doctrine according unto godliness; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, is here as oft elsewhere exegetic: For the words of Christ truly are a Doctrine tending unto godliness, whereas those Pythagorean Gnostic contentions tended only to profaneness and licentiousness. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. which is both agreeable and conducible unto godliness, as Tit. 1.1. Then it follows ver. 4. He is proud knowing nothing. i e. He is as an emty vessel filled with nothing but airy speculations, 
1 Tim. 6.4.  which conduce nothing to true godliness, (as before §. 4, 5;) But doting about questions; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Physic, Dialectic, or Metaphysic Quaestions and Disputes touching their Aeones, or suchlike unintelligible Mysteries, which no way conduce to edification. And strife of words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. says Grotius, There were many disputations amongst the Philosophers merely about words: namely Aristotle and Plato call such things as conduce to the well-being of the Body and Life, Goods: The Stoic will not have them called so, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Conducibles. The Platonist and Aristotelian, say, A wise man hath mercy: 
Illud semper egerunt sectae usque ab initio originis suae, ut quocunque modo a cateris distarent: unde quod uni placuit alteri displicuit: Omnia pugnabant adversis frontibus. Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 7. c. 13.  The Stoic will not allow that he hath mercy, but that he spareth. The greatest part of the Stoic Disputations, says Cicero, is spent about words. What more vitiose than to intent a controversy merely about Words? We may add to these the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Pythagoric and Eleatic Schools, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the probationatory, or problematic disputes in the old Academy begun by Socrates and Plato: Also Aristotle's Dialecticks Disputations, with all the sharp contentions in the New Academies, and by the Sceptics, etc. which were all but so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or needless strifes about words. See more of this in Plutarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning the various placites, or opinions of Philosophers.  
Whence follows Envy, 
The effects of these verbal Disputes, Strifes, Rail, etc.  Strife, Rail, evil Surmising: These, says Grotius, were frequent amongst Philosophers. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Envy, was the natural product of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or strife about words. What Envyings and Emulations were there betwixt the Italic and jonic Sect, the Pythagoreans and Eleatics, the Platonics and the Peripatetics, with the other Sects. Hence follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Strife, or Contention: Such was their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contentiose Logic, in the Eleatic and Megaric Schools, which was frequently attended with rail; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Blasphemings of each others reputation: all which ended in Evil surmisings. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. says Grotius, evil opinions or vain Philosophy: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to think. Such were the opinions of Diagoras, who held there was no God: Of Epicurus, who asserted that God regarded not human affairs; which also seemeth to be the opinion of Aristotle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such also were the opinions of the New Academics and Sceptics, who held nothing to be knowable or perceptible; nothing to be in itself shameful, etc. Such were the fruits of this vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we find excellently set forth by Plato in his Repub. 7. from pag. 532, to 539; where discoursing professedly of Dialecticks Disputes or Logic, and having opened the nature of it, that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein we proceed from some lower Hypothesis, to the first Principes, etc. he proceeds to show the Qualities of a good Logician, and evil fruits of contentiose Litigations. And his general direction is, That men study not Logic before they are Thirty years aged: for, says he, young men engaging in Dialecticks Disputes, abuse this Art to contradictions each of other; and so sometimes overcoming, and sometimes being overcome, at last they come to believe nothing: whereas elder Persons, seeking not childlike glory but truth, are more moderate and grave; but young men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. being always used to contradictions, affect, like little Dogs, mutually to overcome each other. 
1 Tim. 6.5.  Thus Plato. It follows 1 Tim. 6.5, Perverse Dispute, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Some Copies read it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which to Grotius seems the truest. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly a Philosophic term, and signifies their more solemn Disputations: Whence Gellius calls the very place where they disputed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paul adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which usually in composition signifies perverse or not right, as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Jam. 1.22, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deceiving themselves with a Paralogism or false dangerous reasoning and dispute. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies a perverse and inane Disputation or Exercitation, a curiose, jejune concertation. It's rendered here by the Syriac, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the conflict of the Sons of Man: Or, and the mutual attrition; for those Sophists mutually brought down each other, and by their Scab infected each other. chrysostom, and Theophylact out of him, render it confrications: For those vain Sophists mutually rubbed each other, like scabbed Sheep, and by their Philosophic confrications or rubbings mutually infected each other. Thence it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. having their minds altogether averse from piety, which is the greatest corruption. Such were these Pythagorising Gnostics, who albeit they pretended to a sublime mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or knowledge, yet were they professed enemies to Piety, being indeed guilty of unheard-of uncleannesses and wickednesses. So it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. destitute of all true saving practic knowledge, notwithstanding all their Pythagoric Dogmes and Institutes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. making use of the Christian Religion only as a blind, or politic medium to promove their gain and cover over their sensual designs: Their godliness lies in gain, here lies their Religion or measure of good and evil: whereas, saith he, ver. 6, 
Vers. 6.  Godliness with contentment is great gain to a sincere Christian. This is added to the former by an allusive Antanaclasis, as Glassius; or by an Epanorthosis, as Schmidius. The Pseudo-Christians esteemed Gain Godliness, i. e. They by their perverse Philosophic Disputations wrested the Scripture and Religion, so as to make all subserve their private Gain: These Nazianzone styles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as Hucstered and made Morehandise of Christ. But the Apostle assures us, That godliness is the best gain, i. e. it brings the best profit to men's souls. Thus we see how Paul does here anatomise this Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or contentiose Logic, as the pregnant cause of their Philosophic Emulations, Contentions, Rail, Evil opinions, and all manner of vain Philosophising. And indeed nothing more natural than that such perverse Dispute should determine in Scepticism and Atheism, as Jansenius hath well observed of the schoolmen's Disputes. Therefore our Apostle, in the end of this Epistle, does further inculcate this his Exhortation against these vain Disputes, 1 Tim. 6.20, O Timothy, 
1 Tim. 6.20.  keep that which is committed to thy trust, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a decomposite of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies a Depositum committed to the trust of another. This Depositum, which Timothy was so charily to keep, was the great Doctrine of the Gospel; which he calls a Depositum, because it is committed by Christ to his Ministers in charge. So 2 Tim. 1.14, we find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the same sense, 1 Tim. 1.18. 2 Tim. 2.2. So in the Book called Musar the precepts of the Law are called a Depositum, as some observe. Thence it follows, avoiding profane and vain babble, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the glossary, is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain speech. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is either a clamour about vain matters, or of vain words; such as agree not with the form of sound Doctrine. chrysostom understands it of novel words and forms of speech introduced. Theophylact here renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain discourse or Disputation; which is therefore vain, because it's matter, form, concomitants and effects were all vain and fruitless: It was conversant only about vain matters, Genealogies of the Aeones, etc. and it tended only to vain ends, vain glory, etc. Further, he says these babble were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only vain but profane, i. e. they being foisted into sacred Theology, not by God's appointment, but from their own inventions, merely to symbolise with Pagar. Philosophers, etc. they were thence profane. It follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and oppositions. The Greeks interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contradictions. Much of the glory of these vain Disputers lay in their faculty of contradicting each other. The Peripatetic studies how he might contradict the Academic; the Stoic opposeth both the Peripatetic and the Platonist; the New-Academic and Sceptic all other Sects. Thus were they involved in perpetual contradictions; and the fruit of all these Litigations was no other than a false Science or vain Philosophy. So it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Science falsely so called: i. e. Of spinose, frivolous questions, such as assume the name of Science, but deserve not the same. You see here (says Grotius) how ancient the name of Gnostics was; which these Philosophers mingling with the Christian Churches assumed to themselves, despising all others as rude and ignorant, but boasting of their knowledge falsely so termed. Clement Alex. says, this Epistle was upon this account rejected by the Gnostics; because they saw themselves herein described to the life. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As Pride and vain Opinion hath hurt Philosophy, so false, or falsely so called Knowledge, hath spoiled their Knowledge. Thence he produceth this Text. True Knowledge is that which profiteth to eternal life. Whence ver. 21 he adds, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith: 
2 Tim. 6.21.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. These Pythagorising Gnostics, being swollen with proud conceits, and presumtuose confidences of their own pretended Knowledge and contentiose Philosophy, have deserted the true Orthodox Christian Faith. Paul gives us much the same account in 2 Tim. 2.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23. touching these Gnostic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vain Disputes, of which in the following Chapter. At present we may take notice that our Apostle, though he strike immediately at the Gnostics who abounded then at Ephesus, yet in them he does propheticly strike through the Schole-Divines, who have, by their vain Aristotelic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered not only Philosophic but Divinity also vain and useless.  
§. 7. Another cause of the Vanity of all Philosophy, 
Opiniatrctie and a Dogmatising hum or, its origine and and vanity.  was the Opiniatretie and Dogmatising humour of the Philosophers. This indeed hath an intimate and causal connexion with the forementioned vain Disputation. For Self-love produceth in us all a fond conceit of, and regard unto our own Phaenomena and Principes: The contradiction of others is as fuel to feed this self-flatering opinion of our own conceived notions. This Self-love or flattery being engaged to maintain what it hath undertaken, sets the wits on work to contrive, study and dispute for the defence of its espoused persuasion: And the effect of all is a fixed Opiniatretie or abounding in our own sense, and stiff adherence to our own judgements; so that in this case men's stiffness in adhering to their own opinions or persuasions, is not from the force and strength of the reasons on which they are grounded, but rather from the force of their own violent Self-love. For when the strength of adherence to any opinion ariseth from grounded reasons, it will be either stronger or weaker, according to the force of those Reasons on which our Opinions are grounded: so that if we cannot show some proper motive or particular reason, as strong as the Opinion we espouse, it is apparent that the said Opinion is founded on assectionate Opiniatretie rather than on grounded Reason. This was the general fate of those Greek Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans, with whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said it, had the force of a first Principe or the most binding Reason. They generally affected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be slaves to their own Hypothesis, rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sacrifice to truth. Aristotle gives us a good character of a Philosopher, that he should be a slave to truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the abandoning his own persuasions: which is quite contrary to this philosophic humour of Dogmatising Opiniatretie, which makes men to abandon Truth for the preservation of their own Phaenomena. This seems struck at by the Apostle in that Col. 2.20, 
Col. 2.20.  Why are ye subject to ordinances? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Why do you suffer yourselves to be imposed on by those Pythagorean Gnostics, who would fain bring you under the yoke and bondage of their Pythagorean Dogmes, ver. 21, 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Grecians signified primarily a placit, or confirmed, established opinion of any Sect; and thence an Institute, Edict, Decree. Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily imports to give a sentence, to impose an opinion, or tenaciously to adhere to an opinion. Thence it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to suspend assent, or to hesitate: which kind of Suspension and Hesitation the Academics and Sceptics affected. It was a great question amongst the Philosophers, whether those of the Old Academy, namely Plato and his followers, might be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is generally concluded in the affirmative. Yea some would bring in those of the New Academy, who seemed most averse from this humour, under this mode of Dogmatising or Opiniatretie: For, say they, their stiff and tenacious adhering to this Persuasion and Dogme, That there is nothing knowable, is a great degree of Dogmatising. Though the Sceptics endeavoured to avoid this imputation of Dogmatising, by affirming, That they gave not a dogmatic assent to those Sceptic propositions, viz. Nothing is knowable, I assert nothing, etc. Yet certain it is they were too opiniatre, tenacious, and stiff in renouncing those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commun notions of a Deity so deeply engraven on human nature, (for their Sceptisme determined in Atheism) which is an hellish piece of Opiniatretie or Dogmatising.  
§. 8. Another poisonous root which infected and tainted all Pagan Philosophy, 
Carnal policy of Philosophers.  was the carnal policy of their Philosophers; which appeared many ways. (1.) In their concealing the Authors and origine of those Scriptural Traditions they borrowed from the Jews. (2.) In their clothing these Jewish Traditions with a Grecian fabulose Garb, thereby to make them seem their own. (3.) In concealing their own Ignorance of those Jewish Dogmes, on which they so boldly Philosophised under mystical, unintelligible Terms and Fables, like Apollo's Oracles, etc. (4.) In converting all their traditional and invented Philosophy, to a subservience to their carnal Interest or superstitiose Idolatrical designs, etc. These and suchlike were the branches of their Carnal Policy, which rendered their Philosophy so vain and useless. We find this Philosophic craft well described in the Platonic definitions: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Craft is an affection whereby he that hath it is enabled to design and promove his private end. 
Psal. 112.113.  But we have it more fully unboweled by the Spirit of God, specially Psal. 119.113, I hate vain thoughts. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 French: les Discourse, i. e. the vain and fraudulent Discourses of carnal sapience, contrary to the simplicity of Faith and that obedience due to God. So again, ver. 118, for their trumpery is falsehood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ver. 118.  i. e. their cautelose Artifices, on which they trust, shall in the end deceive themselves, they being not able by all their cunning to avoid thy judgement: or, they are to thee abominable, in as much as in all their train and politic wiles there is nothing but fraud. So again, vers. 128, Therefore I approve as right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all thy commandments of all things, but I hate every false way, i. e. all Carnal Policy and shifts. The like ver. 163, I hate and abhor lying, i. e. politic craft, etc. And the Apostle seems to strike directly at this Carnal Policy of the Greek Philosophers, 1 Cor. 2.6, Not the wisdom of this world, nor of the Princes of this world, that come to nought. 
1 Cor. 2.6.  Grotius and Deodate understand this last clause of false reason of state, or politic prudence of the world's Grandees, which directly opposeth the Kingdom of Christ, Matt. 11.25. 1 Cor. 2.2. And we need not doubt, but that the Apostle here takes in the worldly wisdom 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 well as Philosophers. This Carnal Policy 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 Theology 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 rendered all Pagan Philosophy vain and cursed, 
judiciary blindness and hardness.  was judiciary Hardness of heart and Blindness of mind; or Gods delivering those Pagan Philosophers up to spiritual Occecation, Blindness and Hardness of heart. This was the effect of all the former causes, and a great cause of all their vain Philosophy, as we find it fully laid down by the Apostle, 
Rom. 1.18, 21, 22, 28.  Rom. 1.18, 21, etc. Verse 18, he says, The wrath of God was reveled from heaven, against such as hold the truth in unrighteousness. 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 says, That the wrath of God was reveled against them, because they held the truth in unrighteousness, i. e. whatever knowledge of Divine truth they had acquired either from Jewish Tradition, or from the Improvements of their own common Principes, by which they were capacitated to contemplate the invisible perfections of God in the visible creatures, it was all 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 knowledge was not active. Neither were thankful, i. e. They ascribed not the glory and praise of their Philosophic contemplations unto God, they owned not him as the Sun of righteousness, whence all these rays of human knowledge sprang: but they attributed all their Philosophic attainments to their own parts, Sagacity and Disquisitions; and so improved all for the greatening and advancing of themselves, their Idolwisdome, etc. Whence it follows: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They waxed vain in their Discourses, Reasonings or Philosophising: For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Philosophy term, the manner of Disputing amongst the Ancients both Jews and Grecians being by Dialogues. The meaning is, all their Philosophic reasonings and disputes proved by God's secret judicial dereliction and permission of them vain, yea cursed. And thence it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. (says 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 wisdom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were made fools: God in his righteous judgement befooling them. Which is more fully explained, vers. 28, as they did not like, etc. 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, etc. 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 Philosophy amongst the Pagans, the universal Inclination of all, more or less, unto Idolatry 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 Philosophy, 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 causality on the vanity of the Pythagorean, as of all other Philosophic: Of which we have already largely treated in the causes of Mythologic Philosophy, Part. 2. B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, etc.   

CHAP. II. The Vanity of Philosophy from its Mater, Parts, etc.  
(1.) The Vanity of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or contentiose Logic, etc. Rom. 1.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Phil. 2.14. 1 Tim. 1.6. Aristotle's Logic, how it became so Eristic by the Arabians and Schoolmen. A general consent of the learned against Eristic Logic, 1 Cor. 14.20. (2.) The vanity of physiology, 1 Cor. 1.20, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what. Rom. 1.20. 1 Cor. 2.6. Physiologie the cause of idolatry, Rom. 21.23, etc. (3.) The vanity of the Mathematics, its influence on Idolatry and Atheism. (4.) The vanity of Ethics, Eph. 5.6. 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Defects of Ethics, [1.] as to its matter. [2.] As to its ends amongst the Romans and Stoics. [3.] As to its Rule, which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [4.] As to its principe, which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Freewill, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Good-nature, or seeds of Virtue. Socrates' opposed that Stoic Principe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. This Philosophic Freewill the root of Pelagianisme: No moral virtue but what is supernatural, against the Schoolmen. The defects of Philosophic Ethics, as to supernatural principes, Faith, Love, etc. [5.] The Vanity of their Politics, 1 Cor. 1.20, both comparatively and absolutely, as the root of Atheism and Idolatry, etc.  
§. 1. WE have hitherto only considered the vanity of Philosophy in its Causes and Roots; 
The vanity and corruption of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Logic.  we shall now proceed to demonstrate the said vanity of Philosophy from its own essential Idea or Nature, Parts, and Proprieties. The essential Idea, Nature, and parts of Philosophy (as of other things) consist in its Mater and Form; both of which have great mixture of vanity in them. As for the matter of Philosophy, it contains Naturals, Morals, and Supernaturals. Natural Philosophy comprehends Logic, Physics, and Mathematics. Concerning Logic, we have no full mention of the Pythagoreans being much versed herein; yet are we not without some concluding, though indirect Arguments of their skill herein. For Porphyry tells us, That Pythagoras had, besides his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a plain and familiar way of Philosophising. And we have already shown, 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 famous ever since. As for the vanity 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 Philosophy, (foreseeing that it would prove, as abused by Scholastic Divines, a main engine to pull down the Kingdom of Christ, and settle Antichrist upon his Throne;) I shall follow the sacred method herein, by endeavours to give farther demonstration of the vanity of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contentiose Logic, thereby, if it may be, to open in any degree a door to some more useful kind of Logic in the Schools of Christ. And lest I should be thought singular herein, I shall follow the steps of Lud. Vives, Grotius, Jansenius, yea of the Philosophers themselves, in opening the vanity of this contentiose Logic. We find the Apostle accusing the Sophists, (and I conceive particularly the Pythagoreans) of a vanity in their reasonings, Rom. 1.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They became vain in their disputes. 
Rom. 1, 21.  For the way of Disputation in the Old Academy was by Dialogues; which mode, I presume, they traduced from the Jewish Schools. 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. Dispute. 
Phil. 2.14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Grotius, here seems to be bitter rail about matters no way belonging to godliness, 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 terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as ver. 20, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he opposeth to sound Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.6. We find all this fully laid open and confirmed, 2 Tim. 2.14, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. be thine Auditors daily remembrancer of this. The Hebrew express 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 warm 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, says Grotius, the hearers by such strifes are divided into parties: they lose mutual love. It answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eversion, is in the glossary, 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 Schoolmen after them their Antichristian Dogmes. Our Apostle inculcates this caution, ver. 16, calling these strifes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he says, ver. 17, eat like a gangrene; and ver. 23, foolish and unlearned questions which gender to strife, etc. of which hereafter. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eristic Logic, began, as we have once and again hinted, in the Italic and Eleatic Schools, and was improved by those of the Megaric Sect, Euclid, etc. It was also of some use in the Old Academy, 
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 Dialecticks 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 business to carp at all 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 posterity might with the same censorious Rod strike at him, with which he had struck at his foregoers; to prevent the same, he reduced his Philosophy to the most accurate 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 Philosophy, but also as a Shield or Buckler to preserve the same from such blows or objections which posterity might offer against it. And indeed (as Learned Owen hath observed in his Praefat. Theolog.) Aristotle, in the whole of his Philosophy, seems to design and study more how to defend himself from the objections of others, than to evince truth; which rendered his followers more skilful in hatching intricate controversies, subtle nice distinctions, and wrangling Sophistry, than true solid Philosophy. 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 Schools, but rather the Arabians, 
Aristotle's Logic sophisticated by the Arabians and Schoolmen.  Averro, 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 darkness and ignorance touching Aristotle's mind and sense; whence there sprang a world of unintelligible Terms and Distinctions, with as many Sophistic Disputes and Controversies. These the Schoolmen (more barbarous than the Arabians) greedily licked up (as the Minor Poets Homer's vomit) and incorporated with their Theology; which filled the Universities of France, (where this School Divinity was first broached) and England (which had continual recourse to Paris for Learning) with nothing but vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or strifes about words, instead of solid Philosophy and Divinity; far worse than what was to be found in the Pagan Schools: 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 well observed. Yea, 
A general consent against Eristic Logic.  the vanities of this Dialecticks Sophistry was observed and decried by many of the old Philosophers. Both the Sect of the Cynics and Stoics (as Diogenes Laertius observes) took away Dialecticks Philosophy as vain, holding that our end is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to live virtuosely; which this wrangling Logic no way conduceth to. Aristo Chius the Stoic (saith Diogenes) compared Dialecticks Dissertations to a Spider's Web, which is artificially made but yields no profit. And Plato, Repub. 7. gives us his judgement against this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. It seems to me that there should be no controversy about words amongst such as have so great matters to discourse of. Wiclef was much offended at this kind of Sophistic litigation in matters of Faith: So was Calvin, who affirms, That whoever does pertinaciously strive about words, soments some secret Poison. But in this age none hath more amply, fully, and learnedly opened the vanity of this Sophistic, Eristic mode of Disputation, so much Idolised by the Schoolmen, than Jansenius, in his August. Tom. 2. Lib. Proaem. Cap. 28, and elsewhere; with Owen, in his Praefat. to his Theolog. also, Lib. 6. Cap. 7. Pag. 512 unto 520. I have insisted the longer on the vanity and corruption of Sophistic Logic, because it hath been, and still is greatly abused and noxious in some of our reformed Universities, to the corrupting the minds of many well-disposed young Students. I must confess myself to have been too far in love with and entangled in this Snare; which had not the Lord by his sovereign hand of freegrace broken and delivered me from, might have proved the ruin, not only of my Studies, but Soul. Thou'lt therefore, Reader, pardon this invective against the corruption of vain Logic; which designs not the utter Rejection, but Reformation of Logic in Reformed Schools. We shall conclude this Digression with the Apostles Exhortation, 1 Cor. 14.20, Brethren, be not children in understanding. 
1 Cor. 14.20.  'Tis, says Grotius, the property of Children to make an ostentation in things unprofitable. But in understanding be men, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. like person's adult, Eph. 4.13, who are ashamed to play as Children with baubles and Rattles.  
§. 2. The vanity of Pagan Philosophy discovered itself much in their Physics, 
The Vanity of their Physics.  which are at best dark and cloudy, but for the most part fabulose, grounded only upon some broken Traditions, traduced from Moses' description of the Creation, Gen. 1, and Job's Discourses of Meteors, etc. with Solomon's Natural Philosophy of Plants, Animals, etc. which being but imperfectly traduced unto, and more imperfectly understood by these blind Philosophers, they turned all these Jewish Traditions of the origine of the Universe, of the first principes of Bodies, of Plants, of Animals, etc. into mere Fables, or unintelligible Speculations and Controversies. This vanity of their Physics our Apostle seems to strike at (inclusively if not exclusively) 1 Cor. 1.20, 
1 Cor. 1, 20.  Where is the disputer of this world? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: This (says Grotius) strikes at the Inquisitor or searcher into the natures of things, which the Hebrews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this world, i. e. the Physiologist. This study they are wont to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly answers unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Disputation: So Baruch, 3.23, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are Physiologists. The Apostle Paul chooseth to call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Disputer, rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Inquisitor, (as Baruch) because their Physic questions were wont to be ventilated or agitated by many Disputations, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence the Syriac Version renders it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Investigator; and the Arabic by a word that signifies Scrutator: Because such Physiologists spent their whole time in acute Researches and Inquisitions into the Bowels of nature, which afforded infinite vain Disputes. And indeed their Physics did abound with almost as much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Verbal, Captiose, Sophistic Questions and Controversies, as their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Logic: which made the Cynics, as also the Stoics (who symbolised much in this as in other points) to reject Physics or Natural Philosophy as well as Logic. Socrates also seems to be much of the same persuasion, who perceiving how much his Predecessors, Thales, etc. (who were generally Physiologists) had abused Physics, addictes himself chief to Moral Philosophy. The like is reported of Padre Paul, that great Venetian, who finding the vanity of contemplative Philosophy, converted his studies to Active, or Morality. But it follows in the same verse 20, Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Fool or Madman, 
1 Cor. 1.20.  answering to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies here to convince of folly, or make to appear as such, according to the import of Verbs in Hiphil amongst the Hebrews; as if he had said: hath not God made all those pompose contemplations of these proud Philosophists (who have pried into the Bowels of Nature for hidden Philosophy) to appear to be foolish and vain? in that they have not as yet, by all their Natural Philosophy, attained to any true notion and discovery of the first Principe or God of nature, which is the chief end of all natural as well as other Philosophy? So it follows vers. 21: For after that in the wisdom of God the World by wisdom knew not God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The wisdom of God (says Grotius) he here calls, That knowledge of God, which results from the contemplation of Nature's Bowels. This answers to that Rom. 1.20, 
Rom. 1.20.  The visible works of God have impressed upon their nature's certain visible stamps or legible Characters of the invisible glories of God, which these purblind Physiologists could not, by all their natural Inquisitions, come to any serious reverential acknowledgement of. So much is implied in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is used in the same sense, Joh. 1.10, and answereth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 1.21. Al their anatomising of Nature's bowels could not give them any true Idea or notion of the first Principe or God of Nature. Which gives us an evident demonstration, that all their Natural Wisdom was but folly, because it reached not its first Principe and last end. Therefore it follows, It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 
1 Cor. 1.20.  i e. Our Gospel, which seems folly to these Sophists, or Naturalists, has availed more to the knowledge of God, than all their Physiologic Contemplations. The same v. 27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise: i.e. Our Gospel, which seems foolish in the world's eye, in regard of the discoveries it makes of God, leaves a blush and confusion on all the vain Contemplations and Philosophy of these proud Naturalists. We find the like encomium of Gospel-light and depression of Natural Philosophy, 
1 Cor. 2.6.  1 Cor. 2.6, Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: Yet not the wisdom of this world. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. (saies Grotius) not that Physic or Natural Philosophy, of which above Chap. 1.20, etc. This great vanity and folly, which attended the Natural Contemplations or Philosophy of these Pagan Physiologists, proceeded not from any defect in the objective wisdom, or light of Nature, but from the subject; the darkness, pride, 
Rom. 1.21.  lusts, and vanity of their hearts, as Rom. 1.20, 21. The visible works of God have as well since, as before the Fall, sensible images, or visible gloriose Ideas of the invisible glories of God, his Wisdom, Power, and Goodness stamped on their Being's and Operations; but the most acute Philosophers (like Seneca's fool, who went up and down his house complaining the rooms were dark, when as the darkness lay in her eyes), could but go up and down groping after God, by their Physic contemplations, as Act. 17.27. 
Natural Philosophy the cause of Idolatry.  Yea, the most sharp-sighted of these Heathen Philosophers, though by the Divine assistance of some influential rays of common illumination, they espied some vestigia or obscure impresses of Gods gloriose Wisdom, Power and Goodness shining in created emanations on his Works; yet were they so far from glorifying God as God, and giving thankful acknowledgement of that common light they had received, 
Rom. 1.21, 23.  (according to Rom. 1.21.) as that they changed the glory of this incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, etc. Rom. 1.21, 23. i e. they idolised those Divine Virtues, Powers and Excelences, which they found in the Creatures. Not that the Philosophers or wiser Heathens made the Creatures the ultimate object of their worship; no, that gross Idolatry was peculiar to the Mythologic Poetic Theology: But the great Idolatry of these foolish sophists was, that where they espied any eminent Divine Quality or Power shining in the creature, they idolised that creature so far, as to make it a Mediator or medium of their worship performed to the great God. This they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theologie, we rather, Idolatry, which was the fruit of their Natural Philosophy; of which more hereafter.  
§. 3. What hath been discovered of the vanity, 
The vanity of the Mathematics.  yea Idolatry of the Physiologists, is applicable to the Mathematicians, both Pythagorean, as well as other. Indeed the Mathematics seem to be the soundest, the most pleasant, and most useful piece of their Natural Philosophy; yet it hath not been exempt from much corruption and vanity. For 1. It had the same cursed effect on their corrupt foolish minds, as that Natural physiology before mentioned: namely those blind Mathematicians, by continual Astronomic contemplations of those gloriose Celestial bodies, fell first into deep admiration of them, 
Astronomy the cause of Idolatry.  their excellent composure and perfection, their excellent virtues and powerful influences on all sublunaries, their admirable order and harmonious regular motions. These and suchlike eminent qualities, which shone so brightly, could not (and that justly) but fill them with Admiration. And this Admiration, which should have led them to admire infinitely more the Creator and Conserver of these gloriose creatures, was so far from having such an influence, as that it drew their Idol-framing hearts to set down and terminate their Adoration on these creatures, the Sun, Moon and Stars, etc. And this Idolising these Celestial creatures as Gods opened also a door to their Judicial Astrology, or the black Devilish Art of Divination by the Stars, wherein the Pythagoreans pretended to have a more than ordinary skill; which Pythagoras brought with him from the Chaldeans, who were the first that fell into this piece of Idolatry or Star-worship, and that from their Astronomic observations and admirations of these Celestial Bodies; as we have afore shown in the origine of the Chaldean Philosophy, from Job. 31.26, 27. P. 2. B. 1. C. 4. §. 3, 4. Of which more hereafter.  
2. Another great Corruption which attended their study of the Mathematics, 
2. Of Atheism.  was, that it determined in Atheism, and that two manner of ways; (1) Indirectly and Consequentially, in that it brought them first into Polytheisme, or belief of many Gods; which had this fate attending it, that at last it led them to Atheism, to believe there was no God: for Polytheisme naturally degenerates into Atheism. (2) But the study of the Mathematics has this more direct influence on blind proud hearts to lead them into Atheism, in that Mathematicians being wholly versed in Demonstrations, and those for the most part ocular and most evident, they cannot bring their proud minds to stoop or assent to any thing, no not to Divine Revelation, without a Demonstration. This made Aristotle, who had a Mathematic head, to reject all the Oriental Traditions which his Ancestors Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato had gathered up, touching the origine of things and Divine matters; and rather to believe an Eternity of matter, because those Jewish Traditions were not backed with Demonstrative Arguments. This also made the Epicureans and Stoics reject Paul's new Doctrine, (albeit they seem at first a little tickled with the novilty of it) because his Testimony was not backed with Demonstrative Arguments; though indeed Paul gave them sufficient Demonstrations, had they had eyes to see them, Act. 17.18, to 30. This Mathematic humour was that which made the Grocians generally offended at the Gospel, accounting it but foolishness, because it was not proved by Demonstrative Reasons and Arguments, as Paul frequently observes, specially 1 Cor. 1.20, 21. & 2.6. of which before. And indeed this has been the sad fate of some great Mathematicians of this, and of former ages, who being wholly taken up in Demonstrations, expect the same in Divine matters; and not finding that footing their Atheistic hearts expect for their Mathematic fantasies to build upon, in order to a Demonstration of the Scriptures authority, etc. they reject all Divine Revelations, yea all true and found notions of a Deity and of the Creation, with inclinations rather to believe the World's Eternity, or such like monstrose Phanomena. I wish there were not too many such Mathematic Atheists breathing in Christian air. But of this more hereafter.  
§. 4. We proceed to show the vanity and corruption of Moral Philosophy, 
The Vanity of Moral Philosophy.  as well amongst the Pythagorean as other Philosophers. Moral Philosophy (as has been mentioned) regards either single persons, and so it's styled Ethics; or Corporations and Societies, and so it passeth under the name of Politics. Both of these had great corruptions attending them, both in the Italic and Jonic Schools. As for Ethics, it's true, the Pythagoreans with the other Philosophers had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ethic sentences, or Symbolic characters, answering to, and, as I presume, traduced from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proverbial say amongst the Jews: yet we are to remember, that these their Ethic precepts were at best very imperfect, and not without a great mixture of vanity and corruption. As for the Pythagorean Ethics they were very mythologic and enigmatic, wrapped up under such dark symbols and figures, as that it was difficult to come to a true understanding of them. The first that reduced Moral Philosophy to a naked familiar dress was Socrates, who yet was excedeing defective both in his precepts and practice of Morality; for Incest, Fornication and Sodomy, were things not only allowed, but the later of them practised by him, if he be not belied, on his Minion Alcibiades: and Plato brings in Socrates expressing great affection to Alcibiades, telling him that he loved him for himself, etc. which argued an extreme affection towards him. Grotius informs us, that this sin of Sodomy was generally allowed by the Philosophers. So on Ephes. 5.6, 
Ephes. 5.6.  Let no man deceive you with vain words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. with vain Reasonings or Philosophy. He notes here (says Grotius) the Philosophers, who taught there was no sin in Incest, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sodomy; and who commended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, community of Wives, (which Plato did) and who thought that it was lawful for buyers and sellers to circumvent each other. Whence the Apostle exhorts them, Ver. 15, To walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise; 
Ver. 15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He does (says Grotius) by a witty Paronomasia or allusion call the Philosophers (those proud Sophists) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unwise, in as much as their Morality was but vain and foolish if compared with the Gospel; wherefore he exhorts them, Ver. 14. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, 
Ver. 14.  and Christ shall give thee light. Al their Moral Philosophy was but a dreaming, dead, shadowy light; 'twas Christ only that gave them the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or light. So 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Cor. 1.20.  etc. Where is the wise? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Grotius, amongst the Greeks, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Hebrews, were, by way of excellence, such as delivered Moral precepts, as those seven Wisemen so famous in Grece, and after them Socrates with others. The meaning is, show me the Philosophers and Philologists, who have reduced so many persons to such probity and Morality, as we have done by the preaching of the Cross. Their Disciples are but few in comparison of ours; and they continue Fornicators, if not some somewhat worse: They continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, emty vessels filled with nothing but vain opinion and ostentation, as Timon said; they remain proud, litigious cursers, etc. So Grotius on 1 Cor. 2.14. The Greek Philosophers were Fornicators, corruptors of youth, hunters of Vainglory, cursers, envious, etc. Thence saith, Minutius Faelix, We contemn the proud looks of the Philosophers, whom we have known to be corruptors of youth (or Sodomists) and Adulterers, and Tyrants, and always eloquent against their own vices. And indeed it was just with God to leave the wisest and best of their Moralists to fall into sins against nature, who abused their natural light unto so much pride, presumption and vain ostentation. Yea take Moral Philosophic in its highest elevation and refinement, as seated amongst the Stoics, and we shall find it a very poor imperfect vain shadow, if compared with those precepts of Morality contained in the Word of God. 
The defect of Ethics as to its matter.  For first if we consider the matter of all their Philosophic Morality, it was very narrow and far short of those Moral duties taught us in the Word of God. (1) The Philosopher's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, right Reason, which they made the measure and rule of their Morality, being but crooked and depraved, allowed them many sins, as Incest, Fornication, Sodomy before mentioned, which Gods Law forbids. So Grotius on 1 Cor. 5.2, tells us, that both the Cynics and Stoics judged Incest amongst their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things indifferent. (2) Neither did it give any conviction or prohibition of the first motions or ebullitions of Original Sin. (3) Neither did their Right Reason back its precepts with such forcible promises, motives and threats, from future happiness or punishment, as the Word of God doth.  
2. 
Pagan Ethics vain as to its end.  Neither were the Ethics of the Stoics and other Moralists defective, and so vain in the mater and duties only, but also in the principes, form, and manner of Morality: For (1) The soul and spirit of all Morality is placed, and that by the Philosophers themselves, in the End. For, say they, such as the form is in Naturals, such is the end in Morals and Spirituals; such as the Principe is in Demonstration, such is the end in Action: Or, the end has the same place in Actives, as the Principe has in Speculatives. The persection of every thing is measured by its end, which is the term of all actions, as the form is of productions. Now it is most certain, that the chief, yea the only supreme End of all Morality (as well as of Divinity) can be no other than the glorifying and enjoying of God; as Augustin long since, and Jansenius out of him hath demonstrated, Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 17. pag. 208. And how far these proud Moralists were from this End is apparent to all that are versed in their Ethics. 
the Romans end vainglory.  For (1) what was the main End which the ancient Romans (amongst whom the Pythagoreans flourished) proposed as the scope of their Morality? surely nothing but Honour, Renown, or Vainglory; arising from the splendour, lustre, or shine of their glittering heroic and seemingly virtuose actions, which rendered all their good works but splendid sins, as Augustin. (2) The Stoics and Peripatetics seem a little more noble and refined in their ends, 
The Stoics end to live virtuose.  proposing it as their main design, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to live according to virtue; or, to desire virtue for virtues sake. But what was the virtue they aspired unto? it was a virtue spun out of the bowels of their own freewill: so that they still make Self the objective matter of their felicity: they deify and idolife Self, their own homespun Virtues. Whence Augustin pronounceth universally of these Stoics, That they lived according to the flesh no less than the sensual Epicureans; for (saith he) to live according to the flesh is to live according to a man's Self, his own Virtues, etc. as Jans. Aug. Tom. 2. l. 4. cap. 14.  
2. Hence follows another great spring of vanity and corruption in all their Philosophic Morality; in that, 
The Moralists make self the first efficient of all good.  as they made Self the great standard, measure, and last end, so also the first influential and effective principe of all their good works. They acted all not only for, but also from Self their great God, or Idol, as Nebuchadnezar, Dan. 4.30, BY the might of my power, and FOR the honour of my Majesty. He makes himself his first principe and last end, which is the highest Idolatry. So these proud Moralists they all made self as the last end, so the first spring of Morality. For (1) They all supposed those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1. Their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is their rule.  common principes, which some called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, presumtions, or presuppositions of natural light remaining in their corrupt understandings, to be if managed aright a sufficient Rule or Law to guide them in their Morals. Whence these dark glimmerings of corrupt nature were generally styled by the Platonists, as also by the Stoics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, right reason. Though indeed Plato now and then seems a little modest in acknowlegeing his ignorance, yet generally they supposed an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a right reason, which if well improved might bring them to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or top of their Morality. This right reason was in a more particular manner the Stoics (who pass for the greatest Moralists) Diana or Goddess, as we find it excellently observed by Jansenius, in his August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 205. The Stoics (says he) and all other, who thought the offices of Virtue were to be desired for their own honesty and pulchritude, made human reason, to which they thought this was most consentaneous, Judge; and they would that she as Mistress and Queen should govern all; to whom, as holding the chief supremacy over the other parts of the Soul, all should be obedient. For hence it is they so often crack, that the duties of Virtue are therefore honest and desirable, because they are consentaneous to right reason: But in this mode of desiring Virtue there lies hid the greatest Pride; for that which terminates their appetite is their very Reason, as she is the Queen and Empress, and utmost rule of a good life. Whence it comes to pass, that whosoever desireth Virtue in this manner adores his own Reason as the Princess which he serves, which without all peradventure is the worshipping, and honouring, and taking complacence in himself. Here we may see whence the Schoolmen borrowed their Recta ratio, right reason, which they make with the Philosophers to be the Regula esse moralis, the rule of Moral Being's and Actions. So Suarez in his 1a 2ae, or Ethics, touching esse Morale, its rule, etc. Yea indeed the Schoolmen herein came much short of many of the more modest Philosophers, namely Socrates and Plato, who make frequent acknowlegements of the imperfection of their Natural light, and therefore by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem to understand the objective Divine light, or Law of God, 
The Heathen Moralists assert a freewill, or seeds of virtue.  of which I doubt not but they had received some notices from Jewish Traditions, as we have proved, Court Gentiles, P. 2. B. 2. c. 10. §. 2. (2.) The Heathen Moralists, both Romans, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics, supposed there was in men a Good-nature, disposition, seeds of Virtue, or Moral Freewill, which if well improved would raise men to the highest elevation of Virtue. This the Romans, (where the Pythagorean Philosophic flourished) called the Elements, or root of Virtue. Some Platonists call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Good-nature; The Aristotelics 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Freewill; The Stoics, the seeds of virtue. And none abounded more in this Idolising of their own Freewill than the Stoics, whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first truth, or according to the Christians Philosophic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first lie, was, That it was in the power of a man's own Freewill to make himself virtuose or wicked, happy or miserable; yea a God if he pleased. So Diogenes Laertius in the life of Zeno tells us, the Stoics held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That virtue was teachable, because good men are made of bad. Again (says he) because reason is given to reasonable creatures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To live rightly according to reason happens to men naturally. He also tells us, that the Cynics held the same principe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that virtue was teachable. Plutarch has a Book thus titled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that virtue is a thing teachable. Yet we must confess that some of the more modest Moralists made it a matter of question, Whether virtue were teachable? Plato, or rather Socrates, in Plato's words, utterly denies it: so Meno pag. 89, he brings in Socrates thus speaking, 
Socrates against Freewill.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have often sought if there were any Preceptors of virtue; and doing all I can, I can find none. Whence he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Virtue comes not from nature, neither is it teachable, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a Divine fate it is produced, without the active concurrence of the mind in those where it is. Thus Socrates in Plato's Meno, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 99 whereby it seems he had some apprehension of the insufficience of corrupt nature, or Freewill, to afford any spark of true Virtue, and that it must come from some Divine fate. Though what this Divine Fate was, and how Virtue was communicated by him, he was altogether at a loss. Timaeus Locrus the Pythagorean, from whom Plato borrowed the main Ideas of his Physics, asserted seeds of Virtue in corrupt nature. Thus pag. 103, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Principes of these Virtues are from nature, but the middle and end from diligence, with the benefit of Philosophic institution, which nourish and corroborate virtue, as exercices do the body, etc. This Philosophic Dogme of a Moral 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good nature, freewill, or seminal virtue implanted in corrupt nature is excellently opened to us by Jansenius, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256. This Dogme, says he, which asserteth seeds of Virtue to be implanted in men naturally, we admonish that it sprang from the Gentile Philosophy. For the Philosophers, when they observed that there flourished in every man's nature a certain judgement concerning the honesty of many Acts, and a remorse of Conscience following their pravities, etc. they attributed to the human mind seeds of all virtues; which would by good culture and exercitation bud forth and grow up unto ripe Virtue! Hear Tully attributing the Elements of the more refined Peripatetic and Stoic Virtue to nature itself, Tul. lib. 5. de finibus: Nature brought in the Elements of virtue— but it only began virtue and nothing more. It's true, (as Jansenius before well observes) if we consider Virtue only in regard of its office, duty, or matter, it may not be inconvenient to allow some more noble spirits, some kind of seminal inclinations or radical dispositions to many heroic actions materially good, with which many Noble Romans and Grecians were endowed. But alas! such seminal material dispositions to actions materially good, are but the corpse or body of Morality, or Virtue; it is the Principes specially the End, that is the soul, which spirits and informs every good act, and renders it truly virtuose: in which regard to suppose with the Philosophers any seeds of virtue in corrupt nature, is to suppose a contradiction, or an opposite in an apposite, i.e. pure nature in corrupt. From this Philosophic Dogme of the seeds of virtue in human nature, the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, Cassianus, 
This Doctrine of the seeds of virtue or freewill the root of Pelagianisme.  etc. drew their Doctrine of Freewill, which Augustin does so greatly inveigh against. This opinion has been since espoused by the Schoolmen, who finding themselves opposed herein by all Christian Catholics, they invented this new stratagem or blind to salve their Phaenomena, namely by distinguishing Virtues into Natural or Moral and Supernatural or Divine. Whereas indeed there can be no Virtue truly Moral, but what is also Supernatural or Divine; 
No moral or natural virtue but what is divine and supernatural.  for according to their own Schole-maxime, Bonum constat ex causis integris, malum ex quolibet defectu, Good must have all its causes, but evil ariseth from any defect. We find this piece of Scholastic vanity or corruption fully laid open by Jansenius, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256. On those seeds of Virtue the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians first founded their Heresy; which afterwards the Schoolmen brought into the Christian Schools, to no small prejudice of Scholastic Doctrine. For these Heretics affirmed, That from these Philosophic Seeds true Virtues might, by the alone power of the human will, spring; which the Schoolmen perceiving to be manifestly repugnant to the most constant Catholic Doctrine, they framed a double man in one man, a double Charity, double Virtues, double Works; the one Natural, the other Supernatural, of which in the whole Doctrine of Augustin, etc. there cannot be found the least Vestigium. As if those very Virtues, which the Philosophers and Schoolmen call Natural, would not have been called by Augustin Vices. That there is no Virtue natural, or truly moral, but what is supernatural, see Court Gent. Part 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 4. Indeed herein the vanity and corruption of the Pelagians and Schoolmen exceeds that of the Philosophers: 
The Pelagians worse than Philosophers.  for these having no Divine Revelation to measure Virtue by, but only some dark glimmering of Nature's light, could not attain unto any entire or true Idea and notion thereof, as to its principe and spiritual quality, and therefore no wonder if these poor Philosophers, who by reason of their darkness accounted the picture, shadow, or matter of a good action to be Virtue, supposed an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or some seminal dispositions to the matter of Virtue to be Virtue. But as for the Pelagians and Schoolmen, who have a clear rule to judge of Moral good by, and also confess, that every good action must consist of all its causes; for such to allow of any seeds of Virtue, or Moral Freewill in corrupt Nature, is a piece of pride and vanity far beyond that of the Philosophers.  
3. Hence follow many other Essential defects in all the Philosophic Ethics of the Pagan Moralists. 
3. Other Essential defects as to the Principes of their Morals.  (1) We find no one precept in all their Rules of Morality, pressing men to spiritual poverty, self-emtinesse, etc. which Christ's Ethics make the foundation of Virtue, Mat. 5.3, 4. But we find the quite contrary everywhere in the Philosopher's Morals, which wholly tends to feed spiritual pride. (2) We find no mention of Christ, and Dependence on Him, which is Essential to every good work. 'Tis true, Socrates bids his Friend, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, depend on God, and pray for assistance to perform good acts: But 'tis most probable he knew not what this Dependence meant, or where to pitch it on its right Object: for if he had, he might have been reckoned a Believer, which we have no ground to believe he was, but the contrary. (3) In all their Philosophic Ethics we find not any one word of performing Virtuose Acts out of Filial love to God, which is part of the spirit, or Essential constitution of Morality. Many other defects in their Ethics might be mentioned.  
§. 6. 
The Vanity of Philosophic Politics. 1 Cor. 1.20.  A second part of Moral Philosophy is Politics, wherein the Philosophers were not a little vain and corrupt. So 1 Cor. 1.20, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Where is the Scribe? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (says Grotius) according to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hellenistic manner of speaking, signifies him that is skilled in the Law or History. So in Baruc. 3.23, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are such as have skill in the Law or History. There was a twofold Scribe among the Hebrews, the one Politic, the other Ecclesiastic. The Politic Scribes were, (1) Ministers of State, such as were the King's Privy Counsellors, or persons constituted in some Office of trust. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Officers, Exod. 5.6, is rendered by the Seventy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ezr. 4.8.  Scribes. So Ezra 4.8, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Scribe, notes civil Dignity and Office; whence it is rendered in our Margins, Secretary. (2) There were also among the Hebrews inferior or plebeian Scribes, for the making private Contracts, answerable to our public Notaries. The Ecclesiastic Scribe was a Doctor, Expositor, and Interpreter of the Law; whose Office it was to meditate on, expound and vindicate the Law. Scribe here is to be understood chief in the last sense, yet not exclusively as to the first notion of it. But we find a more full account of the Vanity of all Philosophic Politics, or Civil Wisdom, 1 Cor. 2.6, 
1 Cor. 2.6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nor the wisdom of the Princes of this world. He means (says Grotius) Politic Wisdom, to which belongs Jurisprudence, or skill in Laws and Histories. As if he had said, Take notice, that all these proud Monarches, notwithstanding all their Politic Laws & Government, are come to nought, or spoiled of all their Politic Designs and Interess. For this seems the proper import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that come to nought. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said (1) Of that which has lost its efficacity, as Luk. 13.7. (2) Of that which is abolished and made void. Politic Philosophy has lost its spirits and efficace. So Grotius. The Empires that now are shall perish, as well as those figured by Daniel's Image, Dan. 2.44, etc. 1. 
1. Their imperfection in comparison of Divine Politics.  The Vanity of all Human Politics discovers itself by their imperfection if compared with Divine Politics. Human Politics consist of two parts, Legislation and Administration. Legislative Politics had for their main Institutors Minos the Cretian Legislator, Lycurgus who gave Laws to the Lacedæmonians, Solon the Athenian Law giver, with Draco. Also amongst the Romans, Numa Pompilius, who gave Laws to Rome; Zaleucus the Locrian Legislator, and Charondas the Thurian, both Pythagoreans. Amongst the Philosophers, who gave an Idea both of Legislative and Administrative Politics, we have first Pythagoras, who spent the Afternoon in instructing his Disciples in Politics; besides his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Laertius says he writ. Also Plato who left behind him an excellent Idea of Politics, both Legislative, in his several Books of Laws, and Administrative, in his Books of a Communwealth. Aristotle likewise has given us a good Idea of Politics. Yet all these Human Politics, both Philosophic, or Contemplative and Active, if compared with Divine seem but shadows, 
The imperfection of Human Politics. 1. As to their origine and extent.  very imperfect, yea vain: for (1) All these Human Politics were but broken imperfect derivations or traditions from the Divine Jewish Politics; as elsewhere. (2) All Human Politics were very narrow and particular, not general and comprehensive of particular circumstances. Therefore Aristotle, lib. 1. Polit. observes well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, All things are most evident to such as consider particulars, but they who pronounce universally, deceiving deceive themselves. So Trajan in his directions to Pliny, says, That nothing could be constituted universally as a certain form. (3) Hence it follows, that all their general Laws and Politic Precepts, whether Ideal or Practic, were liable to a world of Exceptions, Restrictions, Limitations and Alterations: for their best Idea of Politics was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the most part, not universally true and good; because particulars, the object thereof, are infinite. Hence, says Aristotle, Rhet. l. 1. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no Art considers (or comprehends) particulars, because infinite: which is most true of all their Human Politics, which could not consider or comprehend those infinite circumstances which attend Human actions; and therefore such of them as ventured to lay down an universal Idea, or general Rules of Politics, discovered much vanity and imperfection; besides the many Exceptions they were fain to admit: and after all their most possible exactness in their Politic Constitutions, they were forced to have recourse to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Law of Equity, or Court of Chancery, for the emendation, correction, or supplement of such things as were not excepted or provided for in their universal Idea of Politics. But now the Divine Politics admit not of such imperfections; because the Divine Law is the most August, Equal, Universal, Adequate Rule of all Politics, as well as Ecclesiastics, as we have copiosely proved, 
Philosophle Politics vain.  Idea Theolog. l. 1. c. 8. 2 These Human Philosophic Politics are not only imperfect and vain comparatively in regard of Divine Politics, but likewise in themselves, in regard of that Corruption, both inherent and subsequent, which attends them. 
1. As to their End.  As (1) in regard of their End, in that they made their carnal Interest the only measure of Good and Evil, without the least respect to Divine Interest, 
2. As to their Mater.  or Glory, as before. (2) The matter of their Politics was very corrupt, in that they allowed many things in themselves evil, and very destructive to Human Societies: as Community of Wives, Fornication, Incest, Sodomy, Drunkenness, 
3. As to their effects.  etc. (3) But the greatest Corruption in their Human Politics was in regard of their sad effects many ways. 
1. Atheism.  [1] In that all their Politics were the mother and nurse of Atheism: For (1) they made Religion subserve their Politic Interests and Constitutions. So Owen Theol l. 1. c. 8. These Lawgivers, in framing their Politic Theology, had scarce any thing else in their aim, but how they might so temper Religion, that thence there might not arise any disturbance or evil in the Civil state. Such was Numa's Politic Religion with the rest. (2) Their Politics were the mother and nurse of Atheism, in that these great Politicians attributed the good or i'll success of Human affairs to their Politic wisdom or contrivances. In which regard they made their Human Prudence their God, or great Idol, unto which all the great occurrences and dispositions of Providence must stoop, which opened the door to Atheism, 
2. Idolatry.  and shut God out of the World. [2] The Philosophic Politics opened the door also to Idolatry: for these Politicians had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Politic Religion, which out of compliance with the people's Idolatry humour proved a great nurse to Idolatry, as hereafter.   

CHAP. III. The Vanity of Metaphysics, or Natural Theology, and Divination.  
The Pythagorean Philosophic Theology of all most vain. (1) In regard of God: [1] They understood not their own notions of God; [2] Nor the Trinity; [3] Nor their Ideas. (2) The vanity of their Theology as to the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Word, and Demon-Doctrines. Col. 2.8, 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. really, essentially, perfectly. Col. 2.10, 18, 19, largely opened. (3) The vanity of their Daemon-worship. (4) Also of their notions about the Soul. (5) The hellish corruption of their Magic and Divination, which they took up in imitation of the Jewish modes of Revelation. Their Art of Divination part of their Doctrines of Demons. 1 Tim. 4.1. Apollo their great God of Divination, his Origine and Temple at Delphus, etc. The nature of Divination out of Plato, (1) It's origine, Divine afflation. (2) Its instruments, at first Poets, than Philosophers. (3) This mode of Divination usually extatic. (4) Also by Enthusiasm. (5) These Enthusiasts had their Judges, as the Jewish. (6) The End of Divination. (7) The sundry kinds of Divination, by Dreams, Maladies, etc. (8) Divination by Magic: of Apollonius Tyanaeus: 1 Tim. 4.1. (9) Divination by Animals, Plants, Men, Elements, Stars, and things artificial, Glasses, Axes, etc.  
§. 1. HAving discoursed of the Vanity of Philosophy in Naturals and Morals, we now proceed to the Vanity of its Metaphysics, or Supernatural Philosophy, which contains Natural Theology, and Divination. As for the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
The Corruption of Natural Theology.  Natural Theologie, there was none more famous than that of the Pythagoreans, which came the nearest of any to the Scripture Theologie, and yet was nevertheless corrupt. Yea indeed there seems to be this peculiar curse on the Pythagorean Natural Theology, that though it came the nearest of any to Divine Theology, yet was it the most corrupt of all both in itself, as also in its effects. For none more devoted to Superstition and Idolatry than the Pythagoreans; none greater heresiarchs, or founders of Heresy in the Christian Church than they. This we may look upon as procedeing from a particular curse of God upon this, as on all other Human Inventions in Divine Matters, which usually the nearer ressemblance they have with Divine Institutions, the more are they blasted by God, even to the turning aside and subverting such as depend upon them. Thus the case stood with these Pythagoreans, as well as with the rest of the Philosophers; who finding themselves fallen from that Natural Theology their first Parents were possessed withal, and which their natures still retained some Physical and more remote capacity unto, they studied all ways possible to recover the same: in order whereto having acquired some broken Jewish Traditions of that new model of Religion God was pleased to vouchsafe unto his Church, they hoped by the improvement of their own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, common principes, on these rudiments or foundations received from the Jewish Church, to erect a new frame or body of Natural Divinity, in lieu of that which they found themselves deprived of. Which design of theirs proved altogether abortive; yea so far were these blind Philosophers from reaching their End of attaining a new edition of that Natural Theology they had lost by the Fall, as that all their attemts and studies in order hereto serve only the more effectually to envelop and entangle them in grosser ignorance, Atheism, Superstition, and Idolatry. This has been excellently opened to us by Owen, Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 7. where having laid open the design of the new Platonists, after the breaking forth of the Gospel to reform Philosophy, so as to make it a Vicarious Natural Theology, he adds the same of the Pythagorean Philosophy: All that ancient Wisdom (saith he) of Pythagoras consisted in a way for the Institution of Religion. I confess the whole of that Philosophy savored of Idolatry superstition; which yet retained some obscure Images and Characters of the Truth. The event therefore answered not this famous attemt; yea by these undertake Natural Theology was more corrupted rather than repaired. Such were the miserable effects of their proud and vain attemts, by which hoping and endeavouring to restore themselves to their ancient inheritance of Natural Theology, founded on the Covenant of Works, and possessed by their first Parents in the Golden age of Innocence, they fell into greater bondage of Superstition and Idolatry. But to treat more particularly of the corruption of this Philosophic Natural Theology, we shall consider it (1) In its Ultimate object. (2) In its Mediate object. (3) In its parts.  
§. 2. As for the ultimate and supreme Object of their Metaphysics or Natural Theology, it was God the first Eternal Being, 
The corruption of Natural Theology as to its ultimate object, God.  and last end of allthings. And here it cannot be denied but that the Pythagoreans, and Platonists after them, had many good Metaphysic Contemplations of God, as the first Being and last End; also of his Divine Perfections and Ideas, as we shall Demonstrate Part. 4. B. 2. Yet these their Metaphysic notions of God were not without great mixture of vanity and corruption. For (1) few or none understood their own Philosophic notions touching God, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
The Philosophers understood not their own notions of God; nor how he was the Author of Eternal Life.  etc. but receiving the foundations of these Metaphysic Contemplations from Scriptural Traditions, as Exod. 3.14. or the like, they Philosophised thereon, without right conception of the things of which they discoursed. This seems more than hinted in Paul's observation touching the Athenian Altar, To the unknown God, Act. 17.23. That there was a God the wiser of these blind Grecians knew, partly by Tradition, partly by the improvement of their own common Principes: but what, or who this God was, that was to them a thing unknown; and therefore some suppose Saturn to be this one God, i. e. Adam or Noah: others call him Jupiter Hammon, i.e. Cham: and others of them could reach no farther than the Sun, whom they supposed to be the most gloriose Creature, and therefore God. The wisest of them knew not where to find, or what to make of this God, on which they thus Philosophised. They only groped after him, as Act. 17.27. 
1 Cor. 1.21.  So 1 Cor. 1.21, For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God: i.e. By all their Metaphysic wisdom, whether Traditional or acquired from the improvement of their Natural Principes, they could not come to any right Idea or true notion of God, what he was and where to be found. 'Tis true they had some general speculations of him as the first Being, self Being, infinite, eternal, and most simple Being, etc. yet they knew him not as the Author and Object of Eternal Life, as Joh. 17.3. whence all their knowledge of him proved altogether vain and unprofitable. This Grotius makes the import of Paul's declamation against the vain deceit of Philosophy, (principally the Pythagoreans,) Col. 2.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, take diligent heed, 
Col. 2.8.  look well to it. It notes, that men are very prone to fall into this snare, and therefore aught to take the more heed. That no one spoil you. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is interpreted by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that no one strip you naked. Vain Philosophy strips men naked of their best Robes, namely the Righteosenesse of Christ, and saving Knowledge of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Military notion, deduced by Critics from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a prey, or spoil taken in War, (from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to spoil) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lead. Whence it primarily notes, to lead or carry away by an armed power in an hostile manner. Thus many Pythagorising Gnostics seduced and led captive many carnal professors, and stripped them naked of their Christian Doctrines, by vain Philosophy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He useth (saith Grotius) the Greek word Philosophy, because it was received; but it truly deceived men: for either it did not promise Eternal Life, or else it shown not the true and certain way which leadeth thither. So that in truth all their finespun Metaphysic Contemplations of God the first Eternal and all-sufficient Being, were as to them altogether vain and useless; because they had no regard to God as the Author, Object, Mater and Way to Eternal Life, 
2. They had no true knowledge of the Trinity.  which they were wholly ignorant of. (2) Much less had these Pagan Philosophers any true notions of the Trinity. This great Mystery of Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity was altogether hid from them. I shall not deny, but that these blind Heathens, specially the wiser of them, might have some very dark and imperfect Traditions concerning a Trinity: whence some conceive that great Oriental maxim, 
How far they had notices of a Trinity.  which Pythagoras brought with him into Grece touching God, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, One and many, was but some broken Jewish Tradition of the Trinity. We may grant also that the Platonists had some weak corrupt Traditions of three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hypostases, or Persons, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Trinity; whereof the first was by them named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Self-being; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the good, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Father: The second Person they called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Mind; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the begotten; also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the framer: The third, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Soul of the World. These and suchlike poor dim notices of a Trinity, 'tis likely Pythagoras and Plato after him traduced originally from the Jews, if not immediately, yet mediately by the Phoenicians and Egyptians. Of which see more fully, Philos. General. p. 1. l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 1, §. 13. But yet that neither the Grecian, Egyptian, or Phenician Philosophers had any true or sound notion of the Trinity, I think, will be sufficiently evident to any sober mind, that shall consider what a world of fables and contradictions they mixed with these broken discoveries they had received of a Trinity. This indeed Plato ingenuously confesseth, in saying, That he had received many Mysteries from the Ancients, which he understood not, but expected some Interpreter to unfold them to him. And indeed he never spoke more truth; for both he and Pythagoras before him, having an infinite thirst after Divine Mysteries, to satisfy their inquisitive humour, they would catch at every shadow of Oriental Jewish Antiquity, though they understood nothing thereof. This seems the true account of their Philosophic Speculations about the Trinity, which is confirmed by Justinian, on 1 Joh. 1.1, etc. Sect. 52, 53, 54. 
That these Philosophic notions about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c gaue occasion to the Arian Heresic, see B. 2. Chap 1. Sect. ●.  where having mentioned the many Metaphysic Contemplations of the Pagan Philosophers about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he concludes thus: Truly many things have been taken out of Moses his Law by the Philosophers and Poets, but depraved, changed, and wrested, as we learn out of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, l. 8. cap. 11. & lib. 18. c. 37. In which manner also perhaps they corrupted such notions as referred to the origine of the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Word; and taught that those Persons differed in nature, who are only distinguished in Hypostasis: and so the first Mind they called Good itself; the second, the Opisicer or Framer of the World; the third, the Soul of the World. From which error some suppose the Arian Impiety to have sprung. Which things being thus, it seems most likely, that these Philosophers, by a certain magnitude of ingeny and assiduous study and diligence, might come to know something of God; which yet was mixed with many errors: neither yet could they attain in any measure to the Mystery of the Trinity, or the Eternal Production of the Divine Word. The like account I find in Serranus, on Plato's Epist. 6. pag. 323. where Plato speaking of God in these words: God the Imperator of all things that are, or that shall be; and the Father of this Principal Cause: [Et illius Principis Causae Patrem.] These words, says Serranus, some of our Writers understand as if Plato hereby hinted to us the Mystery of the Trinity: so also they understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Epimon. But away with these madnesses! Plato truly might speak many things, which he traduced from the Phenician Doctrine, but understood not; yea it is not likely that the Phoenicians or Egyptians, who were the conservators of these Platonic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ineffable Doctrines, understood so great a Mystery as this of the Trinity. I find something also in Sanchoniathon's fragments much like this passage of Plato: (which confirms what has been quoted out of Serranus) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to these was there begotten a certain Eliun. That Eliun is the same with the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elohim God, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elion the Most High, is plain; though Sanchoniathon's Fables touching this Eliun argue he understood not what he said. This may suffice to prove, that all those Metaphysic Contemplations, which peradventure had their origine from some shadowy dark Jewish notices touching the Trinity, as managed by the Philosophers, were but vain corrupt and unintelligible notions; yea, that they gave foundation to the Arian Heresy, which was hatched in the School of Alexandria, where this Pythagorean Platonic Philosophy then flourished, as we shall prove, 
Their vanity as to the Divine Ideas and Decrees.  B. 2. c. 1. §. 9 (3) What we have mentioned of the Trinity holds also true to prove the vanity and corruption of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophemes about the Divine Ideas, and Decrees. It's true, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Timaeus the Locrian, and Plato out of them, had some more tolerable Contemplations concerning the Divine Ideas, both of things possible and future, inherent in the Divine mind; yea they seem to assert the Eternity, Simplicity, immutability, absolute sovereignty and Independence of these Divine Ideas; to the shame and consusion of the Pelagians, Schoolmen, and Arminians; as we shall prove, Par. 4. B. 2. c. 5. §. 2. of Divine Ideas. Yet these their Metaphysic notions of Divine Ideas were not without great commixture of vanity and corruption in themselves, and of much more dangerous influence in the Christian Schools: for much of the Gnostic Infusions in the primitive Churches, as also of the Monkish Mystic Divinity, and the Scholastic corrupt speculations about the Decrees of God, received their origine from these Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas, as it may appear hereafter, B. 2.  
§. 3. 
The vanity of the Philosophers Natural Theology as to its mediate Object.  As the Pagan Philosophic Theology was vain and corrupt as to its ultimate Object, the Divine Being, Persons, and Ideas; so was it much more corrupt in regard of its mediate Object, or the mediums and ways, by which the soul was to be raised up to the knowledge, worship, and enjoyment of this first Eternal Being. 'Tis true, the light of Nature, and those visible Ideas of God's Wisdom, Power, and Goodness impressed on the Book of the Creatures, together with those imperfect notices traduced from the Jewish Church, gave these Natural Theologists some glimmering notions of the Deity, his Perfections and Operations: but as for Christ the mediate Object, or Mediator betwixt God and Man, Him they seem to have been altogether strangers unto. It's granted they had some fabulose Traditions touching their Sheepherd-God Pan; touching Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom, her being produced out of Jupiter's brain; touching Silenus, etc. which some conceive to be but corrupt imitations of and reflections from the Jewish Messiah, his Name and Offices; who is in Scripture called a Shepherd, Shilo, the Wisdom of God, etc. But yet the many Fables which they mixed with these Traditions, (perhaps originally Jewish) argue their stupid ignorance of Christ the Saviour of the World. We shall hereafter B. 2. C. 1. §. 5. and C. 2. §. 2. §. 3. show how that all the Phenician Baalim, and Grecian Demons, were but Idolatry Imitamen or Apes of the true Messiah; yet were these blind Heathens so far from gaining any knowledge of the true Messiah hereby, as indeed all their Demon-contemplations and worship did but leave them under greater darkness and distance as to the true Mediator. For this was the great design of Satan, 
Al their Demon-Doctrines vain and corrupt.  by these Idol-Demons or Mediators (which he fat up in opposition to, though in imitation of Christ) to shut the door against Christ, that so he might detain those blind Sophists in ignorance of, and estrangement from him the way of Life. 'Tis true, these Gentile-Philosophers, the wiser of them, Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato, (who having conversed abroad in the Oriental parts, seem to have had some more awakened thoughts touching the Fall and lost condition of Mankind by reason of Sin) could not but conclude a necessity of some Satisfaction to be made to Divine Justice; and finding nothing in themselves as a fit Atonement, they found out these new Mediators their Demons, whose Office it was to intercede betwixt Men and the supreme God; conveying men's sacrifices, supplications, and worship to God; and God's Divine commands, Gifts, and other vouchsafements to men; by which means there was a Communion maintained betwixt the supreme God and Men. This was the substance of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theologie, brought in by the Philosophers, in distinction from (if not opposition to) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fabulose Theologie of the Poets; as also to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Politic Theology of Statesmen, Priest and People. This Natural Theology of the Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, which comprehended this Doctrine of Demons, was not less injuriose to Christ, than the fabulose Theologie of the Poets, or the Politic of the Statesmen: For look as in the Christian Church Antichrist sits in the Temple of God, as a counter-Christ; so amongst these Pagans, their Demons were a kind of Gentile-Antichrist, or counter-Messias. Yea, which is more, all Antichrists Apostasy to Saint worship; all his Images, Shrines, Relics, Canonifations, Invocations, Intercessions, Satisfactions of Saints, with all his Festivals, Abstinences, etc. were all but branches of this Demon-Worship, as 'tis evident from 1 Tim. 4.1. Act. 17.18. 1 Cor. 10.21. Rev. 9.13. This will appear in its place, B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, etc. which is a sufficient demonstration of the monstrose vanity and corruption of this Natural Theology, which these vain Sophists so much prided themselves in, as that whereby they hoped and endeavoured to restore that Natural Theology they lost in their first Parents. But at present it shall suffice us to discover, how this piece of their Metaphysic Philosophy, or Natural Theology, was not only void of, but also Diametrically opposite to Christ as Mediator, and therefore most vain and degenerate. And for the proof hereof I shall have recourse to that great Chapter, wherein Paul seems professedly to set himself against the vanity of the Pythagorean and other Philosophy. 
Col. 2.3.  Col. 2.3, he tells them, That in Christ were hid all the treasures of wisdom, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are hid; the similitude seems to be taken from a Chest, wherein men lay up their money, to be taken forth as occasion may serve. Thus the LXX, Dan. 11.43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the hidden treasures of Gold. What infinite hidden Treasures of Wisdom are there in Christ! The Wisdom of Christ is compared to Treasures, Prov. 8.10, 11, 19 Whence Paul adds, V 4. And this I say, 
Ver. 4.  lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to the Hebraic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which the LXX place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It signifies primarily, by false Ratiocinations, which yet have the colour and tincture of truth, to circumvent the simple; by sophistic reason to impose on others; by a captiose fallaciose syllogism to deceive. Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, by Hesychius, made Synonymous and equipollent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deceit; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostles mind seems this: Let no Pythagorising Judaising Christians plunder you of your Christian Wisdom and Theology, by the enticing heart-bewitching notions of vain Philosophy. Grotius observes, that there were, even in those dawnings of Christianity, sown in Phrygia the Seeds of the Phrygian Heresy, composed of Judaic and Pythagoric Dogmes, mixed with Christian Theology; and those that would not espouse this Heresy were styled by these Sectaries carnal and illiterate. Whence Vers. 8. he exhortes, 
Ver. 8.  that None spoil them of Christ's treasures of Wisdom, through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men. i.e. (says Hammond in his Paraphrase on these words,) And take care that no body plunder you of all that you have, your Principes of Christian Knowledge, by that vain, empty, frothy, pretended knowledge and wisdom which the Gnostics talk of, 1 Tim. 1.4. 1 Tim. 6.20. taken out of the Heathen Pythagorcan Philosophy, together with the observances of the Mosaic Law, and very distant and contrary to Christian Divinity, etc. It's evident, he opposeth the vain Philosophy of these Pythagorising Gnostics to those Treasures of Wisdom which were hid in, and reveled by Christ the only Mediator, whom these Pythagorean Gnostics endeavoured to exclude, placing their Aeones and Demons in his room. Whence it follows, Vers. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bodily; i.e. (1) really, 
Ver. 9  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Really.  and that [1] In opposition to all the Jewish Types and Figures, which were but shadows of Christ the substance or body; [2] Really, in opposition to all those false Demons or Aeones, which were at first hatched by the vain Metaphysic Philosophy, or Natural Theology of the Heathen Philosophers, and now brought into the Christian Theology by these Pythagorising Gnostics, as forerunners of Antichrist. (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies also essentially, or substantially. Thus Occumenius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, essentially. So among the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies essence as well as body; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ver. 11. denotes essence: 
2. Essentially.  and then the meaning is, That the whole Divine Nature or Essence dwells in Christ, so that he is truly and Essentially God, in opposition to their Philosophic Demons, which were but Idols. (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be rendered personally. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Person, 
3. Personally.  Rom. 12.1. 2 Cor. 10.10. So Pindar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, four Persons: and Sophocles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, My person. The Deity dwells in the Human Nature of Christ personally, by an Hypostatic personal Union, typified by God's habitation over the Ark, which was but the Type of Christ's Human Nature. 
4. Perfectly.  (4) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify perfectly and eminently; as Christ is said, Ver. 10. to be a complete Head, above all Principalities. (5) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may also denote the perfection of Gospel-revelation delivered by Christ, in opposition to the Typic shadowy Theology of the Jews, and to the false Natural Theology of the vain Philosophers, Ver. 8. Thus Hammond in his Paraphrase: For the whole will of God (says he) is by Christ really made known unto us, as his Divinity really dwells in him; and therefore there is little need of the additions of the Gnostics, which they borrow out of the Heathenish and Jewish Theology, to supply the defects of the evangely Doctrine. Though this sense seems also included, yet the former may not be excluded, as it appears by what follows, v. 10. Ye are complete in him, which is the Head of all Principality and power. 
Ver. 10. Complete.  i e. He is a complete Head, or perfect Mediator, infinitely above all Angelic Principalities and Human Powers, whence those Pythagorean Demons and Aeones had their origine. For all their Demons were but Human powers, or great Heroes deified; and all their Aeones, but Angels of a superior or lower degree; all infinitely short of Christ, who is the Head of all Principalities and Powers, and therefore a perfect Mediator in whom you are complete, in opposition to all their Gentile Demons or Aeones, etc. I am not ignorant, that Hammond in his Paraphrase on these words, (following the humour of Grotius, who was too much Socinian and against the Deity of Christ) interprets this of their being complete in knowledge by the Doctrine of Christ, without such supplies as these, from the Doctrines and Divinity of the Gnostics about their Aeones, looked on by them as Divine immortal powers. Which sense, though true and included in the words, yet may it not exclude Christ as the simple object of Faith, or as he is the complete only Mediator, in opposition to all those Philosophic Demons, Aeones, or Idol-Mediators, which these Pythagorising Gnostics than began to foist into the Christian Theology, and were afterward in a more perfect manner established by Antichrist, that great Daemon, or Idol set up in God's House. These Pythagorean Demons and Aeones, which were the great Mediators in the Philosopher's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theologie, and brought into the Christian Theology first by the Gnostics, and then by Antichrist, are again openly struck at by the Apostle, in this caution of his to the Colossians, Chap. 2. v. 18, 19 V 18, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Col. 2.18, 19  Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and will-worship of Angels. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to its origination, signifies an humility of mind, quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, minding low things. But here it signifies a superstitiose and servile demission or prostitution of the spirit to false objects of worship, together with an hypocrity show and study of humility. Here is, says Grotius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. In an humble Will-worship performed to Angels; which these Pythagorising Gnostics called Aeones, and worshipped as Mediators to God, distributing them into certain Classes, and allowing them their respective Offices, without any other ground than their own fantiastic imitation of that Natural Theology amongst the Heathen Philosophers. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let no man beguile you. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies (1) and properly, to give sentence against any one, whereby he is pronounced unworthy of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the reward given to such as contended for victory. And so it is an allusion to such as ran in the race, who if they were defective or irregular in their race, were condemned by Judges appointed for this purpose to lose the reward; whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by Phavorinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let no man condemn you, as defective or irregular in your Christian race; beware of losing your reward by an Idolatry Will-worship given to Angels or Men, answerable to the Heathens Natutural Theology. (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeripere, by craft to cheat men of their crown or reward. So Pausanias, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Jerome saith, That Paul used this word, according to the custom of his own Province, namely, Tarsis and Cilicia; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Cilician tongue notes cunningly to cheat another of his reward. And then the sense is, let no one, by these Pythagorean Dogmes, craftily cheat you of your reward, by inducing you to bow your souls, in a superstitiose servile manner, to worship Angels, and thence to reject Christ your Head. So it follows v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. (says Grotius) not keeping close to Christ, whom God has therefore given to be Head of the Church, that so by him our desires may be offered up unto himself. The sum of these Apostolic exhortations is this: Paul saw the Pagan Demons (which were the main subject of their Natural Theology) creeping in apace into the Church of God, under the Mystic Theology of the Pythagorising Gnostics: he foresaw also by the spirit of Prophecy, that Antichrist, the great Christian Daemon, would advance the said Demons on Christ's throne, by assuming to himself a power of Canonising Saints as Intercessors or Mediators; giving Indulgences, making Laws, erecting Images, etc. all which were but branches of the old Pagan Daemon worship; which Paul foreseeing Antichrist would erect in the room of Christ, he was the more invective against this their Pagan Natural Theology touching Demons, etc.  
§. 4. 
4 Demon-worship vain and corrupt.  Hence it followed that the Natural Theology of these Pagan Philosophers proved exceeding vain, corrupt, and abominable, as to all those modes or rites of Worship, which they either invented themselves, or traduced from the Jewish Church. It has been acknowleged, that these blind Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, had very many Rites and Modes of Worship by tradition from, and in imitation of the Jewish Rites and Worship, as Part 2. B 2. chap. 2. §. 4. But all these apish Modes of Worship being not received as Divine Institutes, but mixed with their own fantastic Idolatry inventions, and passing through the hands of their Demons, and thence terminating on some Idol-God, proved but a miserable piece of Heathenish Will-worship and Idolatry. It's true, these proud Philosophers aspired, by this their Demon-worship (the fruit of their Natural Theology) to reduce themselves to a friendship with the great, though unknown God: but all their attemts herein proved vain and successelesse; yea all did but cast them at a greater distance from the true God, into a servile subjection to Satan the God of this World. The Demon-Theologie, or Will worship of the Pagan Philosophers was brought into the Christian Church first by the Gnostics, and afterward by Antichrist; which the Apostle Paul foreseeing does greatly caution Christians against in the forementioned Epistle, Col. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. specially v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Also in the 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, of which hereafter, when we come to Antichristian Will-worship, which was but the effect of this Pagan Demon-worship.  
§. 5. 
5 The Vanity of their Metaphysic Philosophising about the Soul.  Another part of their Metaphysic Philosophy, or Natural Theology, consists in some Traditions and Contemplations touching the Human Soul, its Divine Origine, Infusion, Separation, and Immortality; concerning which it cannot be denied but that the Philosophers, specially such as had conversation with the Jews or Jewish Traditions, had very many good speculations and notions, far beyond many atheistic spirits of this age; but yet such as were mixed with many vain corrupt conceptions and gross superstitions: 
Pre-existence of all Souls.  as (1) They held the Soul to be of Divine extract and origine, according to that citation of Paul, Act. 17.28. Of which see Court Gent. Part 2. B. 3. C. 9 Sect. 3. §. 3. But yet withal they held the eternal simultaneous production and Pre-existence of all Souls: which opinion of theirs Origen, with some other of the Fathers, who did much Pythagorise, are said to have sucked in. 
Metempsychosis.  (2) The Philosophers also held the Subsistence, yea Immortality of the Soul after its disunion from the body; but withal they held also a Metempsychosis or Transmigration of the Soul into other bodies: which opinion the Jews, specially the Pharisees, drank in from the Pythagorean Philosophy, if the Pythagoreans had it not from the Jews first. 
Purgatory.  (3) The Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophers asserted some kind of Purgatory, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Purification of the Soul by fire; whence the Papists had their Purgatory, as hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 11.  
§. 6. But amongst all the pieces of Pagan Metaphysics, 
6. The hellish Corruption of their Magic.  or Natural Theology, none is more corrupt, yea Satanic, than their Magic, or black Art of Divination, wherein the Pythagoreans and other Philosophers were greatly versed. That this Satanic Science of Divination, or Witchcraft, so much in request amongst the wisest of Pagan Philosophers, proceeded originally from, and in imitation of the Divine Oracles vouchsafed the Jewish Church, will be evident to any that shall give himself the trouble of drawing a parallel betwixt the one and tother. That the Pythagoreans were famous for this Art of Magic, see Jamblicus in the Life of Pythagoras, Cap. 29. Pythagoras, as it is supposed, had it from the Chaldeans, or Egyptians, or peradventure immediately from the Jews; amongst whom having observed a spirit of Prophecy, or Divination vouchsafed them by their God, with which Jeremy, Ezechiel, and Daniel (who lived much about his time, and with whom some think he had converse,) were endowed, 
The four ways of Divination amongst the Jews imitated by the Pagan Diviners.  he affecting an imitation of them herein, enters into a compact with the Devil his God in order hereto.  
The Jews had four kinds of Divine Revelation. (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prophety: which was either [1] by extern Vision; or [2] by intern Imagination, or mental Vision, vouchsafed either to persons sleeping, and so it was called Dreams; or to such as waked, and so it was called Ecstasy, Apoc. 1.10. Ezech. 1.12. we have both mentioned, Numb. 12.6. in a Vision and in a Dream. Answerably whereto the Pagan Diviners had their night-Dreams, and day-Visions, whereby they divined things. (2) The Jews had a more gentle and commun kind of Enthusiasm, or Divine Afflation of the Spirit, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Afflate of the holy Spirit, as in Job, Moses, David, and other Penmen of the Sacred Scripture; who had also the spirit of prophety, though not in such an Ecstatic mode as some other Prophets, Ezechiel, Daniel, etc. Answerably whereto the Pagan Diviners had also their milder Enthusiasms, vouchsafed their Poets by Diabolic Inspiration. (3) The Jews had their Vrim and Thummim, which was the Oracle by which God vouchsafed Answers to his People. In imitation whereof Pagan Diviners had their Teraphim, which Mede on Deut. 33.8. (Diatr. 2. pag. 368.) says, was amongst these Idolaters answerable to the Vrim and Thummim of the holy Patriarches. And such also was the Ephod of the Idolatrous Jews, which they consulted as their responsory, Jud. 8.27, 33. Answerably whereto the Egyptian Priests (as Elianus and Diodorus write) had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their little image of Saphir; which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, truth, in imitation of the Jewish Vrim and Thummim, as Grotius. (4) The Jews had another kind of Divine Revelation, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the daughter of voice, or vocal revelation, which seems mentioned Numb. 12.8. but was more usual under the second Temple, after the Vrim and Thummim ceased, whereby God reveled himself to his people, as at Christ's Baptism, Mat. 3.17. Answerable whereto the Gentiles had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apparitions of their Gods, with Vocal tradition or declaration of their minds to men, which gave the first occasion to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pillars of Stone, erected as Memorials of their God's Aparition, in imitation of the Stone which Jacob erected at Bethel, as a Memorial of God's Aparition and discourse with him. Of which more fully, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 3.  
That this black Art of Divination was in much use, 
The Art of Divication part of their Doctrine of Demons.  not only amongst the Poets and Priests, but also amongst the wisest of the Philosophers, the Pythagoreans and Platonists, is evident by this, that it was a part of that Doctrine of Demons, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theologie, which did in a more peculiar manner belong to the Philosophers. So Plato, in his Symposium, pag. 202, 203. treating professedly of these Demons, he brings in Socrates demanding of Diotima, what faculty this his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon, had. To which Diotima replies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a faculty of Interpreting the God's mind, etc. And having discoursed at large of the Offices of this Socratic Daemon, he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from this Daemon all the Art of Divination proceeds. Whence Mercury the great Egyptian Daemon, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Interpreter, as 'tis supposed, from and in imitation of Joseph that great Divine Interpreter. Farther, that this Satanic Art of Divination was part of their Demon-worship, and thence of their Natural Theology, is evident by what Diogenes Laertius reports of Pythagoras in his Life. Pythagoras (says he) affirmed, that the whole air was full of Souls; which he supposed to be Demons and Heroes, by whom there were infused Dreams and Signs, and Diseases, both into Men and Bestes; from whence arose Lustrations, Expiations, and all Divinations, and Propheties. Diog. of Pythag.  
The great Oracle to which all their Diviners resorted, 
Apollo their great Oracle.  was that of the Idol-God Apollo, (whose Temple was erected at Delphus, in imitation of God's at Jerusalem) and all inferior Vates or Diviners were but his Interpreters. This is well set forth by Plato in his Io, pag. 534. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Vates are nothing else but Interpreters of the Gods. Pag. 536. he gives us the manner how their Idol- Apollo inspired these Diviners; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God, by the endeavour of all these, draws the mind of men where he pleaseth. Plato here (according to his Allegoric mode) supposeth a long chain or series of Diviners impelled or drawn by their God Apollo, whom he makes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the prime and first mover. That this their great Oracle Apollo was no other than the Devil, is most evident, who is called by the same name in Scripture: as Deut. 32.17. he is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Destroyer; 
Deut. 32.17.  which the Greeks call most properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apollo; and so Rev. 9.11. the Devil's name Abaddon, which signifies a Destroyer, is by the Spirit of God rendered Apollyon, which is the same with Apollo. 
The origine of the Delphie Divination.  That Apollo was the great God of Divination is asserted by Augustin, de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 11. In Divinations Apollo, etc. where Lud. Vives on these words observes, That they supposing this Apollo to be the Sun, i. e. the Eye of the World, easily believed that he beheld and knew allthings, both past, present, and to come; wherefore he was everywhere consulted, and gave answers, as in many other places, so specially at Delphus, as Diodorus in the Life of Philip; whose origine he thus relates: In that place, at the entry of the Delphic Temple was a Den of a great and obscure winding, unto which a Goat feeding thereabout ascending, received an Afflation from that subterraneous spirit, and began in an unusual manner to dance; which the Pastor admiring, he himself approaching to the mouth of the Den was surprised with a Furor, and began to foretell things future. This some others attempted, and were affected in like manner. The matter proceeded thus far, that he who would know things future brought some, who thrusting in the head into the mouth of the Den might Divine. Which seeing it could not be done without danger, no, nor without the destruction of many, the Delphics erected a Temple there to their Divining-God Apollo; and appointed a Virgin, who setting in the Machine, might safely receive the Afflation of that Divine spirit, and give answers to such as consulted the Oracle: Which Machine was called from its three Pillars, Tripos, as it were of three feet, much of the same form with the usual Tripet. The Priest was called Pythia, who in the beginning was a Virgin like to Diana. Afterward a certain Pythia being deflowered by Echecrates, the Delphics rejecting Virgins appointed a Woman no less than fifty years aged; who yet was to use a Virgin habit, that so the old custom might not altogether perish. Thus Diodorus Siculus, and out of him Ludou. Vives.  
§. 7. 
The nature of Divination out of Plato.  To treat a little more distinctly of the nature of this Pagan Divination, whereby both its origine and vanity will more fully appear. The Greek name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is by some derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they supposed its cause to be extern, spiritual, and divine. I find nowhere a more full and clear account hereof than in Plato, who both in his Timeus, Phaedrus, and more professedly in his Io treats of this Subject. 1. As to the origine of Divination, Plato Io, p. 533. saith, That Poetic Enthusiasm comes not by Art, but by a Divine power, like the stone which Euripides called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Magnetem, Loadstone; which stone doth not only draw iron-rings, but also puts a virtue into them to draw others to them. So Prophetic men are inspired by the Muse. 
1. It's origine not by Art but divine Afflation.  Thence he, in his Io, pag. 534. tells us, That it comes not by Art, but by a divine power: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Prophets utter these things not by Art, but from a divine power: For (adds he) Art extends itself to allthings under the same kind. So again pag. 536. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. not by art but by a divine fate, or afflation. And more particularly in his Phaedrus, pag. 245. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But the third sort of madness and transport, surprising the tender and inaccessible mind is from the Muses, exciting and inspiring it unto Enthusiastic Songs and Poems. But he that undertakes this Prophetic Poesy from a confidence on some art, is very imperfect, in comparison of him that is possessed with an Ectastic furor. Wherefore all that Prophetic Poesy, which issues from the mind of a sober temperate man, vanisheth. Truly I could reckon up to thee so many and more illustrious effects of this furor inspired by God. His design is to show, that all Poetic Prophecy comes from a Divine Enthusiasm or afflation without art. Thence he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This furor is given by the Gods with the greatest felicity. Whence in the Platonic Definitions we find Divination thus defined, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divination is a science discovering a matter without Demonstration; i. e. by mere Enthusiasm. 2. 
The Instruments, Poets and Prophets.  The usual Organs or Instruments the Devil (under the name of Apollo) used to deliver his Oracles by, were at first the Poets; whence amongst the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Poets and Prophets, were of the same import. So Paul, Tit. 1.12. calls one of their Poet's Prophet, and Vates signifies both a Poet and Prophet. Yea the Philosophers (who were many of them Poets also) were not a little guilty of this Satanic Art, specially the Pythagoreans. These Organs, Plato tells us, the God used in delivering his Oracles to men: So Io 534, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wherefore the God whiles he takes from them their mind, useth these ministers as messengers to deliver his Oracles, and divine Prophets; that we who hear may understand, that it is not they who are thus deprived of their mind, that speak things of so great moment, but that it is God that speaks them, and by the ministry of those men speaks to us. Wherein observe, (1) That the Devil under the Title of Apollo, and as an Ape of God, deprived his Prophets of their right mind, and put them into an Ecstatic rapture, thereby to declare unto the World, that his Oracles came not from the exercitation of Reason, or by Art, but by Divine Enthusiasm. (2) That the Prophets were but mere Organs used by this God, to declare his Oracles. Thence he subjoins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We have an infallible demonstration hereof in Tynnichus Chalcidensis, who never composed any other Verse worthy of memory, save that Pean in the honour of Apollo, which is in the mouth of all, and indeed the most excellent of all Poems, which he himself styles the Invent of the Muses. Now hereby it seems to me that God hath demonstrated, that we may not doubt, but that these excellent Poems were in no regard human, or the product of men's wits, but divine and coming from God; for the Poets [or Prophets] are no other than Interpreters of God. This description which he gives of these false Diviners suits well with God's true Prophets, 
3. These Diviners in an exstatic rapture or fury.  who are but Instruments by which he speaks. (3) Plato tells us that these Organs or Prophets, which the Demoniac power inspired, were, whilst under this spirit of Divination, in an Ecstasy or Rapture. So Io 533. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thus therefore the Muse herself by a certain divine spirit doth inspire some; and by the ministry of such inspired persons there is a series of others inspired aptly connected. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They rage and foam, and are possessed like the Priests of Bacchus. And pag. 534. he saith, that this his Diviner was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Rapt into a divine ecstasy, and mad, neither did he continue in his senses or mind, being moved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a divine fate. The meaning is, he was in an ecstatic rapture, not (compos mentis) in a sound mind. This Plato explains yet more fully in his Timaeus, pag. 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is a sufficient sign, that God hath vouchsafed this faculty of Divination to human madness: (i.e. to men furiose:) and he gives this reason for it, because God has planted this power of Divining in part of the Liver, etc. Then he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for no one in his right mind or senses is inspired by this spirit of Divination, but such only whose minds and senses are bound up by sleep, or disease, or Enthusiasm, etc. Herein also the Devil played the Ape, and imitated the Divine mode of prophety, which for the most part was by ecstatic raptures and visions. Whence, 
4. Divination by Enthusiasm.  (4) The usual mode or way by which this their Demoniac spirit inspired or possessed these ecstatic Prophets, was Enthusiasm. So Plato in that forementioned place of Timaeus, pag. 72. None is inspired with this true divine power of Divination continuing in his mind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But having his prudence or reason bound either by sleep, or by a disease, or changed by some Enthusiasm. And then he gives the reason, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But it belongs to a prudent man to understand such things as are spoken, or expressed by certain signs, either by dream or watching, from the Enthusiastic nature. This ecstatic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Enthusiasm, Plato in his Io makes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation of Divine ecstasy or rapture. And indeed it was but a Satanic imitation of Divine Enthusiasm, which Divines describe to be a Divine extraordinary immediate Inspiration of God, in the reception whereof the Soul is merely passive, and yet vehemently moved or agitated thereby, even unto an Ecstasy or Divine Evagation; as the Apostles were inspired after Christ's Ascension. This Demoniac Enthusiasm, of which Plato so much treats both in his Timaeus and Io, was but the Ape of the Divine. (5) Hence, says Plato, 
These Enthusiastic Diviners could not judge of their own Divination, but had there Judges.  these Ecstatic Diviners could not judge of their own Enthusiasm, but had Judges appointed them by the Law. So it follows in that forecited place of Timaeus, pag. 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The work of such an ecstatic Enthusiast, whether he remain under this Enthusiastic furor, or not, is not to judge of those things he saw or spoke.— Hence the Law has appointed a sort of Prophets as Judges over these divine Vaticinations, which some call Vates,— which name they are worthy of, who are certain Interpreters of things uttered in Propheties. Herein also these Demoniac Diviners imitated the Jewish Prophets, amongst whom there were some who had a gift or spirit of discerning touching the Prophetic revelations of others, as 1 Cor. 12.10, Discerning of spirits. 1 Cor. 14.19, Let the other judge. 
1 Cor. 12.10.  So v. 32. which though here perhaps it may be meant of ordinary teaching; yet there was the same gift of discerning and judging extraordinary Prophets in the Jewish Church. 
The end of Divination to breed a friendship with God, and restore Natural Theology.  (6) The main end or design of this their Demoniae Divination was to bring them into a Reconciliation, and friendship with God. So Plato in his Symposium, pag. 188. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divination is to breed a friendship between God and men; because it knows those amorose impetuosities that are in men, and tend to piety or impiety. By which it appears, that the main end or design of those Natural Theologists in erecting this Demoniac mode of Divination, was to make up those defects that were in their Natural Theology; thereby to breed a reconcilement and friendship with their Gods: wherein they also affected an imitation of Divine Oracles and Propheties, whose main end was to restore lost man to a friendship with God. And thus far indeed these Demoniac Oracles attained their end, that they brought such as subjected themselves to them into a miserable compact and friendship with the Devil, their great Apollo or Soul destroying God.  
§. 8. 
The sundry kinds of Divination.  As for the sundry kinds of Divination, the Philosophers (who were sufficiently vain herein) were not yet so vain as the Poets or common Prophets: for Plato in his Timaeus, pag. 7. makes mention only of three sorts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Enthusiastic Divination. (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by sleep or dreams. (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by some disease or frenzy. (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by some Enthusiasm, properly so called. These also were the chief of the Pythagorean Divinations, and the effects of their Demon-worship; (as was before observed) wherein they affected an imitation of Divine Oracles. 
1. Divination by Dreams.  (1) As for that of Enthusiasm, we have already sufficiently opened it. (2) In their Divination by Dreams they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Onirocrites, Judge and Interpreter of Dreams, as before out of Plato. Apollonius Attalus writ of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Artemidorus after him. Diogenes Laertius reports of Diogenes the Cynic, That when he saw Physicians and Philosophers, he said, Man is the wisest of all creatures; but when he saw Interpreters of Dreams, Conjecturers, Prophets, etc. he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing is to be esteemed more vain than man. To some that were affrightned at their Dreams, he said, You consider not the things you do waking, but your imaginary dreams you curiosely examine. So that we see some of the Philosophers were not so vain and doting on Dreams as others. Yet were the Pythagoreans greatly vain in this piece of Dreaming-Divination: So Epicharmus, (alias Cous) that famous Pythagorean Philosopher, of whom Tertullian in his Book de Anima, cap. 46. speaks thus, But Epicharmus with Philochore the Athenian, amongst Divinations gave the chiefest place to Dreams. He makes mention also of Hermippus, who writ five Books of Dreams. (3) Their Divination by Diseases may take in that of Sternutation or Sneesing, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and made use of as an instrument of Divination. This mode of Divination was very ancient. Aristotle, 1. de Animal. saith, That Sternutation was an angural sign, and that the ancients esteemed it ominose. Yea Casaubon, ad Athenae, l. 2. c. 15. saith, that they received Sternutament with Adoration; because they not only thought it sacred, as Aristotle, but also a God. Thus Salmasius, among the Letters collected by Beverovicius, Quaest. Epistol. p. 31. Moreover in all good Omens or Auguries objected to them, they were wont to adore, either God himself, from whom they conceited the Omen came, or the very Omen itself, if it seemed to have any thing of Divinity. So that of Xenophon, l. 3. de Expedit. Cyr. must be understood; where it's said, That all the Soldiers having heard the Sternutation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with one impetus worshipped the God, i.e. the Sternutament which they esteemed as sacred, and God. And as Sternutation was reputed ominose among the ancient Grecians and Romans, so also among the later Jews, who were wont to say to him that sneezed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Good life be to you, i. e. God save you. If any sneezed in prayer they thought it a good Omen, as Buxtorf. synagogue. c. 5. From this Pagan Superstition of saluting such as sneezed, many Christians in the times of Papal darkness sucked in the like custom; which continues to this day in France, where generally all salute such as sneeses, and pray, God save; as if it were a thing very ominose. Thus among the Abassines in Africa, when their Negus or Emperor sneeseth, he is saluted by all throughout the City with great solemnity, such as are next him at the Court beginning first, and thence others following. More of Divination by Sternutation, see Voctius, Disputat. Part 3. p. 132. Again, the tinkling noise of the ear was by Pagans used as a medium by which they divined. Likewise the salissation or palpitation of any member called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was another mode of their Divination. Whence Melampos the Hierogrammatist his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. yet extant; and Suidas tells us that Possidonius writ his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which he expounded what the sudden motion of every Member did indicate. Isidorus, Origin. lib. 8. c. 9 acquaints us, that these Salissators were so called, because when any parts of their Members suffered a palpitation, or leaping, they foretold something prosperous or sad to happen. These three were branches of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 9 
Of Divination by Magic.  They had another kind of Divination strictly called Magic, which was, as they say, the Invention of the Persians, (whence their wisemen were called Magis) wherein the Pythagoreans and other Philosophers were not a little versed; of which Suidas gives this account: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Magic truly is the Invocation of the Demons, those benefactors, for the procuring of some good; such were the Predictions of Apollonius Tyanaeus. 
Apollonius Tyanaeus his Magic and Demon-Doctrines, a type and forerunner of Antichrist, and his Saint-worship.  Whereby we are informed that Magic was a part of the Demon-worship; which as its supposed, Pythagoras brought into Grece. That the Pythagoreans were generally exercised in Magic is a common opinion. And this Apollonius Tyanaeus, whom Suidas here brings in for a famous Magician, was indeed of the Pythagorean Sect, who by his Magic and Sorcery produced many lying wonders; for which he was greatly extolled by the Pythagorising Platonistes, Porphyry and others; who endeavoured to equalise him with Christ in point of Miracles and Divine (or rather Diabolic) Predictions; thereby to cast a disgrace upon the Christians Redeemer and Religion, in order to the advancement of their own Natural Theology or Metaphysics. We have the Life of this Apollonius Tyanaeus writ by Philostratus, by which it is apparent that all his Predictions and lying wonders were wrought by commerce with the Devil, who was the Philosopher's great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon or Diviner. Philostratus having, Chap. 1. shown how much Apollonius affected an imitation of Pythagoras, proceeds Chap. 2. to vindicate him from the Imputation of Magic. They do, saith he, unjustly condemn Apollonius, who foresaw and foretold many things, as guilty of this crime; as if they should accuse Socrates, who foreknew many things by his Daemon; or Anaxagoras, who knew many things before they happened, etc. Thence he goes on to give us the History of his Life, and the many Miracles he did. Hierocles out of this History of Philostratus, equaliseth this Apollonius, in point of Miracles wrought, to Christ. Eusebius answers Hierocles, and demonstrates, that all Apollonius' Miracles were but Lying wonders, or Magic Delusions, wrought by Diabolic Inspirations. Grotius relates, That there was a statue of his that spoke, being inspired by some Diabolic spirit, but that his mouth was soon stopped by the power of Christ, and the preaching of the Gospel. More, in his Mystery of Godliness, B. 5. C. 7. proves, That there is nothing in the History of Apollonius that can answer to Christ's Resurrection, etc. It is evident that all his Prophetic Predictions were but Satanic Delusions. Thus Grotius understands that Prophetic prediction of Paul, 1 Tim. 4.1, 
1 Tim. 4.1.  And the Doctrines of Devils, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He mainly points out (says Grotius) the Pythagoreans; of whom the chief were Magis, Magicians, and had commerce with Devils or Demons. Amongst those Apollonius Tyanaeus was very famous, who is here in a more particular manner denoted: for he came to Ephesus while Timothy yet lived. Though I can no way fall in with Grotius' design, to interpret this (as he does others) Scripture chief of Apollonius Tyanaeus' Magic Art, thereby to secure Antichrist's Doctrines from the dints of this Prediction; yet thus far I think we may safely allow him, that this Text may have some eye or regard to Apollonius Tyanaeus, and other Pythagorean Philosophers, who were the inventors and promotors of these Doctrines of Demons here mentioned, and so counter-christs', or Pagan-Antichrists; and therefore be consequence, great promotors of those Antichristian Demons and Doctrines, which (by means of their Philosophy foisted into the Christian Church by the Pythagorising Gnostics) were now gendering. Thus may we safely understand this (and so other) Scriptures of the Pythagorean Demons, and particularly of Apollonius Tyanaeus, (who was famous in that Sect) as he was a Type and forerunner of Antichrist, by reason of his Pythagorean Doctrines of Demons, and Magic Art, which Antichrist atterward was to reassume and practise, according to that 2 Thes 2.9, 
2 Thes. 2.9.  Lying-wonders. And indeed all Antichrist's Lying-wonders, all his Saints, and Saint-worship, are but Satanic imitamen of the Pythagorean Daemon Doctrines, Worship and Magic; as hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. So that we may well allow this Text a collateral typic regard to the Pythagoreans, though its principal eye be on Antichrist and his Demon-Doctrines, as Mede observes.  
§. 10. 
Divination 1. by Birds.  There were many other kinds of Satanic Divination, more ordinary and usual amongst the Priests and vulgar people. As (1) Divination by Birds, which principally belonged to the Augurs: who were so called by the Romans, as if one should say Avi-geres, because they observed what the Birds did. Now this Bird-Divination was gathered chief by the flying, or singing of Birds. To which also we may refer their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divination by Cocks, 
2. From four fourfooted Bestes.  etc. (2) They had also their Divinations from fourfooted Bestes, specially their Sacrifices, which belonged to their Aruspices; who were so called from arras inspiciendo, beholding the entrails of the Sacrifice on the Altar. The first inventor of this kind of Divination was, as 'tis said, Tages. There was in like manner matter of Divination taken from the meeting of fourfooted Bestes; also from the neighing of Horses; but specially from any monstrose production in nature, or preternatural motion; as if there were any excess or defect in Nature. 
3. From Men.  (3) They had likewise their Divinations from Men, as from the lineaments of the Body; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chiromantie, from the Hand: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Physiognomy from the Face; also from meeting of Men, from casualties at Festes, and from dead persons, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Necromantie. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 2. speaks thus of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chiromantie, etc. There is no doubt to be made but this Art was most ancient, and had its rise in the East, where that mad study of Astrology flourished. For when they perceived the Influences of the Heavens on these Inferiors, it remained that they shown the convenance of these Inferiors with the Superiors. Therefore making Man a little World, they reduced each of his parts to the Celestial lineaments. Whence sprang that Discipline called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they distributed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
4. From Herbs.  (4) They had their Divinations from Plants, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
5. From Inanimates.  practised by Witches. (5) They had their Divinations from Inanimates; 
[1] From Natural Elements, Water, Earth, Fire.  as [1] from the Elements: from Water, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Numa, to prove that his Sacred Constitutions came from the Gods, was compelled to make an Hydromantie, affirming that he saw in the Water the Images of the Gods, or rather the Devils, from whom he received his Constitutions. And Caesar says, there were Women in Germany, who divined from the course and noise of Waters. They had also their Divination from the Earth, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Fire called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Smoke called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [2] They had also their Divinations from Celestial Bodies; 
[2] From Celestial Bodies, Stars, Meteors, etc.  from the Stars called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Astrology; wherein the Chaldeans were much versed: from Thunder and Lightning, etc. [3] They had likewise their Divinations from things Artificial, as (1) from Glasses; which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
[3] From things Artificial.  (2) From Sieves, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (3) From Keys, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (4) From Axes, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (5) From Rings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (6) From Phials, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: (7) From Meal, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (8) From a Basin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (9) From Lots, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of these sundry kinds of Divination, see more Lud. Vives, in August. de Civit. l. 7. c. 35. Vossius de Philosophia, p. 1. c. 22. and our Philosoph. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Sect. 9 §. 8. So monstrose and Hellbred was the Ethnic Divination and Natural Theology.   

CHAP. IU. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its Form and Proprieties.  
The Corruption of Philosophy from 1. It's Symbolic Form, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 5, 6, 7, 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the origine of the Jewish Cabala, 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tit. 1.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. From its formal Attributes. (1) Its deficience as to truth, and its clear discovery. (2) It was only Traditional, Equivocal, and Artificial, not univocal, Real, and Intuitive. It contemplated only Pictures, not native Ideas of things. Col. 2.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 2.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a show, etc. (3) 'Twas only General, not Particular and Experimental. (4) It was cloudy and obscure, not Evident and Divinct. Heb 11.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. either Natural or Philosophic. (5) 'Twas only Uncertain and Opiniative; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Faith is 1 Cor. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 3.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col. 2.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (6) 'Twas not truly Dianoetic or discursive, but Paralogistic. (7) 'Twas not truly Noetic or Intelligent of highest Principes. (8) 'twas defective as to Prudence; viz. [1] Soul-reflexion. [2] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [3] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [4] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [5] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (9) 'Twas not Transformative, 2 Cor. 3.18. Changed. The Philosophers falsely pretended to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 1. 
The Corruption of Philosophy from its Symbolic form or mode.  WE have hitherto endeavoured a Demonstration of the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its original Causes and Mater, both Natural, Moral, and Supernatural: We now proceed to make good and strengthen the said Demonstration from the Consideration of that Vanity which attended the formal nature and proprieties of the same. And herein we shall begin with the Pythagorean, which was the source and most principal part of all the Grecian Philosophy; yea, that which had the most cognation with, and ressemblance of the sacred fountains from whence it was, though by very corrupt derivations at first traduced. So that by proving the vanity of the Pythagorean Philosophy, which was the most noble, and so the measure of all the rest, our Conclusion will hold much more true of the other Parts and Sects. The Form or Mode of Philosophising (as we have frequently observed) amongst the Pythagoreans was Symbolic and Enigmatic: yea indeed this was the usual mode of Philosophising amongst the Ancients before Aristotle's time, as he himself confesseth; which we no way doubt they took up in imitation of the Jewish Church; as it's well observed by Clemens Alexandr. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The ancient mode of Philosophising was 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' 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 affords the fantasy most pleasant and lively colours or images of truth; yet was it not without much vanity and corruption as made use of by those ancient Philosophers, both Pythagoreans and others. 
The origine of Symbolic Philosophy and its vanity.  And the great principe on which this Symbolic mode of Philosophising was founded, was this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Things sensible are but Imitamen of things intelligible. i e. There is nothing in this inferior sensible world, but doth ressemble something in the superior Intelligible world: sensible forms 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 form, corporal image or shadow, whereby Divine Truths were set forth: wherein none abounded more than the Jewish Church, which was the chief seat of all Symbolic Wisdom. Hence therefore those Grecians derived either immediately or mediately the chief of their Symbolic learning, both as to matter and form: But not understanding the true mind and scope of these Jewish Symbolic Mysteries, they at first amused themselves in contemplating the shell, cabinet, or bone only, without ever attaining unto the kernel, jewel, or marrow of Divine Truths. Thence having satiated their fantasies, and glutted their curiosity in their dreaming contemplations of those Jewish Symbols, without any real notion of those Truths which were wrapped up therein, they coin an infinity of fables or false images, which they mix with those Jewish Traditions they met with in their travels; and herein their fantasies (which are the greatest Apes in the world) were so skilful and unwearied, as that they soon rendered the whole body of their Symbolic Philosophy cloudy, dark, vain and monstrose; no way like its original Idea in the Jewish Church. This Grecian itch and humour of coining, fables (not for the illustration, but to the darkening of truth) the Jews also when they came under the Grecian Monarchy, sucked in to the prejudice of their Religion; wherein they were in like manner followed by those carnal Gospelers the Pythagorising Gnostics in the Christian Church: and all 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 endeavoured, 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 Timothy resided there. Also there were many Jews at Ephesus, who in this faculty of coining Fables and Wonders fully jumped with the Pythagoreans; and both joining their forces had a mighty influence on those many Gnostic Antichristian Fables, which creeped into the Christians Theology. Whence we see the ground why Paul in both his Epistles to Timothy, gives such severe censures of and cautions against this Pythagorising Jewish humour of Fable-framing Philosophy; 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 still 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 Timothy 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 mayst 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 mystery. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 understands 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 (says he) of such as were converted from Judaisme to Christianisme, and mixed Jewish Fables with Christianity, as it appears by what follows, also by Tit. 1.14, etc. 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 beasts, and with Lilith, with the Demons that sprang thence; of Behemoth and Leviathan; of the Pre-existence of Souls before the Body; 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 man's being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which also Plato asserted; likewise the opinion of the Souls Pre-existence; to which we might add that of the Metempseuchosis, which the Jews also, together with the Pythagoreans and Platonistes asserted. It follows: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and endless Genealogies. These Genealogies the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they supposed successive Productions and Emanations one after another. So Philo Judaeus discourseth much of such Genealogies. The origine of these fabulose Genealogies begun with the first Poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, etc. Pherecydes also had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Pythagoreans after him filled up much of their Theology with such fictitious Genealogies, whom the Jews followed herein, as also the Gnostics; the most of whose Divinity consisted of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Conjunctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joining with another begets a third; whence sprang their Aeones or fabulose Gods. So Grotius here: They feigned Emanations and Productions of one from the other: for which they would seem more learned than others, and so despised other Christians as more rude; whence they assumed the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gnostics. I do not conceive that they were called Gnostics in the Apostles times, but in the following Age, partly from their own Pretensions to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. an high speculative, mystic knowledge; and partly from those Characters which are given them in Scripture, as hereafter. Indeed the whole of their Theology seems to have consisted only of some mystic Fables and Genealogies, borrowed from the Pythagorean Philosophy and Cabalistic Traditions. It follows: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which minister questions rather. i e. These Pythagorean Jewish Fables, and Genealogies, taken up by these carnal Gnostics, produce nothing but vain Questions, which the Rabbins call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than edification of God in faith. As if he had said, these Pythagorising Gnostics pretend to make use of these their Mystic Fables and Genealogies, as explications of Evangelic Dispensations and Mysteries; but indeed they effect nothing less; for the Oeconomie of the Gospel holds forth a plain and simple way of believing in Christ, 
Vers. 5.  without such fabulose narrations. So v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Now the end of the Commandment is Love. i.e. The scope and drift of our Gospel is Divine Love; whereas their pretended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or fabulose Speculations tend only to foment endless disputes and strises about words. Then our Apostle proceeds to give us the true Genealogy of Divine Love, in opposition to the fabulose Genealogies of those Pythagorising Gnostics: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of a pure hears, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned. Paul (saith Grotius) gives us a short but very useful Genealogy. The Pythagoreans, and Jews after them, make much ado about the Genealogies of Virtues. Philo Judaeus (who did greatly Pythagorise) turns much of the History of the Old Testament into Allegoric Genealogies of Virtues, etc. The Gnostics followed in the same paths: Paul here gives us an easy and familiar Genealogy of true Christian Love, in opposition to all their Mystic Fables, which tended only to turn them aside to vain janglings. So v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, From which some having swarved have turned aside to vain jangling. 
Ver. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily notes such an one as unhappily errs from his scope or mark: Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, either properly or figuratively, not to reach the mark. These Pythagorising Gnostics aimed at high Speculation and Mystic Notions, but they reached not their mark or end, but fell into a vain contention and strife about words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were such as busied themselves only in vain disputes, as Tit. 1.10. or fabulose narrations, as these Gnostics here, who would fain pass for some grand Sophists or Teachers. So v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ver. 7.  desiring to be teachers of the Law. That first notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very emphatic, denoting here an ardent desire and ambitiose affectation of a name and repute for Doctors of the Law. There were (says Grotius) many Jews at Ephesus, some of whom embraced Christianity, but in show only, retaining much of Judaisme. Amongst their Jewish Fables they asserted a Colloque of the Law with God before the Creation of the World; they would that the World should have been made for the Law. Thus fabulose and vain were these Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics, who delighted themselves in nothing more than in unintelligible fables. So it follows: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, understanding neither what they say, neither whereof they affirm: i. e. they wholly give up themselves to fabulose Genealogies and Mystic Traditions, which they neither understand, nor yet can affirm any thing positively of, as Tit. 3.8. which Fables are directly opposite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vers. 10. as also to that great Evangelic Cabala or Divine Tradition touching Christ, v. 15, This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, 
1 Tim. 1.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Christ came into the world to save sinners, whereof I am chief. Our Apostle had in ver. 4. given a caution against those Pythagorean Cabalistic Fables and Genealogies, which the carnal Gnostics had sucked in, to the great prejudice of Evangelic Mysteries: in this v. 15. he gives them a Divine Cabala (in opposition to their fabulose Cabala, ver. 4.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and worthy of all acceptation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cabala, unto which our Apostle seems here to allude, as Paulus Fagius has observed on Deut. 5.27. Our Apostle, says he, alludes to that Cabalistic mode: as if he had said, If any affect to hear a Cabala, I will show unto him the true certain and undouted Cabala, which is no other than this, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, etc. 
The origine of the Jewish Cabala.  For the more full explication hereof, we must know that the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Monarchy, imbibed together with many other gross corruptions this mythologic fabulose mode of Philosophising, which was so commun amongst the Grecian Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, and indeed proved the bane of the Jewish Religion, as we shall show hereafter. For look as Pagan Philosophy was in its origine but a corrupt Imitamen of Sacred History and Mysteries, so the great corruptions which crept into the Jewish Church after the Babylonian Captivity, had their foundation in some corrupt Imitation of Pagan Philosophy; amongst which this of their Jewish Cabala was one of the worst. For these vain Jews growing weary of the plain and familiar simplicity of Sacred Revelations, fall in love with that Mythologic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Mystic kind of Philosophising, which they observed amongst the Grecians, specially the Pythagoreans. This fabulose and Mystic mode of Philosophising they make use of in their Commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Cabala, i.e. a reverential reception of their Rabbis Traditions: wherein they grew so vain and fabulose, that there was not the most plain, naked, and Historic Text, but they would bring it under some Cabalistic, Enigmatic or Mystic sense: which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hidden sense, which must be curiosely searched into. Whence it grew into a common saying amongst these Cabalists, That there was no Scripture without its Cabalistic or Mystic sense. These Pythagorising Cabalists were at first followed by the licentiose Gnostics, whose whole design was to compose a flesh-pleasing Theology out of Pythagorean and Jewish Dogmes and Fables, which were afterward greedily received by Antichrist and his Adherents; who glory much in their Mystic, or rather fabulose sense and interpretation of Scriptures. Yea it cannot be denied but that some of the Fathers, specially Origen (who being of the Alexandrian School did much Pythagorise) were too guilty of mixing their Fables, Allegories, or Mystic sense with Divine Revelations. All this the Spirit of God foresaw; and therefore he abounds the more in his Divine Cautions against such Pythagoric, Cabalistic, Mystic and fabulose mixtures in sacred Theology. 
1 Tim. 4.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  We find the like sacred premonition, 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But refuse profane and old wives fables. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an old woman, signifies anile, or absurd, ridiculose. He understands, saith Grotius, the doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Metempseuchose or Transmigration of Souls from one body to another, which is the foundation of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abstinence. These Fables are first profane, because they are bottomed on no Divine Revelation; thence they are old wives fables, i. e. absurd, like such as old wives recite to Children. That this fable of the Metempseuchose, which Grotius conceives to be here understood, was indeed of Pythagorean extract, has been at large proved. This and other Fables these Pythagorising Gnostics made the foundation of their Abstinences, wherein they were afterward followed by Antichrist, whose Doctrines of Demons were but one great fable or lie; which the Apostle here dehortes all Christians from, under the name of Timothy, whom he exhortes rather to exercise himself to Godliness: But exercise thyself rather to Godliness. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly signifies to exercise in the Gymnade. It follows, v. 8, 9, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Of which see hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. S. 3. §. 10. Our Apostle gives the like exhortation to Titus, whom he left in Crete to preserve those Churches from the leven of the Jewish and Gnostic infusions. So Tit. 1.14, Not giving heed to Jewish fables: 
Tit. 1.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  There were in Crete many Jews, who had sucked in this Grecian humour of coining Fables. They had their Fables concerning Behemoth, Leviathan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Metempseuchosis; also of their Messiah his being a temporal Monarch, his War with Gog and Magog, etc. which they took up in imitation of the Grecian Fables. By all this we see how much Vanity and Corruption ensued upon that Mythologic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Mystic mode of Philosophising, which was at first taken up, in imitation of Sacred Oracles, by the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the Grecians derived it; and from these the Jewish Cabalists, after their subjection to the Grecian Monarchy, brought it back again and mixed it with their Divine Oracles and Mysteries, to the great prejudice of their Religion, as also of the Christian: for the Pythagorising Judaising Gnostics, to save themselves from persecution, did herein symbolise both with the Jews and Grecians, as also Antichrist and all his adherents, who have been as fruitful in fabulose mystic Theologie, as the Grecians, Jews, or Gnostics ever were.  
§. 2. Having demonstrated the Vanity and Corruption of Philosophy, 
The Vanity of Philosophy in regard of its Proprieties.  specially Symbolic, from its form or mode, we now proceed to demonstrate the same from its Proprieties. And herein we shall only mention such Proprieties, as the Philosophers themselves have made essential to true Philosophy; showing how defective, yea corrupt their Philosophy was in regard of those very Attributes, which they themselves constituted as essential thereto. 
1. The desicience of Philosophy as to truth.  For, 1. The Philosophers generally supposed that Truth was an essential ingredient, yea the spirit of all Philosophy. This Plato largely proves, Repub. 6. pag. 485, etc. where he affirms, That there could not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any thing more proper to Wisdom than Truth; whence he adds, that it was impossible that the same nature should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Philosopher and yet a lover of falsehood. That truth is an essential Attribute, yea indeed the principal end of all true Philosophy, see Philosoph. General. P. 2. l. 3. c. 1. Sect. 3. §. 1. Now that all the Pagan Philosophy was greatly defective, and thence vain in regard of this Propriety, is evident in that it was not only for a great part fabulose and false, but wholly shadowy and conjectural only. 
1. It was for the most part false.  (1) That a great part of the Ethnic Philosophy was fabulose and false, has been already sufficiently demonstrated from its effential parts both Mater and Form, namely that all Physic Speculations about the origine of the Universe, its first Mater, Form, and Privation, etc. were but fabulose, and for the most part false Traditions about the first Creation: that their Ethics were but false, or at best imperfect Ideas of Virtues: that their Politics were but carnal, and so false Reasons of State; and therefore styled in the Scripture, trumpery, deceit and lies, as Psal. 119.113, 118, 128, 163. That the whole of their Theology, as to their Doctrine of Demons, etc. was most corrupt and Idolatry. We have all summed up, Rom. 1.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. a drossy, spurious, reprobate mind or judgement. 
2. Philosophy but a night-day.  (2) That the whole of Pagan Philosophy was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (according to the Platonic notion) a cloudy dark nocturne Philosophy, is most apparent; whence it also follows, that it had little of truth in it: for all true knowledge supposeth ideal existence or in-being of the Object in the Understanding; also that this existence, which the Object has in us, be agreeable to the existence it has in itself, otherwise our conceptions of it cannot be said to be true. For what is knowledge but the Imitamen, Idea, or Image of a thing impressed on the Mind? how then can any have a true knowledge of a thing, unless the subjective Idea in his mind exactly answer to the objective Idea of the thing in itself? Yea, he that Philosophiseth on a thing truly, must have in his formal conceptions the latitude, and other dimensions of the thing; also its Causes, Proprieties, Qualities, Operations and natural effects, all which suppose the inherence of the thing in the mind, (not Physically, but) in its ideal form or image, as Digby has at large proved, in his discourse of the Soul. Now how vastly short these poor blind Philosophers came of such true ideas and notions of things is easy to guess by their own Confessions. Plato ingenuously confesseth, That all men did but as it were dream in their contemplations and notions of things: And this dreaming Philosophy he thus describeth, Repub. 5. p. 476. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To dream, is when a man counts that which is like to another, not like, but the same with that other, to which it is like. So again, says he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Men curiose to hear and see are much taken with beautiful, words and colours, and figures, and whatsoever proceedeth hence: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but it is impossible for the mind of such to see and embrace the nature of beauty itself, (he means God.) Then he adds, That such as judge of good things, but yet cannot judge of good itself, or the first Beauty, can be said only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to live in a sleep or dream. Such he calls, pag. 480. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lovers of opinion rather than lovers of wisdom; which is a true character of all the Philosophers. The like Plato adds, Repub. 7. pag. 534. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Such an one knoweth not either good itself, or any other good; but if he hath attained to some shadow of good, it is rather in opinion than certain knowledge: and thence the life which he now leads is as it were sleepy and buried in the vain Images of Dreams, until he awake; and so descends into Hell, there to take an eternal nap. I grant Plato in this and the forementioned citations speaks not universally of all Philosophers, but only of some who rested satisfied in the contemplation of some lower shadows, pictures, or reflections of good, but contemplated not the supreme original Good, Beauty itself, or God: But yet upon the supposition of his Position, viz. That all true Philosophy leads men unto and terminates on God, the knowledge, love and imitation of him, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Beauty and Good itself; this, I say, being granted, (as it is eternally true) hence our assertion will necessarily follow, that the wisest of these blind Philosophers were indeed but Dreamers, void of all true practic knowledge of God. But will you hear Plato speaking Categorically and universally of the whole mass of Mankind plunged in Cimmerian darkness? Consult then what he lays down in his Repub. 7. pag. 514. Let us suppose (says he according to his Allegoric mode) a Subterraneous habitation in the fashion of a Den, whose entrance lies open at a great distance; in which there are men even from their infance bound neck and heels together, lying on the ground, and beholding nothing but what lies before them, without being able to turn their heads: Let there be likewise a fire kindled over head behind their backs afar off: Let there be also a way made betwixt the persons bound and the fire, for men to pass up and down, and a wall made some distance from the way, and over-topping it: Then let men walk up and down, carrying statues and vessels of all sorts, sometimes talking, sometimes silent: Hence let their some shadows of the shining fire fall upon the opposite part of the Den; neither let these men behold any thing save these shadows: without doubt they will think these shadows to be the things themselves, and the truth of the very things: they will think also the words of the men walking over head to be the words of these shadows. Such is the state of these men lying bound in darkness: The Den is this World in which we men lie prostrate on the ground bound by chains of native ignorance, so that we cannot turn our heads about, whence we cannot contemplate the true light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Being, [i. e. God] or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of other Being's; but we can see only the shadows of things, which yet we guests are the things themselves; and thus we accommodate our words, which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the symbols of things, etc. Thus Plato ingenuously acknowledgeth man's native ignorance, in words worthy of a Christian. He says p. 533. that Human nature is fallen into a gulf of darkness and ignorance: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The eye of the soul is immersed in the barbaric mire of Ignorance. Again he tells us, Rep. 7. p. 521. how the Soul may be delivered from these chains of native ignorance, and that his Philosophy was intended for this use: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To be is the knowledge of the reduction of the Soul from its night-day (or ignorance) to the true knowledge of Being. (or God.) This knowledge of God he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Idea of the chiefest Good: also the Contemplation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of being, not according to opinion, but according to essence. This he terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, true Philosophy; which he and all those of his Tribe were void of. For albeit they pretended to some Metaphysic Contemplations touching the first Being, yet that they were without any true Idea of God, and so without true Philosophy, I think is evident by what has been said. But the Scripture speaks more fully of the falsehood and vanity of Pagan Philosophy: so in that famous Text, Col. 2.8, Philosophy and vain deceit; i.e. as Grotius, vain and deceitful Philosophy. So 1 Tim. 6.20, 
1 Tim. 6.20.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of false knowledge; which Grotius understands of the Pythagorising Gnostics, their Philosophic infusions. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lie, signifies primarily falsely so called, assuming a name not belonging to it, or, not answering its name. These Pythagorising wanton Gnostics affected the name of Mysterious science, or knowledge; they would fain pass for knowing men, such as had a deep insight into the most abstruse Mysteries: But Paul assures us, That all their Mystic science was but falsely termed such: their spinose and argute questions were but frivolous and vain, imbibed from the Pythagorean source, and no way deserving the name of true science. So Clemens Alexandr. applying this Scripture to the Gnostics, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as pride and arrogant opinion spoiled Philosophy, so false knowledge, knowledge, etc. With which that of Plato suits well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I think nothing has done so much hurt to man as false opinion. To all which we may add that of our Lord, Luk. 11.35, Take heed that the light which is in thee be not darkness; i.e. content not thyself with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a dark, spurious, false night-Philosophie, etc.  
§. 3. A second Propriety of true Philosophy, according to the Philosophers themselves, 
2. Propriety of vain Philosophy, that it is only Traditional, Equivocal and Artificial, not Intuitive and native.  is that it be a contemplation of things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only by phantasms or imaginations, but according to the nature or essence of the things themselves: i e. all true Philosophy gives a natural or native Idea of things; it is substantial, solid, real, intuitive knowledge. But now it's apparent, that Pagan Philosophy was but artificial imitamen, traditional emty notions, and aerial speculations about the pictures of things; they never saw nor yet understood the things themselves, more than by some broken corrupt Tradition. And surely this gives us a great demonstration of its vanity. We have sufficiently proved, that all Pagan Philosophy was no other than traditional imperfect corrupt Imitamen of Jewish Revelations and wisdom. Those blind Philosophers had no substantial, real, native, intuitive Contemplation of those things about which they Philosophised; they could obtain no more than some artificial pictures, or rather shadows only of the first principes of Nature, of God, and of other Divine Mysteries, which were conveyed to them by some broken oriental Jewish Traditions; these did much please their fantasies, (as pictures do Children) but gave them no solid, real, intuitive notices or Ideas of those Divine things they related to. Now we know Pictures or artificial Images give but equivocal, 
Pagan Philosophy but an equivocal picture, not an univocal image or idea of truth.  not univocal or natural representations. All know what a vast difference there is betwixt a real substantial intuitive view of the Sun in the Firmament, and the mere artificial equivocal Contemplation of its picture on a Signpost: or betwixt the view of a Country with our own eyes, and the viewing of it in a Map, or by Tradition: such is the difference betwixt the Mimic, Traditional, Artificial Philosophy of the Pagans, and the real, substantial, native, univocal Wisdom vouchsafed the Jewish Church. That all Pagan Philosophy was but an equivocal image, an artificial picture, or rather but an imperfect dark traditional shadow of Divine Wisdom and Philosophy, may be easily gathered by their own concessions: so Plato, Repub. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mimes or imitators make only phantasms or pictures, not things. This he more fully explicates elsewhere, telling us, That imitation is the third degree from truth; for it considers not the things themselves, but their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idols or pictures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, making phantasms of thing. Again, Repub. 10. he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Mime will neither know nor think aright of those things he imitates as to good or evil. This he does more fully explain in what follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Imitator knows nothing worthy of reason about those things he imitates; but imitation is but a kind of jest or play, not a serious study. This he proves in that all imitation is employed only in drawing shadows of things, it reacheth not the things themselves. This indeed is an exact character of Pagan Philosophy, which was but an artificial imitation of, or shadow reflected from Jewish Wisdom and Mysteries. These Gentile Philosophers, the most sharp-sighted of them, saw those Divine Mysteries they so boldly Philosophised on in a Mimic broken glass, or abstract Idea only, conveyed to them by some imperfect corrupt Tradition; they had not any real intuitive vision or contemplation of the things themselves in their own native Idea, Proprieties and Effects. Thus much is acknowleged by Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 476. where speaking of such as were very curiose to hear sweet words, and contemplate beautiful colours and figures, he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is impossible for the reason of such intuitively to behold and embrace the nature of beauty itself. This which he applies to particulars is universally applicable to the whole tribe of Pagan Philosophers, who received sweet sounds, and saw some beautiful colours, figures, and pictures of Divine things in the broken glass or abstract of Jewish Tradition, but never had an intuitive contemplation of those Divine Mysteries shining in their own real, native, gloriose Ideas on the glass of Sacred Revelation in the Jewish Church. Thus much indeed seems acknowleged by Plato himself in the aforesaid place, Repub. 5. pag. 476. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Are there not very few if any who are able to know and contemplate beauty itself, [i.e. God] according to himself? i.e. intuitively. Whence he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Is not this therefore true knowledge, to contemplate the first Being in his native perfections, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being, under this reduplication? Again, Repub. 5. pag. 480. Plato concludes thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Such therefore as have embraced this singular self-Being, are to be called Philosophers, not Opiniators, or lovers of opinion. i e. None deserve the name of Philosophers, but such as have had a real intuition and contemplation of God; all others are but lovers of phantasms, pictures, or opinions. And Plato in his Philebus, pag. 40, gives us a more particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or discrimination of such Philosophers as had this intuitive, real knowledge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Virtuose persons have for the most part true ideas or images engraven on their minds, because they are Theophilists, or beloved of God, but wicked men have for the most part the contrary. These (as he elsewhere adds) contemplate only beautiful colours and pictures, not beauty itself. And if so, we may certainly conclude, that there was not one of those Heathen Philosophers that was truly such as they pretended to be; for they were all wicked men, and therefore could not have a real, native, intuitive contemplation of God, who is Beauty itself, which they make to be essential to all true genuine Philosophy. 
Col. 2.18.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Thus much also our Apostle, in his discourse of that vain Pythagorean Philosophy, which was sucked in by the Gnostics, Col. 2.18, 23. v. 18. he speaks of their intruding into things they had not seen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, proudly invading or intruding into things beyond their reach; as before, c. 1. §. 3. i.e. They pretended to an intuitive knowledge of Angels, etc. but Paul gives a true character of all their Philosophy, v. 23. which things have indeed a show of wisdom; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. of some excellent Philosophic Contemplations, or sublime notions, which seem rather to be dropped from Heaven than invented by men: but all this, says our Apostle, is but a show. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. saith Erasmus, a species or form, as 'tis opposed to a thing or substance; they had only a picture and artificial form of wisdom, or rather a false opinion, or apparent shadow, not a real substantial intuitive contemplation of things. This our Apostle affirms universally of the Jewish wisdom or Philosophy in its degenerate state, 
Rom. 2.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Rom. 2.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a form of knowledge. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the form of a thing that is beheld; and being translated to the mind it signifies the impressing or forming of an idea of the thing thereon; but here it seems to import only an abstract form, or artificial scheme, and picture of truth; so Oecumenius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, manifesting that they had not the true knowledge and godliness, but an artificial image; for they had the scheme of truth, not the substance. Thence Hesychius expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an artificial scheme; and Phavorinus, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a feigned scheme, form, or picture of true knowledge; how much short were the blind Pagans of any real, solid, substantial knowledge of things Divine? Is not this proper only to the true Church and people of God? Thence it's said, Prov. 2.7, 
Prov. 2, 7.  He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies primarily, that which really is essence, substance; thence it notes real, solid, and substantial wisdom, such as carries with it an essential true Idea of the thing known; which as to things Divine is proper only to the real Christian. The same we find, Prov. 3.21, Keep sound wisdom.  
§. 4. Hence it follows, that all Pagan Philosophy is only universal and general, not particular and experimental; 
3. Pagan Philosophy vain; because only general, not particular and experimental.  which gives us a farther demonstration of its imperfection and vanity, specially as to Morals and Metaphysics. For Aristotle rightly informs us, that universal knowledge in matters of practice is vain, but particular more true. So Aristot. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In Practic discourses universals are more vain, but particulars more true; for Actions are about singulars. This the Civilian has well observed: Then only (as Aristotle says) we know any thing, when its parts are known and considered by us. i e. When its Causes, Effects, Adjuncts, Qualities and Parts are apprehended by us. And it is a received opinion in the Schools, That to know a thing in universal, as to the thing known, is more imperfect than to know it in particular; though an universal knowledge, as to the medium of knowing, be more perfect than a particular. Now this was the case of all those Pagan Philosophers, they had only some General Ideas, or lose broken notices of those things they discoursed of; they had not any particular apprehension of the Parts, Qualities, Causes, Influences, and Effects of things, specially such as depended on Divine Revelation: They had only some general rumours, or traditional notions of God, his Divine Perfections, Operations and Effects of Providence; they had only some traditional fragments of the first Origine of the Universe, the state of Innocence, the Fall of Man, etc. but all their Philosophising on, or notions of these things were only general, and so very imperfect and vain. Yet the main of their vanity in this regard lay not so much in Naturals as in Morals and Supernaturals: For it cannot be denied, but that many of the Pagan Philosophers had very particular, experimental, and curiose Contemplations about Natural things; they were very exact in anatomising the bowels of Nature, and gathering up a Systeme of Natural Experiments, which is the choicest part of Natural Philosophy, as it appears by Aristotle's excellent History of Animals, and Theophrastus his Discourse of Plants; wherein they have excelled most of this later age. But yet as to Ethics and Metaphysics their Philosophy was only traditional, general, and notional, not particular and experimental; and therefore very vain and useless. This also may be demonstrated out of Plato's own Concessions; for in his Theaetetus he lays down this as his opinion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It seems to me, that he who knows any thing has a sensate cognition of what he knows; for, as it now appears, science is nothing else than sensation, or a particular experimental feeling knowledge. So Timaeus, pag. 103. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wisdom is a good sense of soul. So Plato in his Gorgias, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Experience makes our life to pass away according to rules of art, but Inexperience casually. Again he adds, That an experimental Philosopher only can judge prudently of things; for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, persons unexperienced of the truth and other matters, have no sound opinions of pleasure and sorrow. Now that none of these blind Philosophers had this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good sensation, or experimental particular knowledge of good and evil, pleasure or sorrow, is most evident; because they had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a good habitude of soul, which they themselves make essentially requisite to this spiritual good sensation or experimental Philosophy. So Aristotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A virtuose man judgeth truly of what is good, but a wicked man casually: as it is in bodies, such as are well-disposed can judge truly of things that are wholesome, or conducing to health; but those who are sick, otherwise; for to these bitter and sweet have the same relish. This indeed was the very case of all these Pagan Philosophers, they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an i'll habitude of soul; and so were void of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, right sensation, or experimental knowledge; they had not those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 5.14. which rendered all their Morals and Metaphysics vain.  
§. 5. Whence it follows, That all Pagan Philosophy is but cloudy, obscure, and confused, not evident, clear, and distinct: 
4. Pagan Philosophy cloudy and confused, not evident and distinct.  for it is a common and true maxim, that in Vniversals and Generals there lies much Ambiguity, Obscurity, and Confusion; all clear, evident, distinct judgement proceeds from the consideration of particulars. And that the evident, clear, distinct contemplation of things is essential to all genuine Philosophy may be easily gathered from the Philosophers themselves, their own acknowlegements. Plato, Epinom. pag. 976. makes mention of an admirable faculty of discerning, which belongs to a Philosopher; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Which many call nature rather than wisdom; and it is conversant in this, that a man does with facility and dexterity learn a thing, and having learned it, commit it to a faithful and firm memory, and recals it with celerity as occasion serves. This some call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wisdom; others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nature; others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sagacity of nature. This natural Sagacity is thus described, Platon. definite. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sagacity is a good disposition of soul, whereby he that has it is enabled to discern what becomes every one; or more briefly in what follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an acumen of judgement. This, says Plato Repub. 2. pag. 376. Dogs are in some sense endowed with, which have a natural sagacity to discern their friend from their foe, only by the countenance. This Repub. 7 pag. 537. he makes a character of his Logician, that he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that can accurately look into and distinguish things. And in his Repub. 9 he makes a Philosopher to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a diacritic or very critic instrument; for look as the eye is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an accurate critic of bodies, such should the Philosopher's mind be of good and evil. He tells us also in the same Repub. 9 whence this critic judgement springs, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a critic judgement is made by Experience and Prudence, and Reason or Discourse. And Seneca Epist. 71. tells us, That Socrates, who reduced all Philosophy to Morals, affirmed, that this was the highest wisdom; to distinguish betwixt good and evil. By all which it is evident how little of true wisdom these Pagan Philosophers had: For how could they distinguish aright betwixt Good and Evil without spiritual senses exercised, as Heb. 5.15? This Intellectual Sagacity is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dexterity; which according to the Platonic definition, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an habit of choosing what is best; which all will grant these Pagan Philosophers were void of. And indeed Plato ingenuously confesseth, That this faculty of distinguishing or discerning what was best, was not commun, but peculiar to the judgement of Jupiter. And Aristotle seems sensible of this, that there was much difficulty in distinguishing betwixt truth and falsehood; because there was so much falsehood like to truth. So Rhet. l. 1. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it belongs to the same faculty to judge of truth, and that which is like unto truth. Which faculty he and the rest of his Tribe were greatly void of; for how often does a falsehood, if like to truth, pass with them for truth? so confused and indistinct were they in all their Philosophemes. This is excellently set forth by Aristotle, Ethic. l. 3. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for a righteous man judgeth rightly of allthings, etc. Then he adds, that this righteous or virtuose man doth accurately difference things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being as it were the canon, rule, and measure of allthings: i.e. (saith Lambinus) not that truth depends upon the judgement of a virtuose man, but that his judgement is conformed to truth. But then Aristotle concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most of men seem to be under deceit by reason of pleasure, etc. This indeed was the case of all those poor Philosophers; their foolish hearts were darkened and deceived by lust, which rendered their Philosophy, specially in Morals and Supernaturals, extreme confused and cloudy. It is Faith only, according to Heb. 11.1. that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an evidence of things not seen, i.e. Supernatural. 
Heb. 11.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either (1) a natural evidence; as the light is the evidence of itself and allthings else. (2) A Philosophic evidence, as first principes are in themselves most evident, and give evidence to all other lower principes; or as a demonstrative argument is evident, and gives evidence to the conclusion. (3) Legal evidence; which is either of Right or Fact. (4) Supernatural evidence; such is Faith of things naturally and rationally invisible.  
§. 6. Another Adjunct, 
5. Pagan Philosophy incertain and Opiniative only.  which the Philosophers made essential to their Philosophy, is Stability and Certainty of Assent. For, says Plato, Repub. 5. such as content themselves with fluid weak Opinions, are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Philosophers, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lovers of Opinions. So again in his Phaedrus, pag. 262. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that knows not the truth, but hunts after Opinions, will exhibit only a ridiculose and inartificial Art. But Repub. 6. pag. 506. more fully thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, What then? dost thou not know that Opinions without science are base, the best of which are but blind? or do they seem to thee to differ any thing from blind men, who, though going on in a right way, have only some opinions about truth without understanding? surely nothing. Whence he concludes, That it is not lawful to contemplate base and blind Opinions, when things more certain are before us. And in his Meno he gives us the privilege of a certain knowledge above opinion; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that has science or certain knowledge always reacheth what he aims at; but he that has only a right opinion sometimes attains his end, sometimes not. Now that these Pagan Philosophers had not this Scientific or certain knowledge of things, (excepting some of their Mathematic Demonstrations) but only some weak fluid dark opinions, is very evident. For according to their own principes, science or certain knowledge is the result of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demonstration, which supposeth a clear, steadfast knowledge of the Causes, and their causal connexion with the Effect; which the Pagan Philosophy was, in its chiefest parts, wholly destitute of. For what jejune and slender notices had these purblind Sophists touching God, the first Cause of allthings, his great Productive Acts of Creation and Providence? The certain knowledge hereof depends wholly on Divine Revelation, the proper object of Faith, according to Heb. 11.3, Through faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God. By which it's evident, that there can be no certain unmoveable assent or knowledge touching the first origine of things, (which comprehends a great part of Pagan Philosophy) but what proceeds from Faith assenting unto Divine Revelation. Whence the Spirits act in working this assent is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Cor. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  1 Cor. 2.4. Demonstration, i.e. The assent wrought by the Spirit of God is as certain, as assent wrought by Mathematic ocular Demonstration. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Mathematic notion, noting a most potent and essicacious conviction of the mind, which leaves no place for doubting; and so it's opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies a dark Adumbration, or rude draught, like the first lines in a demonstration; whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a complete scientific certain assent. The Pagan Philosophers had some kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dark adumbration, or shadowy description of the first principes of nature, etc. which they received by some broken Traditions from the Jews; but they had not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demonstration, or certain assent touching the World's origine: this is peculiar to Divine Faith, bottomed on Sacred Revelation, as Heb. 11.3. Yea, Divine Faith has according to its Sacred character, 
Col. 2.2.  Col. 2.2. an objective 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. a full, stable, certain persuasion of the veracity or truth of its Object; the Metaphor being taken from a Ship carried with full sails. 
Luk. 1.1.  The like Luk. 1.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of those things which are fully and certainly assented unto by us. Every Believer has a direct, adhesive plerophory, or certain assent touching the certainty of the things contained in the Word of God; albeit he has not a reflex plerophory, or cortain assurance of his own propriety and interest therein. Thence Gal. 3.1, 
Gal. 3.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Before whose eyes Christ has been evidently set forth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, painted forth, or drawn to the life; they had as certain and steadfast a vision of Christ by faith, as they had who stood by the Cross and saw him crucified. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dark adumbration, or opinionative knowledge. The Divine Faith of Jews and Christians gives them a full, steadfast, certain, spiritual vision of things invisible as to sense or reason, Heb. 11.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But now the wisest of the Pagan Philosophers had only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dark shadowy notices of these Divine Revelations from Jewish Traditions. The Schoolmen tell us, that the certainty of Divine Faith, as bottomed on Divine Authority, is more infallible than that of human Science bottomed on Demonstration. But this the most quicksighted of these Pagan Philosophers were void of, and therefore could not attain to that certain knowledge of the principes of Philosophy which they pretended unto. We have for this a great acknowledgement by Plutarch, one of the wisest modern Philosophers, who in the life of Coriolanus speaketh thus: Many times we think we hear what we do not hear, and we imagine we see what we see not; yet notwithstanding such as are piously bend, and zelosely given to think on heavenly things, so as they can be no ways drawn from believing that which is spoken of them, they have this reason to ground the foundation of their belief on; that is, the Omnipotence of God, which is wonderful, and hath no manner of ressemblance or likeness of proportion unto ours, but is altogether contrary, as touching our nature, our moving, our art, and our force; and therefore if he do any thing impossible unto us, or doth bring forth and devise things above man's common reach and understanding, we must not therefore think it impossible at al. For if in other things he is contrary to us, much more in his works and operations he far surpasseth all the rest. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Many of the Divine matters are (according to Heraclitus) by reason of our unbelief hidden from our knowledge. Thus Plutarch ingenuously acknowledgeth their ignorance of Divine affairs, as also the root of all, which he makes to be unbelief. This incertainty of Pagan Philosophy gives us a farther Demonstration of its vanity.  
§. 7. Philosophers give this as a propriety of true Philosophy, 
6. Pagan Philosophy not truly discursive, but sophistic or paralogistic.  that it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dianoetic, Dialogistic, and Dialecticks or Discursive. i e. originally springing from, and ultimately determining in some necessary first Principes. Thence Philosophy is described in the Platonic definitions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a true and unerring Ratiocination in the Dianoetic judgement. Thence Plato under the term of Dialectic or Logic seems to comprehend the whole of his Philosophy. So in his Repub. 7. pag. 533. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dialecticks method proceeds this way only, namely that removing the Hypotheses it may arrive to the first principe, and lay a firm foundation for assent— using other arts as auxiliary aides. Again in the same Repub. 7. he defines his Logician thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thou callest a Dialecticks one who considers the reason of every Being; for he that accurately discerneth things is a Dialecticks. Yea indeed he makes nothing true Logic or discourse but what determines in the knowledge of God, the first Principe, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Platonists speak, the sum and comprehension of all reason or discourse. By which it is apparent, that all Pagan Philosophy was not truly Logistic or discursive, but rather paralogistic and sophistic. For indeed most of their Disputes were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contentiose Ratiocinations, vain both in their Principes and Conclusions. This Paul takes notice of in Rom. 1.21. 
Rom. 1.21.  Vain in their imaginations. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In their disputes, or Dialogistic Ratiocinations: for their ancient way of disputing was by Dialogues, or Interrogations and Answers, agreeable to the Judaic Argumentation, as we have shown, Court Gent. P. 2. B. 3. C. 8. §. 2. Al their Disputes both Mental and Verbal were vain. So 1 Cor. 1.20. Where is the disputer of this world? i.e. All their Philosophic Disputations could not bring them to the knowledge of God the first Principe. 
1 Tim 6.4, 5.  So 1 Tim. 6.4. Doting about questions; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which, as he adds, were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strifes about words no way conducing to edification. Or, as he adds v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very busy, but perverse discourses about trifles. So that indeed all their Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disputes, were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perverse or false reasonings no way conducing to clear up truth or any first principes, as has been observed Chap. 1. §. 6.  
§. 8. Another Attribute, 
Pagan Philosophy not truly Noetic, or Intelligent.  or if you will, formal part of Pagan Philosophy is, that it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Noetic or Intelligent; i.e. comprehensive of the first and highest Principes. This part of Philosophy they usually style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Intelligence; which they make to be a comprehension of the first Principes of Science; and so distinguish it from Dianoetic Philosophy, which is the assent to Conclusions by discourse from first principes; as also from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sapience, which they take to be the knowledge of the most excellent Being, God, etc. But Plato seems to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Intelligence, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wisdom, to be the same, and so at present we shall consider them. This Intelligence or Sapience Plato makes to be the supreme and most perfect of all Sciences. So Repub. 6. pag. 511. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Intelligence in the highest place; which afterward he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most perfect of all; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the end of all Disciplines: unto which all other Arts ought to be subservient. So in his Phileb. pag. 58. he terms it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the principal Science; because it prescribeth mea2ure, weight, and rules to all other Sciences. And the original ground why this Intelligence or Sapience is so excellent a Science Plato lays down, Repub. 7. pag. 513. Where he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intelligence to be the highest of Sciences; because it is employed in the contemplation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Being, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Beauty, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely from firm and eternal principles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, proceeding by discourse to that which is singular; having cast off the ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Idols: it quits not this contemplation until 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it comprehends by its Intelligence that which is good itself. This he explains more fully in his Theaetetus, pag. 140. where he says, this Intelligence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the return of the soul from its night-day to the true light of Being; i. e. of God. Whence he adds, pag. 176. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The knowledge of this first Being is true sapience and virtue, but the ignorance of him the worst rudeness and evil. So Alcibiad. 2. pag. 146. he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the knowledge of other sciences, without the knowledge of that which is best, is little advantageous. This gives us a farther demonstration of the vanity of all Pagan Philosophy; which notwithstanding all its pretensions, was altogether void of this Divine Intelligence or Sapience. Thus much indeed Plato acknowledgeth in his Phileb. saying, that the knowledge of the one infinite Being was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a gift of God to men: which in his Theages, he says, God gives to none but such as are his friends. And Plato, Repub. 6. p. 483. gives us a large Analogy, or proportion, 'twixt the light of the Sun and this knowledge of God; showing, that as the eye cannot contemplate the Sun but by its own light, so neither can the mind contemplate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Being itself; i.e. God, unless there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some Idea or beam of this chiefest Good; which, says he, is the cause of all truth in every intelligent faculty, without which there can be no science. Now that the wisest of these Pagan Philosophers were altogether void of this infused Divine Intelligence or light, I suppose no Christian will deny.  
§. 9 Another formal Attribute or part they give Philosophy is, that it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prudential. Of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prudence, 
8. Pagan Philosophy defective as to Prudence, viz. 1. Part of Prudence self-reflexion.  they make several parts. (1) Self-reflexion, or the knowledge of ourselves, specially our Souls. So Plato, in his Alcibiad. 1. pag. 133. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If the soul wilknow itself, must it not reflect upon itself?— And to know himself, we confess is wisdom. And he adds, that such as know not themselves know not either their goods or their ills, or any thing else that belongs unto them, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Therefore this part thereof seems to be most like to the Divinity; and if any reflect thereon, and behold all that is Divine, and God, and Sapience, he shall thus mostly know himself. By which he instructs us, that by knowing the Divine part of the soul we come to understand what is Divine, both God, and Wisdom, and ourselves. So the legib. 1. pag. 650. he saith, It is the most profitable of all Sciences to know, 
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Providence.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the dispositions and habits of the souls. (2) A part of this Prudence they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Providence; which the Platonists thus define, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Providence is a Preparation for something future. Whence say they it is the part of prudent persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to foresee difficulties. And because they esteemed nothing more difficult than to die well, thence Pythagoras, Plato, and Tully define Philosophy, 
3: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the Contemplation of Death. (3) The chiefest part of the Philosopher's Prudence consisted in the framing of happiness. So in the Platonic definitions: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prudence is a science effective of happiness. So Stobaeus, Serm. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prudence is the science of Happiness as to life. So Aristotle. 
4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (4) As to present affairs, they make this Prudence to consist in the right disposing and ordering of allthings with subservience to our last end. So Pittachus makes Prudence to lie in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the right management of what is before us. And Socrates makes a young man's Wisdom to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the doing nothing rashly. This Plato calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good consultation. So Rep. 4. pag. 428. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Aristotle makes Prudence to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a consultation what is to be done, 
5. Practical knowledge.  and what not. (5) More particularly the Philosophers made Prudence to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a knowledge of good and of evil. i.e. [1] Rightly to distinguish betwixt good and evil. [2] To imitate what is best: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lay up what is best, and those things do thou imitate, Stob. Serm. 3. [3] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To use things conducing to this life well, as Plato Charm. [4] To preserve the rectitude of the will, and regular order in the affections, etc. By all which Descriptions of Prudence it is apparent these blind Philosophers were altogether void of it. For (1) How seldom or never did they reflect on their actions, souls, and state? (2) How little foresight of, but much less preparation for a future state, had they? (3) How little influential on future happiness was all their Prudence? (4) How little practic or directive as to present affairs was their Prudence? (5) Much less could they attain to any true virtue by all their Prudence. Indeed all their human Wisdom or Prudence was but carnal policy, according to the Platonic definition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Craft is an affection, whereby he that has it is enabled to design his private interest; which is the greatest solely, according to Eccles. 10.3. His wisdom faileth him; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his heart, or his Prudence.  
§. 10. The last Propriety ascribed to Pagan Philosophy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a plastic, efformative, or transforming virtue: 
9 Pagan Philosophy defective as to that transforming power they pretended to  So Plato, Repub. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Philosopher conversing with what is Divine and excellent, becomes also, so far as its possible for a man, Divine and excellent: by imitating these Divine things we become like to them. Again, Gorgias, p. 460. he tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He that studies any thing is wrought by his science into the likeness of that which he studies,— and he that studies righteousness becomes righteous. But he speaks more fully, Repub. 6. p. 501. where showing how Philosophers by their institutes do form men according to the Divine Exemplar: This Divine Product in men (says he) Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deiforme, or little God in man. The like Rep. 9 p. 592. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But there is placed in Heaven a most exact exemplar for any that will to contemplate, and by contemplating conform himself unto it. Again, Theaetet. p. 176. he tells us, That the Soul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. assimilation unto God, so far as 'tis possible in righteousness and holiness, is the product of Wisdom, or Philosophy. But this Divine Metamorphose, or Transformation is peculiar to Divine and saving Faith, according to 2 Cor. 3.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are transformed; 
2 Cor. 3.18.  i.e. by beholding the gloriose Ideas of Divine Wisdom and Grace, reflected from the face of Christ on the glass of the Gospel, we are by the efficaciose concurrence of the Spirit changed into the same gloriose image of Christ. This Pagan Philosophy could never reach: all its transformative virtue was to change men's minds and conversations into the image of Satan. Such was its Vanity and Insufficience to reach those ends, which those blind Philosophers proposed to themselves. But this may suffice to show the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its Formal nature, Attributes or Adjuncts.    

BOOK II. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, in regard of its Effects.  

CHAP. I. Pagan Philosophy the Cause of Pagan Idolatry, Judaic Apostasy, and Errors in the Primitive Churches of Christ.  
Pagan Philosophy vain, (1) as to its end, Eccles. 10.2, 3. (2) As it causeth Soul-deceit, Ephes. 4.14. Ephes. 5.6. Col. 2.4, 8, 18. (3) As productive of Idolatry, specially Demon-worship, Images, etc. As to Atheism, which was the product of Physics, Mathematics, Politics and Eristic philosophy. (4) Jewish Apostasy from Pagan Philosophy; [1] The Jewish Baalim, or Demons. [2] The Aposasie of the Jews after the Captivity from Pagan Philosophy. The Jewish Cabala from Pythagorean Symbolic Philosophy. So likewise their Talmud. (5) Pagan Philosophy the cause of the great Errors in the Primitive Churches, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (1) The Gnostic Errors from Pagan Philosophy; their Mystic Theology from Mythologic, Symbolic Philosophy, [1] Their Aeones from Philosophic Ideas and Demons, 1 Joh. 2.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [2] Their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from Pythagorean Institutes. [3] Forbidding Marriages, 1 Tim. 4.3. [4] Abstinences. [5] Sorceie. [6] Sensuality. [7] Expiations. [8] Allegoric Resurrection. (2) Pagan Philosophy the cause of many Errors amongst the Fathers, specially those of the Schools of Alexandria. (3) The Errors of Samosetanus and Arius had their rise in the School of Alexandria, from the Platonic Contemplations about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. (4) Pagan Philosophy the cause of Pelagianism, which was founded by Origen and the Origenists, with other Greek Fathers, who did too much symbolise with Pagan Philosophers herein. A summary of Pelagianisme and Augustin's zeal against it.  
§. 1. WE have discoursed of the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its Causes, Essential Parts, and Attributes; we now proceed to demonstrate the same from its Effects; wherein there appears much more Vanity than in the former. The many vain Effects of Pagan Philosophy may be reduced to these common Heads. (1) They are more general, such as regard both Pagans and the People of God. (2) They are more particular and peculiar, [1] To the Jewish Church: [2] To the Christian Churches, both primitive or purer, and later under Antichristian Apostasy. 
Pagan Philosophy vain as to its Effects. (1.) It came short of its End.  We are to begin with the corrupt Effects of vain Philosophy in general, as relating both to Pagans and the Professing People of God. And amongst these we may reckon, (1) as one great piece of its Vanity, that it reached not that end which it proposed: For a thing is said to be vain, when it attains not its proposed End. Now the End which these vain Philosophers proposed was by their Philosophy to reduce the Soul to that natural state of knowing and enjoying God, which it was possessed of in Innocence. So Philosophy is defined by Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The reduction of the soul from its night-day to the true sight of Being, i.e. God. Again, he calls Philosophy the contemplation, love, and imitation of God. But now how far all Pagan Philosophy came short of this End, is evident by what has been laid down in the foregoing Discourses. Yea take Philosophy in its zenith or meridian glory, and it was but a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Theory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, likeness, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Rom. 2.20, form of knowledge. It gave not the least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Metamorphose to the Soul, as Faith is said to do, 2 Cor. 3.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Solomon gives an excellent character of all the Pagan Philosophers, 
Prov. 7.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Prov. 7.7, And beheld amongst the simple ones— a young man void of understanding. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of an heart: i.e. Practic understanding. 
Eccl. 10.2, 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  So Eccles. 10.2, 3, we have an excellent antithese betwixt a true Philosopher and the vain: we find the true Philosopher characterised thus, v. 2, A wise man's heart is at his right; i.e. his Philosophy or Wisdom is practic and directive, he can make use of it on all occasions. But a fools heart is at his left; i.e. his Philosophy is no way practic or operative. So it follows, v. 3, Yea also when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his heart] faileth him. i.e. Al his Philosophic Contemplations, when they come to matters of Practice or Direction, fail him. Whence it follows: [and he saith to every one that he is a fool,] i.e. his actions bespeak him to be a mere fool, void of an heart or practic judgement, notwithstanding all his pretensions to Philosophic Wisdom. Such wise fools were Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, etc. who, notwithstanding all their Philosophic Speculations, were void of an heart or true pactic directive Wisdom.  
§. 2. Pagan Philosophy has not only come short of its End which was proposed, but also proved a great snare, delusion, 
Pagan Philosophy soul-deceit and delusion.  and cloak for all manner of wickedness, which is an effect worse than the former. This our Apostle Paul seems to give some hints of, 1 Cor. 3.1. He calls them Babes. 
1 Cor. 3.1.  They had much carnal wisdom, being seated in the eye of Grece, yet he looks upon them as Babes as to Divine Wisdom. 
Ver. 10.  Ver. 10, etc. he gives cautions against building Hay and stubble, i.e. Human Philosophic Inventions on the Gospel's foundation. Then v. 18, 
Ver. 18.  he gives a particular caution against this self-deceiving, vain Philosophy, Let no man deceive himself; if any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no man deceive himself; i.e. with vain Philosophy, etc. So Grotius on this Text: All Philosophy (says he) repugnant to the Gospel is deceit, 2 Thes. 2.3. Thence it follows v. 19, 
Ver. 19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Metaphysic Sapience, or Philosophy. He notes the most sublime Contemplations and Philosophemes among the Philosophers. Thence he adds, He takes the wise in their own craftiness. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies all manner of calidity, or Dexterity to cheat and deceive; an art of cheating; wherein many Corinthian sophists or Gnostics were much versed. So again v. 20, 
Ver. 20.  The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Philosophic Reasonings or Disputes of the Sophists; they are both Philosophic terms. These Philosphic reasonings are said to be vain, in that they deceived those who trusted to them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily notes, to confer among themselves by Questions and Responsions or Answers; which was the ancient mode of disputing both among the Jews and Grecians. Thus Mat. 21.25. Luk. 12.17. Mark 2.6, 8. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Disceptation or Ratiocination either Mental or Oral. Sometimes it signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inane concertation or dispute of words about things of no moment. 
Phil. 2.14.  So Phil. 2.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, saith Grotius, seems to be those bitter contentions about things no way conducing to piety: whereof there were many among the Philosophers, specially the Aristoteleans, who abounded in Macedonia where Philippi stood. Our Apostle seems also to strike at this soul-deceit of vain Philosophy in his Epistle to the Ephesians, amongst whom there lived many Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics. 
Ephes. 4.14.  So Ephes. 4.14, That we be no more henceforth children tossed to and fro. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. fluctuating up and down like the waves of the Sea, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Amongst the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a Dice, and because the cast of a Dice was most casual and incertain as to its event, as also that whereby crafty Gamesters circumvented the more simple; thence the word was by them translted from its primitive notion to signify, (1) any casual and uncertain event; and this signification here, though metaphoric and borrowed, is very emphatic, and lively, setting forth the skipping levity and inconstance of men's minds, more uncertain than the cast of the Dice. Thus Beza understands the word here. But yet (2) we must take in also the second notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it notes crafty circumvention of the more simple. There were at Ephesus many Pythagorising Gnostics, who, by their sublime speculations and subtle fraudulent distinctions, circumvented the more simple professors as well as themselves. Thence our Apostle proceeds to give a further account of the root of all: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by cunning craftiness. It is the same with that before mentioned, 1 Cor. 3.19, whereby he seems to paint forth the Philosophic sophistry of those Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics, who lay in wait to beguile and ensnare poor silly professors. So it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. i.e. By their cunning crafty Philosophising. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, method, is a compendiose and artificial way of handling simple Themes, Propositions, or Sciences. Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a certain Art of cheating or deceiving, comprehended under certain general rules. Thus chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to lie in wait to deceive, is artificiosely to circumvent some one, and by a compendiary way to reduce him under his power. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lying in wait to deceive, i.e. Preparing a persuasive discourse, and using artifices to cover the cheat. Which course these Pythagorising Gnostics took. Our Apostle inculcates this exhortatory caution, Ephes. 5.6, Let no man deceive you with vain words. 
Ephes. 5.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He marks out, says Grotius, the Philosophers who asserted there was no evil in Incestes, Community of Wives, overreaching of one the other in buy and sellings, etc. whose vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. reasonings or Philosophising the Pythagorising Gnostics made use of, to colour over their gross wickednesses, and so to deceive the more simple Christians. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify Philosophic Arguments or reasonings as well as words. This our Apostle does yet more professedly discourse of, and against, in his Epistle to the Colossians, who were very sorely infested, at least assaulted, by the Pythagorising Gnostics. So Col. 2.4, 
Col. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And this I say lest any one should beguile you. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. Deceive you by Sophistic disputes of vain Philosophy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to impose a sophistic and fallacious argument, which yet has the colour and show of a good argument, thereby to circumvent the credulous and simple; which is the main work of a Sophister. It answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Seventy interpret by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to cheat and deceive. Hence Hesychius explicates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Paralogism, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deceit; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Paralogist, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Deceiver or Cheater. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly by false ratiocination to deceive, by sophistic reason, or captiose syllogism to impose on others, or on ourselves; and so it's opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to dispute regularly. 
Jam. 1.22.  Hence Jam. 1.22. Such as content themselves with mere Philosophic reason, or notional knowledge, are brought in as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imposing a Paralogism, or fallacious argument on themselves. Indeed for men to acquiesce in mere Philosophic or speculative Wisdom, is the worst of Paralogismes, and sophistry; for it is self-deceit, it is soul deceit: Therefore the Apostle gives the more severe caution against it. Then it follows, Col. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with enticing words. 
Col. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Here we have the matter of their Paralogistic fallacious Philosophising; which was fair plausible pretextes of Reason, probable or persuasive Discourses, Artificially and Philosophically composed, thereby the more effectually to deceive: so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports. This our Apostle does more fully explain, v. 8, 
Ver. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Beware lest any spoil you. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This term is military, signifying the carrying away a prey. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a prey or spoil taken in war, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to carry away. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly, in an hostile manner, and by an armed power to plunder and carry away: whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Hesychius interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, plundering, or stripping naked: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As if the Apostle had said: Let no man plunder and strip you naked of your Christian Dogmes, which are your highest ornaments, by vain Pythagorean or other Philosophy. Thence follows the great engine by which this was accomplished: By Philosophy and vain deceit, here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one and the same thing under a double expression; as if he had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the vain deceit of Philosophy. So Grotius. The like he adds v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ver. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Let no one deceive you of your brabium, or reward. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to moderate as a Judge in the Grecian Games, and so it is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jus dicere, to judge and pass sentence; whence the Judges were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Reward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies (1) and properly to give sentence against any one as unworthy of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Reward. So Phavorinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Beza here understands it, Let no man act the part of a Judge against you. But (2) Jerome tells us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Cilician tongue, wherein Paul was instituted being of Tarsis, signifies to spoil or rob one of his reward. Thus here it signifies in a borrowed notion, to beguile of the reward. And the medium by which they did it, was Pythagorean Philosophy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pede inferens. These Gnostics having sucked in the Pythagorean infusions about Angels and Demon-worship, they thence coined many curiose mystic speculations about these Philosophic Mysteries, which had v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a pretext or show of wisdom, which deceived the simpler sort of professors; but all this vain Philosophy was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a foolish deceitful wisd me, as hereafter. This gives us a sufficient general account of those monstrose Soul-deceits which ensued upon the spreading of Pagan Philosophy, and its infusions in the Churches of God. But to descend to Particulars.  
§. 3. Another cursed Effect of vain Pagan Philosophy was Idolatry. 
3. Effect of Pagan Philosophy was Idolatry.  It's granted that the Philosophers, the wisest of them, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, renounced the Mythologic Theologie of the Poets, as also Politic in use amongst the Statesmen, Priests, and people, assuming a new Divinity or Religion of their own inventing, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theology: which though it were less fabulose, 
Observatum est ibi maximè viguisse superstitionem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ubi maximè florebant philosophi. Quod vel Athenicasium exemplo pater, de quo Act. 17.16. Hine factum est, ut ex ipsis Philosophis Dcorum Saccr oats legerenlur. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 3. The origine of Demons from Pagan Philosophy.  and more suited to corrupt reason than either the Poetic or Politic Theology, yet was it no way less subject to Superstition and Idolatry: For though in this their Natural Theology they owned one eternal supreme God, yet they withal asserted an insinitie of Demons, or petty Gods, which they made to be Mediators betwixt this one supreme God and Men. Thence Plato styles them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made and visible Gods: also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idols and Images of the great God. Again he says, they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made by, but under the great God. It's true he calls them also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, immortal; but then he tells us, they had only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a framed Immortality, at the pleasure of the great God. In brief, they were but certain Heroes or noble Personages deified after their Death, whom they supposed to have their chief residence in the Stars; whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deastri. So Tully says of Julius Caesar, that he was turned into a Star, etc. As they presumed the chief God to have his main residence in the Sun, whom the Phoenicians called Moloch, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Grecians, Saturn, Apollo, Jupiter, as their fantasies inclined them; hence Julian's Oration to the Sun, which he makes the supreme God: So these Demons they placed in Dignity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Co-rulers with the great God, as Plato, Polit. pag. 251. The Romans called them semigods, and Medioxumi, or middling Gods, from their office; because they were to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God. Such were Romulus, Hercules, Aesculapius, Tyndarides, as Lud. Vives in August. Civ. l. 2. c. 16. Plutarch, in his Discourse of the cessation of Oracles, does greatly extol such as invented these Demons or middling sort of Gods, and made them Mediators betwixt the supreme God and Men; which some attribute to Orpheus, or some other Phrygian, others to the Egyptians. The office they give them is to be as Mediators betwixt the supreme God and Men: Homer (adds he) promiscuously useth the names of Gods and Demons. Hesiod was the first who distinguished the four orders of Rational Nature into Gods, Demons, Heroes, and men: out of these later Demons and Heroes were made. But none gives us a more clear and full account of the origine, Nature, Office, and Worship of these Demons than Plato, whom we have elsewhere quoted to this purpose; to which we may add, what he mentions of them in his Cratylus, pag. 397. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Knowest thou therefore whom Hesiod makes these Demons to be? that he says they were men who lived in the first golden age. Then he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they were wise and knowing men, he called them Demons. Whence he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every good man dying gains a great fate and honour, and is made a Daemon, according to the name of wisdom. Here Plato gives us a true account of the origine of these Demons; who were indeed at first men famous for Wisdom and Heroic Achievements; of whom some think Joseph (whom the Egyptians worshipped as God under their Idol Apis, etc.) to be the first; others make Belus King of Tyre a Phenician (distinct from the Assyrian Belus) to be one of the first of these Demons; who were thence called by the Phoenicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baalim. So Virgil tells us, That Belus or Baal was a deified Phenician King. These Baalim (who were nothing else but the Souls of deceased Worthies deified) were brought into Israel by Jezebel, the daughter of Eth baal King of Tyre, which laid the foundation of the Jewish Idolatry, as hereafter. And that these Demons were not only Mediators, but also Objects of Worship, even amongst the Philosphers themselves, is evident, by what we find in Plato, Repub. 5.468, 469. In these things, says he, we follow the authority of Homer. For we in our Sacrifices and such like Assemblies, honour good and valiant men so far as their merits require it, with Hymns and Honourable seats, and flesh sacrifices, and full cups, or drink-offerings.— For he that after many noble achievements dies in War, shall we not say that he belongs to the Golden age?— Let us consult therefore God's Oracle, in what rank those blessed and divine men are to be placed, and with what Ensigns they are to be honoured; and we shall perform to them such honours as he shall prescribe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for the future we shall serve them as Demons, and worship their Sepulchers, or Shrines. Thus Plato, wherein we have the origine and sundry modes of this Demon-Worship. 
1. Demons worshipped by Images.  (1) As for the manner how these Demon-Gods were worshipped, and as it were brought to the lure of men, when they had occasion to make use of them, it was transacted by Images, Statues, Pillars, etc. which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These the Philosophers themselves made use of and worshipped; not that they looked upon them as their Gods, but only as visible bodies, unto which they supposed their Gods or Demons vouchsafed their presence and influence, answerable to Jeroboams Calves, which he erected at Dan and Bethel, supposing that God would have yielded his presence to them. We have this mystery laid open to us by Plotinus and Hermes Trismegistus, who tell us, That Images were made as bodies to be informed by Ghosts as with Souls: for an Image was as a trap to catch Demons, and a device to tie them to a place, and keep them from departing away. Of which see August. Civit. lib. 8. c. 23. (2) Another way whereby they worshipped these their Demons, 
2. By Sepulchers, Shrines, and Temples.  was by Religiose Sepulchers and Shrines: for there they hoped to find their Ghost-Gods in a peculiar manner. And indeed it was not unusual for the Devil, their great Daemon, to frequent Sepulchers and Tombs; as we find him in our Savior's time amongst the Tombs. And these Gentiles supposing some peculiar presences and influences of their Demons at their Sepulchers, hence therefore it was their custom to build Shrines and Temples at such places, where the bodies or ashes of their Ghost-Demons lay entombed; whence the Primitive Christians and Fathers upbraid the Gentiles, that their Temples were but the Sepulchers of dead men; which custom notwithstanding the Christians themselves, when Antichrist began to get head, took up, building their Churches by the Graves of some Saint. (3) Moreover in the worship of their Demons they used cuttings, 
3. By Cuttings. 1 King. 18.28. Deut. 14.1.  and lance of their flesh, as 1 King. 18.28. For their Demons being the Deified Ghosts of men deceased, they made use of these Funeral rites in the worship of them, in token that they were men deceased. 
Levit. 19.28.  Thence Deut. 14.1. and Leu. 19.28. God forbids his People this Funeral rite of cutting and lancing; because abused to Demon-Idolatrie: yet did some transgress, as Jer. 41.5. (4) Again, 
Jer. 41.5. 4. By Columns, Festivals, Abstinences, sacred Vestments, etc.  in the Demon-worship they had many other rites; as worshipping of Columns, Templing of Relics, Funeral-Orations, Festivals, Abstinences, sacred Vestments, etc. which were all assumed by Antichrist, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. as hereafter, C. 2. S. 3. §. 1, etc. We have the whole of this Demon-worship set forth by Sacrifices to the dead, Psal. 106.28, compared with Numb. 25.2, 3. and Deut. 32.17. as Mede Diatr. 3. In short, it's evident both from the Pythagorean Schools, as also from what is mentioned of the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.16. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon worship and Superstition flourished most there where philosophy flourished most, and that the former was but a Satanic effect of the later. Thus pregnant was Pagan Philosophy for the conception and improvement of Demon-worship; which was in some regard the worst of all Gentile Idolatry, in that creeping into the Churches of God, it caused the greatest Apostasy that ever was, (1) in the Jewish Church, which under Ahab and his successors fell to this Daemon, or Baal-worship brought in by Jezebel. (2) In the Christian Churches under Antichrist, who brought in all these Demon-doctrines and worship, applying the same to his Saints, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. as hereafter, 
1 Tim. 4.1.  C. 2. c. 3.  
And as Pagan Philosophy had this Demon-Idolatrie contained formally in the very bowels of its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theology; so had it also a great causal Influence upon all other both Poetic and Politic Idolatry. 
What Influence all Idolatry received from Philosophy.  For, as we afore observed, all Idolatry had its origine from superstitiose Admiration grounded on Philosophic Contemplations of those eminent qualities, hidden virtues and influences, or excellent Beauties and Glories that shone in the Creatures. So the Astronomers, by frequent contemplations of those Celestial Bodies, their excellent structure, Beauty, and Glory, their regular Motions, powerful Influences and Governments, were ravished into great Admiration of them, and thence were enticed to Idolatry Adoration, etc. So the Physiologist, or Natural Philosopher, observing many hidden qualities and mystic Impresses or characters of Divine Wisdom, Power, and Goodness in several parts of Nature, was so far ravished herewith, as that he adored the Creature instead of its Creator; which was frequent amongst the Egyptians, who, as Plutarch observes, adored every Creature wherein they perceived any Divine quality to sparkle. Thus likewise the Politicians idolised human Wisdom and Valour wherever they found it in any eminent degree: as the Stoics adored Moral Virtue, and command of Passions, as their God, etc. Yea that this Philosophic contemplation gave the first origine to Superstition and Idolatry, is that which Plato long since observed, and makes mention of in his Cratylus: where he says, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [the Gods] had their origination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from contemplation; because men being ravished with the contemplation of that heavenly Machine, decked and adorned with so many gloriose Bodies, whose admirable Power, Efficace, and Influence, they had daily experience of, hence they called the Stars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gods; giving them the names of Saturn, Jupiter, etc. This origination, which Plato gives to these Pagan Gods and their worship, seems most true: For certain it is, that their first Idol-Gods were the Celestial Bodies, called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the names of God) the Heaven, the Sun, etc. which the Scripture terms the Host of Heaven. And it is also generally confessed, that this Star-worship began amongst the Chaldeans, who were great Astronomers, called Zabii; whence this piece of Idolatry was called Zabaisme, as before, P. 2. Book 1. Ch. 4. And that Idolatry was indeed the product of Pagan Philosophy seems more than probable by what is mentioned, 
Rom. 1.20, 21.  Rom. 1.20, etc. For the invisible things, etc. They contemplated the invisible Glories and Beauties of the Deity in his visible works. But v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they became vain in their Philosophising or reasonings. And he gives you the mode or manner of their vain reasonings, v. 23, 
Ver. 23.  And changed the Glory of God into an image, etc. i.e. they contemplated those eminent Divine qualities shining in the Creatures so long, till they fell to the adoring and Idolising of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And changed. They changed the Glory of the incorruptible God in the coined image of a corruptible man, etc. i.e. For the gloriose incorruptible God they worshipped the Idols of corruptible men, etc. Schmidius distinguisheth here between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to change somewhat into somewhat, whereby the subject, into which somewhat is transmuted, is noted; as ver. 26. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to change somewhat in somewhat, which notes the mode and medium of the change. So here, they changed the Glory of the incorruptible God, in the framed image of corruptible man, etc. i.e. whiles they worshipped the image of a corruptible man, or beast, for the true and gloriose God. Not that the wiser of them made these Creatures the ultimate object of their worship; no, that was too gross for such pretenders to Wisdom: but they represented, according to their fantasies, the glorise God under the figures and shapes of these vile creatures; to which they attributed the service and honour due to the great God. So Plutarch says of the Egyptians, That they worshipped not those several Creatures they met with simply as Gods, but those Divine qualities they observed in those Creatures: as the Jews thought they worshipped Jehovah under their Golden Calf. Thus much for the influence Pagan Philosophy has on Idolatry. We might add to this Divination, which is but a piece of Idolatry, and was the effect of Pagan Philosophy, as before, Chap. 3. §. 7, 8, 9  
§. 4. Another monstrose Effect of vain Pagan Philosophy is Atheism, 
Atheism the effect of Pagan Philosophy. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a preparative to Atheism.  which may justly challenge the Philosophers for its Parents; and that upon sundry accounts and regards. 1. Pagan Philosophy had a mighty influence on Atheism, in that it was a door and inlet to Superstition and Idolatry. For there is (as has been observed) a very great cognation or affinity betwixt superstitiose Idolatry and Atheism. Idolatry at first opened the door unto, and since has very much advanced Atheism: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Atheist believes there are no Gods, and the superstitiose person wisheth there were none. We have in what foregoes shown, that the Philosophers Natural Theology and Religion was but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a superstitiose Demon-fear or worship. This was the Religion of the Athenian Philosophers, 
Act. 17.18, 27.  Act. 17.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So v. 27. i.e. as being possessed with a dreadful apprehension of your Demon-Gods, and so wholly addicted to a superstitiose fear and worship of them. Al their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-fear and Religion, arose from slavish false apprehensions of an angry sin-revenging Deity, whom though they flattered with their lips, yet they hated in their hearts, and therefore really wished he were not. Thus did their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prepare the way to Atheism: yea not only so, but it opened an effectual door thereto by bringing in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Polytheisme or Multiplicity of Gods. For he that has power to believe a plurality of Gods, is the next door unto Atheism, or a belief that there is no God: To multiply the Deity is to destroy it, as Gaches l' Atheisme consondu, pag. 5. This indeed proved too true by the event: for the first appearance that we find of Atheism, was when this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superstitiose Demon-fear or Religion, invented by the Philosophers most flourished in Grece; namely when those Sceptic wits, Democritus, Epicurus, etc. could not find any rational 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Apparences of reason, for those multitudes of Demon-Gods which were brought into Grece, they set their wits on work to salve the Phaenomena of nature without the supposition of these or any other Deities. Thus did Philosophic Polytheisme, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make way to Atheism.  
2. Pagan Philosophy had also a formal Efficience on Atheism, 
2. Pagan Philosophic had a formal influence on Atheism.  in that it made the Creature an Independent, self-sufficient, prime Agent and Mover in natural Productions and Motions; and so left no room for, or necessity of a Deity. This indeed is an epidemic contagion, which has more or less infected every part of Pagan Philosophy, and laid open a broad gate to Atheism. It's confessed, true sane Philosophy, such as Adam had in Innocence, gives a full demonstration of the Deity from his visible works, Rom. 1.19, 20. Ay but Pagan vain Philosophy in all its contemplations on the Creature, was apt to leave out the Creator and acquiesce in the sensible objects it contemplated, as in the first moving influential cause. Whence that great observation of Sir Francis Bacon, That a little Philosophy makes men Atheists, though a great deal would cure them of Atheism. And this indeed Plato takes notice of, as the great crime of many Philosophers in his age, whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mere sophisters; who, by reason of their Impiety, abused their Astronomic and other Philosophic Sciences unto Atheism. So Plato, Leg. 12. pag. 967. disputes against such impious Philosophers, who, from their Astronomic Philosophising, conceiving that things depended not on the Providence of God, but on the necessary concatenation and connexion of second causes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, became Atheists. Whereas, says he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is the Divine Mind that disposeth every thing: for he that considereth these things not impiously nor foolishly, will never become an Atheist. But his and all other Pagan Philosophy was utterly void of such a serious solid consideration of the visible works of God. Al their vain Philosophising were so much taken up in the admiration of those few rays of Divine Wisdom, Beauty, and Order, which they observed in the Creatures, as that they at first neglected, and then rejected the Creator of all, as one that was invisible and unknown to their carnal Minds. This was long since observed by Augustin, de Civit. l. 5. cap. 2. What the Physician believed to belong to the like temper of health, this the Philosopher and ginger ascribe to that Influence and constitution of the Stars, which was at the conception and birth of every one. But we shall a little run through the chief parts of Pagan Philosophy, and show how much each contributes to Atheism.  
1. Pagan physiology, 
1. What Influence Physiologie hath upon Atheism.  or Natural Philosophy strictly so termed, has not a little contributed to Atheism, in that those proud Physiologists, not understanding the true origine of the Universe, nor that Divine Providence which governs and moderates all Natural productions, and motions, assigned causes of things suitable to their own humours and inclinations; excluding the great God from having any thing to do in the World. Thus Democritus and Epicurus reduced the first origine of the Universe to a fortuitous concurrence and casual combination of Atoms, excluding Divine Providence from having any thing to do herein; which cursed piece of Philosophy has taken too much root amongst some new Philosophers. Aristotle, who endeavoured to reduce all Effects to Mater and Form, asserted a first eternal Mater ingenerable and incorruptible; which he made to be the seminary of all Productions; out of whose passive power all Forms (by I know not what kind of emanation) were educed. Which unintelligible opinion, though it were but some broken Tradition of the first Chaos, yet it laid a foundation for excluding all Divine efficience and concurrence in the production of things. Neither are there wanting some in this Christian World, who dare assert an Eternity of Mater, at least a possibility of the World's Eternity. As an Appendix to Natural Philosophy we may add Medicine, 
Medicine how the cause of Atheism.  which has had a powerful influence on Atheism in this regard; because these proud Naturalists, observing by long experience many excellent qualities, sovereign virtues and Medicinal influences in several Minerals, Stones, Plants, Animals, etc. hence they would fain persuade themselves and the world, that the term of man's life was not fixed, but variable and determinable by their Art and Medicaments: which piece of Atheism continues to this very day very commun. 2. The Mathematic Sciences have had, 
2. How the Mathematics are influential on Atheism.  and still have no little influence on Atheism: and that (1) more general; inasmuch as those profound Mathematicians, being wholly taken up in ocular and sensible Demonstrations, they expect the same in Divine Matters, rejecting Divine Authority and Testimony, though it be in some sense more certain and infallible than their Mathematic Demonstrations. To pass by other instances which are many, we need go no further than Hobs' Leviathan for proof hereof. (2) But more particularly, 
Specially Astronomy.  Pagan Astronomy has had a powerful causality for the production of Atheism, in that it brought in a fatal kind of necessity and absolute dependence not only of Sublunary Bodies, but also of human affairs and things most contingent, on Celestial constellations and influences. Those Pagan Astronomers held for the most part (which some Judicial Astrologers still assert) an essential subordination of all Sublunary causes and effects to the Celestial. Particularly that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Good order, good Temperament, good nature, and good operation, as well moral as natural, in all human persons and affairs received measure and determination, according to, and by derived influences from, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Heavens. Which persuasion yet was more tolerable in those blind Heathens, who held the Stars to be Gods, than in the Atheistic Astrologers of these days, who reduce the most contingent Effects and events of Providence to some Astrologic Figures, abstract Forms, Celestial Governements, insensible Influences, or such like Stoic Fate and Necessity, thereby to exclude Divine Providence from ordering and determining human affairs. 3. Neither was their Philosophy Politics less influential on this cursed root of Atheism. 
3. Philosophic Politics productive of Atheism.  For the great Politicians of former as well as of later Ages have been ever apt to conceit, that the World is governed by no other Providence than that of State-Wisdome and Interest: They would fain persuade themselves and others, that all Mutations in States or private affairs do happen but from some politic cause, contrivement, and resolutions of men. This Politic Atheism seems to have had its birth and improvement from the Romans, (where the Pythagorean Philosophy flourished) and the flourishing of their Empire; who finding the success of their politic Contrivances and Resolutions, began to set the Crown of all their successes on the head of carnal Policy and Courage, excluding Divine Providence from sharing therein. Amongst these Politic Atheists we may well reckon Nebuchadnezar, according to his own proud assume, Dan. 4.30, 
Dan. 4.30.  Is not this great Babylon that I have built— by the might of my power. i.e. By my politic contrivances and power. For the honour of my Majesty. i.e. For the Advancement of my Name and Interest. Here we see how his proud Atheistic heart shuts God out as efficient and final cause, both of which he ascribes to himself. And how apt potent Princes and States are to follow proud Nebuchadnezar, in making their own Wisdom and Power the sole efficient, as also their own Majesty, Grandeur and Glory, the sole End of all State-affairs, and Politic Undertakements, to the exclusion of Divine Providences, the experience of some late years as well as former Ages hath given us too great Demonstration. That which gives these Politic Atheists advantage is, that whereas in the Infant-state of the World God kept alive the Memorial of his Providence by Miraculose and amazing Operations thereof, he afterwards about the beginning of the Roman Empire, (which was the seat of Politic Atheism) began to suspend those Miraculose Effects of his Power, employing more of Wisdom in governing the Politic World, the effects whereof are not so obvious to sense as those of his Power. This made these Politic Atheists deify their own carnal wisdom and resolutions, as the only Moderators of human affairs. And 'twere well if there were not too many such nowadays. 4. But no part of Pagan Philosophy did more directly and efficaciously conduce to the production and improvement of Atheism, 
4. Eristic Philosophy or Logic the cause of Atheism.  than their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contentiose Logic, which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 2 Tim. 2.14. 1 Tim. 6.4, 5. of which before. Indeed Eristic Logic and Atheism seem to have had their conception and birth from the same Philosophic womb, and so, as twins, to run parallel till Pagan Philosophy grew extinct. For in the Eleatic School, where this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contentiose Logic, received its formation and spirit under Zeno, Democritus and others, Philosophic Atheism received also its Conception and Birth, and that much about the same time. This appears in that Melissus, who was condisciple with Zeno the Eleatic under Xenophanes, seems to be the first that began 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to suspend his belief touching the Gods; affirming, that nothing was to be determined concerning them, by reason of our dark and obscure knowledge. And Zeno himself held a multitude of Worlds, and the Souls origine from the Temperament of the sour Elements: which were both foundations of Atheism. But Leucippus, Zeno's Disciple, who is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Democritus, who was as to Physics Scholar to Leucippus, gave both of them a great advance to Atheism, by their Eristic Philosophising about Atoms. For they asserted the origine of allthings to be from the fortuitous casual conjunction and combination of an infinite number of Atoms; which opinion was greedily imbibed by Epicurus, and made use of by all as a medium to solve the Phaenomena of nature, without any supposition of a Providence. This was the product of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eristic Philosophising. And indeed nothing is more natural and common, than by frequent contentiose disputes at length to grow Academics and Sceptics; so to disbelieve every thing, even the Existence and Providence of God. And what a world of such Sceptic Atheists are there in this Age, who make it their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or work, to cavil at the Existence and Providence of God whose folly and iniquity is by so much the greater, by how much the more credulous they are in matters more obscure. For the most incredulous of these Atheists, are as credulous in their kind as the most simple; why else do they so greedily assent to the Principes of Epicurus, or some modern Philosopher, upon Reasons infinitely more sleight and trivial, than those which are offered to prove a Deity? and why are they so opiniatre and dogmatising as to the imposing their own Phaenomena, without shadow of solid reason? Plato shall one day rise up in judgement against such Sceptic Atheists; who, in his Book 10 de Legib. from pag. 888, to 909, makes it his business to cure a young man labouring under this Epidemic disease of Atheism; proving, (1) That there is a God. (2) That this God takes care of human affairs, even the least. (3) That this God is most just, and therefore not to be flattered into favour by Prayers or Sacrifices. (4) That Atheism is the peste of human kind, of Families, of Communwealths; and therefore to be restrained by Penal Laws, Imprisonment, Banishment, and the like. Such are the evils of Atheism, which had its origine from vain Philosophy influenced by pride, as Psal. 10.4, 
Psal. 10.4.  All his thoughts are there is no God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. These are the sceptic, politic, mischievous Philosophising of his proud heart, that there is no God. Of the origine of Atheism from Philosophy, etc. also of its malign nature and influences, see Court Gent. Par. 4. B. 2. C. 2. §. 1. touching the Existence of God.  
§. 5. We have laid down the evil Effects of Pagan Philosophy in general, as they regard both the Pagan's themselves, 
Pagan Philosophic the cause of Jewish Apostasies.  as also the People of God. We now proceed to the sad evils which Pagan Philosophy infused into the Church of God, both Jewish and Christian. We shall begin with the Jewish Church: and here our main business will be to show that all the great Apostasies of the Jews had their foundation in Pagan Philosophy. To make our way clear hereto, we are to remember, that as the Pagan Philosophers traduced the choicest pieces of their Philosophy originally from the Jewish Church; so the Jews growing weary of their Sacred Oracles and Mysteries, thirsted after those very corrupt Derivations and streams of Pagan Wisdom and Mysteries, which were but dark Imitamen of, and broken Traditions from their Divine Philosophy. So vain and foolish were their imagination. 
The Jewish Baal-worship the Effect of the Philosophic Demon-Theologie.  1. The great Errors and Apostasy of the Israelitic and Jewish Church, before the Babylonian Captivity, lay in Idolatry, and particularly in that of their Baalim, or Demon-worship. It's likely these Apostatising Israelites and Jews had other vain Opinions and Heresies, besides those which related to their Idolatry, yet we scarce find any other taken notice of and recorded in Scripture. For the Spirit of God foreseeing that this Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship, would prove the great foundation of Apostasy both in the Jewish and Christian Church, he seems to pass by other vain opinions, and make it his business both by Prophetic Precautions, Threats, and Judgements, to strike at this. So Deut. 13. throughout that Chapter, the Lord gives severe Comminations and punishments to be inflicted on such as turn away to Idolatry; 
Deut. 14.1.  and more particularly Deut. 14.1. God gives a strict prohibition against Baalim, or Demon-worship, Ye shall not cut yourselves, 
1 King. 18.28.  etc. That these Funeral-rites were a part of that worship they gave to their Baalim is plain from 1 King. 18.28. Yet notwithstanding all Divine Comminations and Maledictions, how soon did the carnal Jews affect an imitation of their Idolatrous neighbours the Phoenicians in this Baal-worship, which was the same with the Grecian Demon-worship, and both but a Philosophic Imitamen of the Jewish Messiah his Mysteries and Worship, as has been before once and again proved. The sum of all is this, The Philosophers had a Divinity of their own, (distinct from that of the Poets, which was fabulose, and that of the Statesmen, Priests and people, which was Politic) which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theology; wherein they, in imitation of the Jewish God and Messiah, asserted (some of the wisest of them) one supreme sovereign God, and many other petty made Gods, which the Phoenicians called Baalim, (from Belus a Phenician King) Lords, and the Grecians, Demons: whose office was to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God: whom the most of them conceited to have his residence in the Heavens, yea in the Body of the Sun, as the soul in the body, and therefore too remote, at least too sublime and pure to mingle with Sublunary affairs; whence there could be no communion with him but by these Demons or Baal-Gods, who were nothing else but the Souls of great Worthies deceased and deified. These the Apostle seems to hint, 1 Cor. 8.5, Lords many. 
1 Cor. 8.5.  These Baalim were brought into Judea by Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal King of Tyre, (where Baal or Belus the first of these Baalim reigned) and proved the foundation of that great Israelitic and Jewish Apostasy. For no sooner were these Baalim, by Jezebels politic contrivement, brought into the Jewish Church, but presently they are according to, and in imitation of the Phoenicians Natural Theology, made as Mediators to the true God; and so they became as a counter-Messias, or Anti messias, excluding the true Messiah. For we must know, that the Apostatising Israelites did not wholly cast off the Worship of the true God; no, that were too gross for such a knowing professing people: only herein lay their Apostasy and Idolatry, that, in imitation of the Philosophers Natural Theology, they worshipped the true God with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship: they placed these Phenician Baalim, as an Anti-messias, in the room of Christ. This Baal-worship is called the way of Ahab, because it was brought into Israel by Jezebel his Queen, 
1 King. 16.31, 32.  and established by him according to 1 King. 16.31, 32. which caused a total Apostasy among them: For the true Prophets, who would not conform to this Baal-worship, were destroyed or removed; and others, who were willing to conform to Baal's worship, put in their room; so 1 King. 18.22, Elijah says, 
1 King. 18.22.  that he only of the true Prophets remained, but Baal's Prophets were four hundred and fifty men. And because these Baalim brought in by Jezebel were an Anti-messias, hence the Gnostics infusions, who revived this Doctrine of Demons and laid the foundation for Antichrist to build upon, is called the Doctrine of Jezebel, 
Rev. 2.20.  Rev. 2.20. And indeed Jezebel was an exact type and forerunner of the Antichristian Whore, who brought in her Saints and Saint-worship exactly conformable to Jezebel's Baalim. As Mede on 2 Pet. 2.1. Diatrib. 3. Edit. 1. pag. 548. excellently shows us: Here note, saith he, that wheresoever you read in Scripture of the Idolatry of Jeroboam's Calves, and of Ahab's Baalim, think of what I have told you, and know, that whatsoever God speaks against these things there, the same he speaks of the Apostate Christians under Rome, whose case is the very same. The Holy Ghost placeth the essence of the great Apostasy under the Man of Sin, in Idolatry, and spiritual fornication, etc.  
2. The Apostasy of the Jewish Church after the Babylonian Captivity had in like manner its foundation in Pagan Philosophy. 
The Apostasy of the Jewish Church after the Captivity from Pagan Philosophy.  It's true the Jews after their Captivity were professed enemies to Idolatry, for which they had been so severely punished; yet had they great Errors and Corruptions, which they sucked in together with the Grecian Philosophy. For look as the Grecians, Pythagoras, Plato, etc. received the chief Rudiments and Elements of their Philosophy from the Jewish Church; so the Jews, when they came to live under the Grecian Monarchy, began to symbolise with their new Lords in Wisdom and Philosophy. We find little of Pagan Philosophy in use amongst the Jews before the Captivity, save only some few pieces of the Mathematics, which we may presume they had from the Phoenicians or the Egyptians, or, as learned Dr Owen conceives, from the Chaldeans; and made use of in their Idolatrous Worship. But after the Captivity, when they became subject to their Grecian Lords, they soon drank in the Grecian Philosophy; which proved the corruption, yea subversion of their Divine Theology. This the pious and devote amongst them foresaw, and therefore in the time of the Hasmoneans, or Macchabees, there was a Decree made, That whosoever taught his Son the Grecian Philosophy should be accursed. Which notwithstanding could not prevent the inundation of Grecian Philosophy on the Jewish Church, to the infinite prejudice of their Sacred Theology, as it's well observed by Grotius on Col. 2.8, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I do not wonder (says he) that in the times of the Hasmoneans there was a decree made, That he should be cursed that taught his Son the Grecian Philosophy; not that it was in itself evil to know it, but in that they saw much danger therein. And truly we must confess, that after the Jews gave up themselves to the study of Greek Books, their ancient Doctrine was much sophisticated. It's confessed, that the Jews before the Captivity had very much perverted their Doctrine, 
Esa. 47.10.  according to Esa. 47.10. Thy wisdom and knowledge hath perverted thee. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. caused thee to turn aside. But after their return from Babylon there was an universal Reformation made by Esra and others both as to Doctrine and Discipline, which continued till this new soundation of Apostasy was laid by the mixing Grecian Philosophy with their Doctrine. This is well observed by Owen, Theol. lib. 5. cap. 14. The Jewish Doctors before the Babylonian Captivity seem (according to what mention we sinned) to have received none of the Exotic literature or sciences, excepting the Mathematics; which they seem to have received from the Chaldeans, and to have abused to Idolatrous uses. For all human Wisdom is prone to Pride and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Superstition, specially when it falls upon a Mind not brought into obedience to the Truth. For that Grecian Philosophy being by degrees brought into the Church, it speedily turned to the ruin of the more pure Theology. Hence they, whose Religion consisted only in Faith and Obedience, began to erect Schools altogether unlike those over which the ancient Prophets presided, and to sal into Sects. The names of Plato and Aristotle were not more famous amongst the rout of Grecian disputers, than those of Shammai, Hillel, etc. amongst the Jews.  
Now the Corruptions that crept into the Jewish Theology by its commixture with the Grecian Philosophy, may be reduced to these three heads. (1) Their Cabalistic Mythology. 
Tie Jewish Cabala from the Grecian Symbolic Philosophy.  (2) Their Pharisaic and Talmudic Dochrines and Traditions. (3) Their Eristic or contentiose Disputations. 1. As for the Jewish Cabala or Cabalistic Mythology, it seems to be exactly framed in imitation of the Grecian Mythology and Symbolic mode of Philosophising. It's true, the Jewish Church had even from its first Institution its choicest Mysteries delivered in Symbols, Parables, Enigmes, and other terrene shadows; whence we need no way doubt, the Pagan Philosophers, Egyptians, Phoenicians and Grecians traduced their Mythologic and Enigmatic modes of Philosophising. These the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Government, so far fell in love with, as that, despising their own Sacred Oracles and Mysteries, (by reason of their simplicity) they cloth them with a new Grecian habit, or fabulose garb, which they call their Cabala, or mystic sense; by virtue whereof they in a short time grew as skilful in coming Fables as ever the Grecians were. This Jewish Cabala was so called from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to receive: for as the office of the Rabbi or Doctor was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deliver; so that of the Disciple was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to receive: which sometimes also was expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hear. Whence the Cabalists were wont to express the Traditions of their Doctors by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the wise said: answerably to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he said it, in the Pythagorean School. Reuchlin, de Arte Cabalist. l. 3. p. 51. assures us, That the Judaic Cabala is nothing else but their Symbolic Theology, wherein not only Letters and Names are signs of things, but also things of things. The Papists make their Anagogic sense of Scripture correspondent to the Judaic Cabala. Some refer the Origine of this Cabalistic sense of Scripture to the Angel Raziel's consolation given to Adam in Paradise after his Fall, as Reuchlin: others to Moses, as Johan. Picus Mirand. others to Esra, as Paulus Fagius. But I conceive it no difficult task to demonstrate, that this Cabalistic Symbolic Explication of Scripture found no place in the Judaic Theology, 'til the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy was incorporated therewith. And indeed Johannes Picus, that noble Earl of Mirandula, and prodigiose Scholar, seems to grant this our Hypothesis, by acknowleging the assinitie of the Jewish Cabala to the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy. So learned Reuchlin, de Art. Cabalist. pag. 22, 23. makes this Cabalistic Theology the same with the Pythagorean Doctrine. Hence also the Gnostics and Valentinians imbibed their Mystic Theology, as hereafter, §. 7. These Cabalists making it their main study to comment on the Sacred Text, mingled, according to the Grecian Mode, so many Fables therewith, as that little of the Divine Character appeared: there was no Text so clear, so Historic, but they brought it under some Cabala, or mystic and allegoric sense; so that the Jewish Theology seemed more like to Pythagoras and Plato's Philosophy, than to the Sacred Institutes of Moses and the Prophets. That the Hellenistic Jews generally followed the Symbolic, Allegoric Philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, is evident by the Writings of their chiefest Sophists, Philo Judaeus, and all such as were bred up at Alexandria, where the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy flourished. So Eusebius Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. He greatly affected the Platonic and Pythagorean Philosophy, speaking of Philo Jud us. But the Scripture gives us a sufficient account touching these Philosophic Fables, which had been foisted into the Jewish Theology by the Cabalists. 
1 Tim. 1.4.  So 1 Tim. 1.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He treats here, saith Grotius, of such as turning from Judaisme to Christianisme mixed many Jewish Fables with Christianisme, as the consequents show, and Tit. 1.14. Such were those Jewish Fables concerning what God did before the Creation: of Man being at first made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of his copulation with the Bestes, and with Lilith, and of the Demons springing thence, of Behemoth and Leviathan, of the Soul's pre-existence before the body, etc. That many of these Fables were Pythagorean and Platonic is evident. Which we may presume these Grecian Philosophers at first took up in imitation of Jewish Mysteries, and then the Jews took them up again at second hand from the Philosophers. The like 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He understands, says Grotius, the Doctrine of Metempseuchosis, which was the foundation of this abstinence. So Tit. 1.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. says Grotius, of the Messiah being a Temporal Monarch, of the first Resurrection on the Earth, of the War of Gog and Magog, etc. Of which see what precedes, B. 1. ch. 4. §. 1. See more of this Judaic Cabala, Hottinger. Thesaur. Philolog. l. 1. c. 3. Sect. 5. p. 437, etc.  
2. The Jewish Theology had in its Declension, besides the Cabala, 
2. The Jewish Talmud of Traditions.  or Mystic Explication of Scripture, a Talmud or systeme of Traditions, which they pretend were at first delivered by God unto Moses on the Mount, to be handed down by Joshua and his Successors unto Posterity. This they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Oral Law, which they equalise unto, yea prefer before the Scriptures. For they say, (just as the Papists of their Traditions) That we cannot arrive to a perfect explication of the Divine Precepts, but by these Traditions of the Ancients: again, that without this Oral Law, the whole written Law is wrapped up in darkness. Whence they affirm, that men offend more by breaking these Traditions, than by violating the words of the Law, as Sanhedr. c. 10. §. 3. Yea they command that all Talmudic Traditions be swallowed down with an implicit faith, as R. Sol. Jarchi, on Deut. 17.11. See more of this, Hotting. Thesaur. Philolog. l. 2. c. 3. S. 3. p. 560, etc. This Oral Law the Pharisees made the rule of their will-worship, as Mark 7. 3-13. These in aftertimes they compiled into their Falmuds; on which the Rabbins have spent vast Commentaries. But to give the true origine of these Pharisaic Rabbinic Traditions, they were indeed but corrupt imitations of Pythagorean Philosophy and Mysteries. For as the Pythagoreans received their Mysteries and Discipline by Tradition originally from the Jews, so the Jews when they came under the Grecian yoke reassume many of these Pythagorean Dogmes and Institutes, and coin many more in imitation of their Pythagorean Preceptors. That many of those Traditions mentioned in the New Testament were Pythagorean as well as Jewish is evident: particularly Mark 7.3, 5. the Pharisees call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supposing them to be traduced down from Moses by Oral Tradition; but Christ calls them ver. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. of the Pythagorean Philosophers, as Col. 2.22, 23. Again Christ calls them, Mark 7.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by which also he seems to strike at the Pythagoreans, according to Col. 2.8, 20, 21. That the Rabbinic Pharisaic Dogmes of Freewill, etc. were of Philosophic Origine shall be (as already it has been) proved.  
3. All those Eristic and vain disputes amongst the Jews had also their origine from Grecian Philosophy. 
3. The Jewish disputation from the Grecian Philosophy. Tit. 3.9.  So Tit. 3.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. says Grotius, those vain questions and various emanations of Proprieties, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the figments of idle Jews: thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. says Grotius, contentions arising from the differing interpretation of the Law. The Jews at Crete laboured under the same disease with those of Ephesus, 2 Tim. 2.23. The Jewish Doctors never knew what belonged to such Eristic contentiose disputes before they were made drunken with Grecian Philosophy. Lastly, the later Jews are thought to receive much of their corruption from the Stoic Philosophy: so Heinsius, 2 de Sat. Horat. says, That an egg is not more like an egg, than the Paradoxes of the Rabbins to the Paradoxes of the Stoics. Yet Maimonides, and Aben Tibbon follow Aristotle for the most part according to the Arabic Versions. For these later Jews mingling with the Saracens have received their Philosophy from them, as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 10.  
§. 6. As the Pagan Philosophic had a very poisonous pestilentiose influence on the Jewish Church, 
Pagan Philosophic the cause of the greatest Errors in the Christian Churches.  so has it been not less perniciose to the Christian Churches both primitive and later. This the Spirit of God foresaw, and therefore he abounds in his Divine Premonitions and cautions against admitting this vain Philosophy into the Churches of Christ, so as to give any occasion for its mixture with the great Doctrines of Faith. We have given several Scriptures to make this good, and shall at present only add that, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17, 18, 23. v. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
2 Tim. 2.14, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  put them in remembrance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. frequently inculcate this on thy hearers, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obtesting or adjuring them before the Lord. It notes the most solemn Adjuration. And to what? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they strive not about words; i.e. according to the custom of the vain Philosophers, who had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strifes about words. In opposition whereto he exhortes Timothic, v. 15. To study, that he approve himself to God,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ver. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  rightly dividing the word of truth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly signifies to divide accurately: but here it is taken Metaphorically, as by the Seventy, Prov. 3.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Prov. 11.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which 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 solemn 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 styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, segmenta, or particles. Whence they who gave up themselves to the study of the Scriptures, were styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they who divided the Law. Thus Paul exhortes Timothy, (who was from his infance instituted in the Scriptures, and therefore well 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eat. 
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, etc. The same word is used Tit. 3.9. Then he adds the matter he was to avoid; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, profane and vain babble; i.e. says Grotius, men's comments or figments about Divine matters without any Revelation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies (1) Aclamor about vain matters: or (2) Avain clamour; or clamour of vain words, such as agree not with the form of sound Doctrine. So chrysostom understands it here, of such new forms of speech, or unheard of terms, which were not used in the Churches. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 14. and takes in all Philosophic discourses or disputes; which in matters Divine without a Divine Revelation are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, profane and vain babble. For, adds he, they will increase unto more ungodliness. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. such vain Philosophising, though they seem to have some ressemblance to Divine Truth, and but little error in them, yet will 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 signify as well as word. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will eat, has a peculiar significance in it: for we know a Gangrene mightily spreads and feeds upon the sound flesh: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Leu. 13.22. Whence the Greeks' 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 remedy immediately applied, or the part cut off, the Gangrene eats farther and farther on the adjacent parts, until the whole man perish. Such a venomous and dissusive influence has vain Philosophy on the minds of men, yea on whole Churches. This (adds Grotius) he affirms, That Philosophic evil spreads far, specially seeing many will 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 passed already. These Pythagorising Gnostics, by their Philosophic Allegories, endeavoured 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 Wisdom: all these Philosophic Allegories and Questions are but a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foolish wisdom. See the like, 1 Tim. 1.4, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 (says Grotius) understands immodest Questions. For the Greeks express 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of the same import. Knowing that they gender to strife, as Tit. 3.9. The Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Grotius. By all which it is evident, that this Gnostic Gangrene had its rise from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy. And indeed that the Philosophers were the great Heresiarches, or founders of all those great Errors and Heresies, which like a Gangrene insested the Christian Theology and Churches, was a common received persuasion amongst the Fathers and Primitive Christians: the truth whereof will appear evident by an examen of Particulars, and discovery how all the great Errors brought into the Christian Church, both before and after the rise of Antichrist, had their origine from Pagan Philosophy.  
§. 7. The first great Heresy, 
The Gnostics Errors from Pagan Philosophic.  which as a Gangrene did overspread and consume much of the beauty, glory, and vigour of the Primitive Churches, was that of the Gnostics, which had taken a considerable rooting in the Apostles days, as is gathered from the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy; also from the Epistles of Peter, and Judas; all which seem ful 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 door to Antichrist, and his Exaltation in the Temple of God. Theodoret, Eusebius, and Nicephorus make this Heresy of the Gnostics to arise from Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates, about An. 137. But others refer the origine of this Heresy to the Apostles times, as in what follows. Now that these Gnostic Infusions were but the corrupt offspring of Pagan Philosophy is generally acknowleged by the Learned, and will be very apparent by a brief consideration of Particulars. 1. As to the origination of their Name, 
1. The origination of their Name.  they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gnostics, from their own assume and pretensions to an extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, knowledge, which indeed was but spurious and false Science, as the Apostle upbraids them, 1 Tim. 6.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of science falsely so called. 
1 Tim. 6.20.  You see here, says Grotius, how ancient the name of Gnostics is, which these Philosophers mixing with the Christian Assemblies assumed to themselves, despising all others as rude and ignorant, and falsely challenging the encomium of Science. Clemens saith, the Gnostics rejected this Epistle, because they saw themselves so lively characterised herein. I will not positively affirm, that the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gnostics, was given to, or assumed by them in the Apostles days, though Grotius and Hammond favour this sentiment; because some learned men contradict it: but this I believe, that the Gnostic Infusions and Errors were very much diffused through some of the Primitive Churches in the Apostles days; and therefore oft struck at in their Epistles, as it will appear by what follows, out of Irenaeus Disciple of Polycarp, who lived in the second Centurie, and professedly wrote against the Gnostics, and Valentinus their Sectator. Yea Eusebius and Photius tell us, that Irenaeus' five Books against the Gnostics, and Valentinians, had this title, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a reviction of knowledge falsely so called. That these Gnostics had dissused much of their poison in the Apostles times, is affirmed by Ignatius in his Epistle to Philadelph. if genuine.  
2. As to their Doctrine; 
2. The Gnostics mystic Theologic. Judas v. 19  these Pythagorising Gnostics pretended unto a very mystic, sublime, and spiritual Theologic, answerable to their name. So Judas v. 19 These be they that separate themselves. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. says Grotius, who separate and distinguish themselves from others, as more wise and knowing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not having the Spirit; i.e. they boast of very great spiritual Inspirations, but indeed they are but Diabolic Infusions; not from the Spirit. That this Mystic Theology of the Gnostics was indeed the issue of vain Pagan Philosophy, together with some Jewish Observances, is a general persuasion of the Learned, Grotius and others. Irenaeus and Epiphanius tell us, that the Gnostics had the Images of Plato and Pythagoras, which they joined with the Image of Christ: This indeed holds true as to all their Mystic Theology, which was but a composition of Platonic and Pythagoric Philosophemes, presumed with some Judaic and Christian Dogmes. 
Col. 2.8.  So Hammond on Col. 2.8. With Philosophy and vain deceit. Paraph. And take care (says he) that no body plunder you of all that you have, your Principles of Christian Knowledge, by that vain, emty, frothy, pretended knowledge and wisdom, which the Gnostics talk of, 1 Tim. 1.4. and 6.20. taken out of the Heathenish Pythagorean Philosophy, together with the observances of the Mosaical Law, and very distant and contrary to Christian Divinity. Thus Hammond, who adds the same in his Paraphrase on v. 9 for in him, etc. i.e. for the whole will of God is by Christ really made known to us,— and therefore there is little need of the additions of the Gnostics, which they borrow out of the Heathen and Jewish Theology, to supply the defects of the Evangelical Doctrine. The like he adds v. 10. of which hereafter. But to treat more distinctly of the origine of this Mystic Theologic taken up by the Gnostics, as a medium for symbolising with the Gentiles, we must know, that it was partly Mythologic and fabulose; partly Symbolic and Enigmatic; and wholly Allegoric. (1) As for the Mythologic and fabulose part of the Gnostics Mystic Theology, 
1. The Gnostic Theologie mythic and fabulose.  it seems to be derived from the Mythologic Philosophers and Poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, Amiphanes, Philistion, and Pherecydes, who writ of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Genealogy of the Gods; whence the Gnostics borrowed their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Conjunctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joined to another begets a third: as out of night and silence (say they) comes forth Chaos, etc. which indeed was the same with the Theology of Orpheus, and the rest of these Theologistes. 
1 Tim. 1.4.  So 1 Tim. 1.4. That they give not heed to fables and endless genealogies. He calls them Genealogies, (saith Grotius) because they feigned the emanation of the one from the other. And for these Genealogies they would seem more wise than others; whence despising other Christians as more rude and ignorant, they made the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Gnostics, peculiar to themselves. Though indeed all their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Mystic Theology, was but a mere Mythologic Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or fabulose Wisdom, taken up in imitation of the Orphic Mystic Theologie, or Genealogy of the Gods, etc. as hereafter. (2) Neither was this Gnostic Theologie only Mythologic, but also Symbolic, Enigmatic and Allegoric, in imitation of the Pythagoric and Platonic Philosophy, 
1. The Gnostics Aeones, their office as Mediators and origine from Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas and Demons.  as it may appear by the following Discourse of its parts.  
1. A great and principal part of the Gnostics Mystic Theology comprehended the Doctrine of their Aeones, their Origine, Genealogy, and Office, which they took up in imitation of the Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas and Demons, applying the same to the Angels. So Ireneus, advers. Haeres. lib. 2. cap. 19 where he opens this mystery to us, showing how these Gnostics framed their Aeones in imitation of the ancient Poets and Philosophers, Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, etc. Antiphanes, saith he, in his theogony, saith, that out of night and silence the Chaos came forth, etc. Hence the Gnostics form their Aeones.— And that they call them Images or Ideas, they manifestly follow the opinion of Democritus and Plato— But in that they make the Saviour to result out of all these Aeones, they bring in nothing but Hesiod's Pandora. And in that they will that all this be transferred into Numbers, this they had from the Pythagoreans, etc. He tells us, that these Reveries were framed out of the Platonic Ideas, etc. Tertullian, libro de anima, says, That the heretic seeds of the Gnostics shined in the Platonic Ideas. Which he calls in the same place, The heretic Sacraments of Ideas. And more fully, lib. de Prescript. cap. 7. Tertullian assures us, That the very Heresies of the Gnostics had their composure and ornament from Philosophy. Thence the Aeones, and I know not what forms and Trinity of man in Valentinus, who was of this Gnostic sect, as hereafter. And as the Pythagoric and Platonic Ideas contributed much to these Gnostic Aeones, so also their Doctrines of Demons. Thus Grotius and Hammond out of him seem to make those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines of Demons, 
1 Tim. 4.1.  mentioned 1 Tim. 4.1. to be the character of the Gnostics Theologic, which so far as the Gnostics were types and forerunners of Antichrist his Demon-Doctrines and Apostasy, we may safely grant. Though, I conceive, that Prophetic character primarily refers to the Antichristian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was but an imitamen of the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Demon-worship, as hereafter: yet we may also take in the Gnostic Aeones, as forerunners of Antichrists Saints, and Imitamen of the Philosopher's Demons. And indeed these Gnostic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Aeones, as to their Origine and Office, seem much the same with the Pythagorean and Platonic Demons. For these Gnostics looked on their Aeones as midling-Gods, or Mediators; which our Apostle seems to strike at Col. 2.10. 
Col. 2.10, 19  Ye are complete in him which is the Head of all principality and power. i.e. (says Hammond in his Paraphrase) By him you have knowledge enough to complete you, without such supplies as these, from the Doctrines and Divinity of the Gnostics about their Aeones, looked on by them as Divine Immortal Powers, of which, whatsoever they are, (if they be not Idol-nothings) be they Angels of a superior or second degree, Christ is the Head; and they that have Christ, need not trouble themselves with these accessions. By which it is plain, that these Gnostics made their Aeones, as Mediators, answerable to the Philosopher's Demons, and Antichrists Saints; which were all erected as Mediators in the room of Christ. Therefore v. 18. we find mention of a Voluntary humility and worship, which these Pythagorising Gnostics gave unto their Angelic Powers or Aeones; which ver. 19 is styled a not holding the Head: i.e. (says Hammond in his Paraphr.) They that be guilty hereof disclaim Christ, who indeed is the Head of his Church, the only Intercessor to his Father. The Apostle seems the more invective against these Gnostic A ones and Mediators, because they were but the forerunners of Antichrist and his Demons or Saints. This seems to be the meaning of that Scripture, ' 1 Joh. 2.18. Ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, 
1 Joh. 2.18.  even now are there many Antichrists. The Syriac renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a false Christ. Such indeed were these Gnostic Aeones, as the Pythagorean Demons, whence they sprang, and both the Parents and precursors of the great Antichrist and his Daemon Saints. I know Grotius, (and so Hammond who follows him) out of his too great favour for the Roman Antichrist, restrains this and other Prophetic discoveries of Antichrist to some Pseudochrist, or Antichrist started up in the Apostles times; such as Barchochebas amongst the Jews, Apollonius Tyanaeus amongst the Pagans, and Simon Magus amongst the Gnostics: but this is too narrow a conceit to find room in any true Christian heart. Yet thus much we may allow him, and all other Cassandrian Patroness of the Roman Antichrist, that these holy Penmen, in their Prophetic discoveries of the great Antichrist, might have an eye on those Pagan, Jewish, and Gnostic Antichrists of their time, as forerunners and Ideas of the great Roman Antichrist. And indeed 'tis our safest course to interpret Scripture in its largest sense.  
But as to the origine of these Gnostic Aeones, they were taken up in imitation of the Grecian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Generation of the Gods, begun by Sanchoniathon the Phenician Mythologist, who was followed herein by Orpheus, Hesiod, and Pherecydes, who was of Phenician extract, and spent a main part of his Philosophising in the explaining this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Genealogy of the Gods: from whom we may presume Pythagoras his Scholar learned the same, as also from the Orphic Theologistes, with whom he much conversed. Now the Gnostics apply the whole of this Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Generation of the Gods, to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Aeones, or Angelic Powers; which the Apostle seems to strike at, 1 Tim. 1.4. Neither give heed to Fables and endless Genealogies, which minister questions, etc. i. e. (says Hammond in his Paraphrase) warn thy flock not to heed those fabulose Pedigrees of the Gods, which under the name of Aeones the Gnostics talk so much of, and so bring in many perplex disputes. The like in his note on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Most of the Divinity, says he, of the Gnostics consisted of Conjunctions, and then from them Genealogies, how one thing joins with another, and begets a third, and applies all the Theology and Genealogies of the Gods in Orpheus, etc. to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Aeones, as they called the Angels, etc. See Iren. l. 2. c. 19  
2. These Pythagorising Gnostics abounded much in Will-worship, 
2. The Gnostics will-worship from Pagan Institutes. Col. 2.16, 18.  and Superstitiose Ceremonies, in imitation of Pythagorean Institutes and Demon-worship. This the Apostle seems to intimate, Col. 2.16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat and drink, etc. As the Gnostics did. Then he adds, v. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of Angels, etc. i.e. (says Hammond) Let no man please himself, and condemn you, in point of worshipping Angels as Mediators to God, as if there were some special humility in so doing, etc. Which the Gnostics were guilty of. Thence v. 20, 21, 22. he mentions sundry Pythagorean Institutes which these Gnostics assumed. 
Ver. 23.  And then ver. 23. he concludes, Which things have indeed a show of wisdom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a pretext or vain umbrage of Pythagorean wisdom, etc. In Will-worship. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. according to the Thracian, Orphic, and Pythagorean Institutes, which abounded in Will worship, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-fear. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Religiose Rites and Worship, which Plutarch deduceth from the Thracians, among whom the Orphic Mysteries prevailed. Whence it is oft used to signify Superstition and superstitiose worship, 
Col. 2.18.  as Col. 2.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the superstitiose worship of Angels. So Hesychius interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a superstitiose person. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies primarily, a worship invented and instituted by the will of man. So it's taken materially and passively for any worship that receives its original Institution from the will of man, not the will of God. Thence Hesychius explicates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship: and Phavorinus expounds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he worships according to his own will, what seems good to him. And because all such Will worship is in Divine estimation superstition, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rendered by the old Latin, Ambrose, and Erasmus, Superstitio, q. Supra statutum. Such was the superstitiose Will-worship of the Gnostics, which they invented in imitation of the Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Demon-worship, as hereafter, C. 2. S. 3. §. 10.  
3. More particularly these Gnostics affected Celibate, 
3. Forbidding Marriage Pythagorean.  and forbade Marriage, in imitation of the Pythagoreans. So Theodoret saith, that Saturnius, a Ringleader amongst the Gnostics, was the first amongst Christians that affirmed Marriage to be the work of the Devil: and Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 3. says, this was generally the Doctrine of the Gnostics. So Hammond on 1 Tim. 4.3. Forbidding to marry. 
1 Tim. 4.3.  Part of the character of these Gnostic Heretics is to interdict Marriages, and speak against them as unlawful.— These Heretics had much of their Doctrine from the Pythagorean Philosophers, etc. Hence,  
4. These Pythagorising Gnostics enjoined Abstinence from the flesh of Bestes, and several other meats, as Col. 2.21, 22. 
4. Abstinences.  Touch not, taste not, handle not; which were Pythagorean Injunctions assumed by these Gnostics, as before. So Hammond on 1 Tim. 4.3. Commanding to abstain from meats, etc. See Theodoret and Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 3. of the Gnostic Abstinences.  
5. The Gnostics also, in imitation of the Pythagoreans, 
5. Their Sorcery, Divination, etc.  much addicted themselves to Divination, Sorcery, and lying wonders. This was that which Simon Magus, the Father of the Gnostics, endeavoured to render himself famous by, who would said have purchased the gist of doing Miracles from the Apostles; but when that could not be, he gives up himself to the Devil for a purchase of the same; which, as the Ancients generally report, he grew famous for both amongst the Heathens and Gnostic Gospelers. Insomuch that Hammond and Grotius would fain restrain Antichrists lying wonders, 2 Thes. 2.9. to Simon Magus, or suchlike.  
6. These carnal Gnostics, 
6. Their sensuality and uncleanness. 2 Pet. 2.18.  notwithstanding their pretensions to spiritual Mysteries, professed and practised monstrose Sensuality and uncleannesses. These seem struck at 2 Pet. 2.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lasciviose ways. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Selga, was a Town in Pisidia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where men lived luxuriosely, and polluted themselves by mutual uncleannesses. Whence unclean persons were termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eminently selgites, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being here augmentative, as the Etymologist, Suidas, and Bochart. Whence Pliny, Nat. Hist. l. 15. c. 7. makes mention of Selitic Oil, which these Selgites invented, to fortify their spirits and nerves, debilitated by luxury and uncleanness. Schmidius and others give a contrary character of these Selgites; yet all agree in this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies great luxury and libidinose uncleanness, which the Gnostics were guilty of. For, says Grotius, they gave their Philtra, or love-charmes, and counted lasciviose deeds amongst things indifferent. 
Judas 12.  So Judas 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in your love-festes; which these sensual Gnostics converted into fuel for their uncleanness. The Nicolaitans, Rev. 2.15. seem to be of this Gnostic Sect. He that has a mind to hear more of their monstrose wickedness may consult Epiphanius and Irenaeus, who have laid them open.  
7. These Gnostics had, 
7. Their Expiations, etc. 2 Tim. 4.4.  in imitation of the Pythagorean Purifications, their Expiations. So Grotius on 2 Tim. 4.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These Fables (saith he) were concerning the Expiations of sins, according to the Chaldaic and Orphic Disciplines. In those a chief place was given to Sea-water, and thence to fountain-water, Scylla, sulphur, bitumen, etc. The Gnostics held also freewill, as Jansenius informs us.  
8. Lastly, 
8. They turned the Resurrection into an Allegoric, as §. 6.  to lay a sure foundation for their wickedness, these Gnostics denied the Resurrection, turning all the Scriptures that tended to prove the Resurrection into mere Allegories. So Hymeneus and Philetus, who were of this Gnostic sect, 2 Tim. 2.18. Saying the Resurrection is passed already. i.e. They turned the Scripture-relation of the Resurrection into a mere Allegoric 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of the Pythagorean and Platonic Resurrections, as Grotius. Touching Pythagoras' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and its ressemblance to the Gnostic, see Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. C. 2. §. 8. These were the noxious Infusions of the Pythagorising Gnostics, who were herein but forerunners of the Roman Antichrist, 
Pagan Philosophy the cause of many Errors amongst the Fathers, etc.  as we shall fully demonstrate, Chap. 2.  
§. 8. As Pagan Philosophy laid the foundation of the Gnostic Heresy, so also of the great fundamental Errors, which have been ever since broached and revived in the Churches of Christ. And indeed herein we may not excuse the Greek Fathers, who being many of them brought up in the School of Alexandria, and other Academies, where the Grecanic Philosophy flourished, drank in therewith many Philosophic Errors and Infusions, which proved not a little prejudicial to the simplicity of the Christian Theology. Thus Justin Martyr, having his spirit deeply drenched in Platonic Philosophy, even to some degree of Intemperance, (1) he presumed, That Plato's Dogmes were not alien from the Doctrine of Christ, as Apol. 1. (2) Hence he asserted, That such as lived according to reason, albeit Pagans, as Socrates, Heraclitus, and suchlike, might be saved. (3) He held, in imitation of the Philosopher's Demons, that God committed the care of human affairs, and sublunary things to Angels, as Apol. 1. p. 44. (4) He was too much a Patron of Moral freewill, in corrupt nature, as Apol. 2. Thus also Clemens Alexandrinus, so termed because brought up at Alexandria in Egypt, having been educated in Philosophic, which then greatly flourished in the School of Alexandria, he therewith imbibed many Errors, which he mixed with his Christian Theology. As (1) He held, That Christ assumed flesh, thereby to demonstrate unto men their sufficient forces to obey God's Commandments: whence also he asserted, That obedience and inobedience was in our power; as Strom. 2. Likewise, That the precepts of God are such as may be, or not be observed by us, as Strom. 4. Yea Strom. 2. he saith, That Faith also is in our power, because infidelity. Which Pelagian Infusions he imbibed from the Stoic Philosophy, wherein his spirit was drenched. Yet Strom. 3. he assertes efficacious Grace for the production of all Moral good. And Strom. 2. he owns the Infusion of faith by God, which he makes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (2) He asserted, That those who were before Christ, and lived honestly, were made just by the Law, and by Philosophic, yet that they wanted faith in Christ; whence that in Hell they expected the coming of Christ and his Apostles, by whose Preaching there they were converted to believe in Christ, and so at length saved. Again, That none were perfectly saved by Christ before his coming, as Strom. 5.6. (3) He sometimes assertes Justification by Works: as in Protreptico, he saith, Men might purchase Salvation by their own works: sometimes he joins Faith and Works together, as Strom. 5, & 6. (4) He held with the Stoics, That perfection in Virtue was attainable in this life, Strom. 6, 7. (5) He calls Martyrie the purgation of sin. Strom. 4. But none imbibed more Philosophic Errors than Origen, as in what follows. How much Philosophy corrupted the Fathers, has been taken notice of by many Reformers; as by Amesius, Bellarm. Eneru. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. It is evident, that the Fathers by and from Philosophy introduced into the Church various modes of speaking, specially of human Merits, and of the righteousness of the Gospel, which appear not in Scripture; whence there was occasion given and taken by the Schoolmen of framing perniciose Errors. The like Tilenus, Syntagm. part. 2. Disp. 16. Thes. 31. Neither (says he) did the Fathers introduce into the Church some Ornaments only from Rhetoricians, but also Dogmes from the Philosopher's Schools, specially from Plato's Academy; 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 Schoolmen (successors of the Fathers) and Aristotle exalted into Christ's chair, he does even engage in controversy with Christ about the Rule of truth, specially in the Doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about contingent and freewill: although truly in this point the most ancient Greek Fathers had rather hear Aristotle than Paul. Thus Tilenus, who afterward himself fell into the same snare as to Freewill, etc.  
This in a more peculiar manner concerns the Greek Fathers, 
Origen's Errors from Philosophic.  such as were brought up in the School of Alexandria, specially ' Origen, who being Scholar to Ammonius, that great Master of Platonic Philosophy, (whom some reckon to be a Christian) follows his Master's steps in endeavouring to reform Platonic Philosophy, and reduce it to the form of Christian Theology; wherein he came infinitely short of his design: for he did by these his vain attemts, but the more sophisticate and adulterate Divine Theology; not only by his many Platonic Allegories, but also by those several Philosophic terms and errors which he mixed with the Doctrines of Faith, 
Ludou. Vives in August. Civit. lib. 9 cap. 11. tells that from Plato's Demons Origen without doubt derived his Error in asserting that men's Souls were changed into Demons, and these again into men's Souls, as in Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  namely his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or freewill, his Pre-existence of Souls, etc.  
1. The Pelagian Errors came from Origen. 
Origen the Founder of Pelagianisme.  Jansenius, August. De Haeres. Pelagian, Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 13, etc. gives us a particular and large account, how all the Pelagian Dogmes were form 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 Necessity as to one part, essential to the liberty of the will 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 liberty, 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 liberty, Lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, C. 5. And by consequence it is from us, and in our motions, that we are blessed or holy, etc. See Jans. p. 150. (2) Origen everywhere inculcates and cries up the sufficience of Nature's Law to live well. 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 show, That the Providence of God doth govern 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) All the Glosses of Scriptures touching Original sin and Grace, which the Pelagians abuse, yea the whole system 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 all Origen's Errors, namely the Ubertie and Fecundity of his Wit too much immersed in vain Philosophy, as hereafter, §. 10. and C. 2. Sect. 1. §. 4.  
2. Origen gave also a great foundation and improvement to ' the Arian Heresy. (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 splendour, which yet with us, by reason of our imbecility, may seem very great. That the Son was not bonity itself, but a certain air or image of bonity, 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 Dignity and honour after the Father and Son, yea inferior to the Son, as Hicronym. ad Avitum. Who also in Epist. ad Pammachium, saith, That he spoke i'll of the Son, but worse of the Holy Spirit. (4) He held, That the Father contained allthings, 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 Philosophy then taught in the School of Alexandria, wherein he was instructed; which acknowleged a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Trinity; 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 Trinity, which gave the original Exemplar to Arianisme. Whence Epiphanius, in Epist. ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum, calls Origen, the Father of Arius: and Hieronymus Epist. ad Pammachium, styles 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 the whole Systeme of Papism, or Antichristianisme. (1) He gave the first lines to all Mystic Theology, by turning all Scriptures, even the most plain into Allegories, according to the Platonic mode, of which more hereafter, Chap. 2 Sect. 1. §. 1. (2) He was the first Founder of Monastic Life, Abstinences, and Austerities. [1] He emaseulated himself, i.e. extinguished virility, thereby to preserve Chastity. [2] He understood those Precepts of our Lord, against having two coats, shoes, and making provision for the morrow, in a literal sense, as belonging to all Christians; and thence affected voluntary Poverty, as the Monks of Egypt his Successors. [3] He abstained from necessary food, as the Pythagoreans, and Popish Monks; whereby he endangered his health. [4] He affected superstitiose sanctity and severities, abstaining from necessary sleep, lying on the ground, etc. as Monks. (3) He held human merits, and justisication by works, placing Man's Satisfactions, Tears, Contrition, and other good works, as the causes of Remission of Sins. So in his Hom. 24. on Numbers, and 24, and 23, on Joshua, and Hom. 1. in Ezech. (4) He asserted, with the Papists, Perfection in this life, namely, that Saints may extinguish all though foam of sin in this life, and so satisfy the Law. Of which see Lib. 1. in Job, Hom. 8. and Hieron. ad Ctesiph. advers. Pelagianos. (5) He was the first that introduced Purgatory, from the Platonic School at Alexandria, into the Church of God. Plato's notions of Purgatory see in what follows, Chap. 2. S. 3. §. 11. And Origen in imitation hereof held, That some sins were purged out here, but others passed with us into the next life, where they were by the torment of sire purged out. Of which see his Hom. 8. in Leviticus. Hom. 2, & 3. in Psal. & Hom. 14. in Jeremy.  
4. There were many other great Errors asserted and introduced by Origen, 
Other Errors of Origen.  from that Platonic School at Alexandria, and its corrupt Infusions. As (1) he held the pre-existence of Souls. Thus Plato in his Timaeus, and elsewhere he saith, Thut all Souls were produced at once, and distributed into the Stars, etc. So Nicephorus, lib. 5. c. 23. August. lib. 2. de Civit. Dei. c. 23. as Epiphanius, Hieronymus and Suidas relate, that Origen held, Human souls to have been before bodies, and that for their sins they were chained to bodies: which was a great Philosopheme among the Platonistes. (2) Hieronymus, Epist. ad Avitum, & Apol. 2. adversus Ruffinum, assures us, that he held, in imitation of Pythagoras and Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Transmigration of Souls from one Body into another. (3) He held, That the Devils and souls of the wicked should be at last saved, and that after long punishments they should be associated to the good Angels. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 1. c. 6, 8. Hom. 9 in Jerem. which also is related by Theophilus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus and Augustinus. So lib. 2. contra Celsum, he saith, That the soul of Christ divested of its body converted many souls. (4) He denied the Resurrection of the flesh, affirming, that our Bodies after the Resurrection should be round, aereous, and not of the same substance they now are. Thus the Resurrect. l. 4. & Expos. in Psal. 1. as Hieron. ad Pammachium.  
How many and great the Errors of Origen were, which he imbibed from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophic in the Alexandrine School, is more fully explicated by Hieronymus, in Epistolis ad Avitum, and Pammachium, and Oceanum, Tom. 2. Oper. p. 190. Also in Apolog. adversus Ruffinum. These his Venomous Errors began first to be espoused by the Monks of Egypt, who drank in the same with much greediness, and diffused them throughout the whole mass of their Mystic Theology, which gave great contests among the Churches of those times, as Baronius has well observed on the year 256. Alexander, Eusebius, Didymus, and others, studiosely endeavoured the defence of Origen; but Methodius, Eustachius, Apollinarius, Anastasius, Theophilus, Hieronymus, Athanasius, Augustinus, and many other of the Fathers; and more particularly the Constantinopolitan Council, An. 551. condemned Origen of many Pestilential and prodigiose Errors, imbibed from Ethnic Philosophers. Cluverus in Apocalyps. Tom. 2. p. 315, etc. applies that character, Rev. 8.10, 11. 
Rev. 8.10, 11.  And there fell a great Star from Heaven, burning as it were a lamp, etc. unto Origen; who, as Severus Sulpitius observes, in what he did well came short of none after the Apostles; but in what he erred, none was worse. That this Text, Revel. 8.10, 11. points out Origen, Cluverus proves, (1) from the time of this third Trumpet, which answers exactly to Origen. (2) From the several parts of the character: [1] He burned as a lamp, which notes his spiritual gifts, as Mat. 5.15. Joh. 5.35. [2] Yet he fell from Heaven; i. e. from his spiritual celestial Light, into miserable terrene darknesses of Ethnic Philosophy. [3] He fell upon the third part of the rivers and fountains of waters; i.e. on the People and Ecclesiastic Assemblies, which were corrupted by him. [4] And his name was wormwood, namely by reason of the extreme bitterness of his Dogmes and superstitiose severities.  
But to conclude Origen's Character, the original springs of these his monstrose Errors seem these. (1) The natural Luxuriance of his exorbitant fantasy, which recreated itself in the Allegoric mode of the Platonistes. (2) His despising the simplicity of the Scriptures, and Christian Theology. (3) His too great confidence in his own parts, and presuming himself to be wiser than others. (4) His affectation of new Terms and Modes of interpreting Scripture. (5) But most of all his insolent abuse of Divine Mysteries and Truths, by reducing the same to Platonic Philosophemes. Hence basil, Hom. 3. Hexaem. severely redargues Origen's Allegoric Mode of Theologising: and elsewhere he terms it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a fabulose figment. Greg. Nazianzen, Orat. 42. styles Origen's way of commenting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worthy of a conjector of Dreams, in allusion to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Artemidorus, and Apollonius Attalus, as before, L. 1. C. 3. §. 8. Greg. Nyssenus, in Cant. Praesat. & l. de ho. opat. c. 18. disputes sharply against the Deliries or sick Dreams of Origen. Cyril Alexandrin. in Act. Concil. C P. stigmatiseth Origen with the character of Antichrist: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Origen has started up in the midst of the true Church, as the Abomination of Desolation. Epiphanius, in haeres. 64. hath writ severely against Origen's Errors, whom he terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, self-willed sophist, or one tenacious of his own sentiments in wisdom. And he terms his Doctrine, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Absurdity and perniciose Doctrine in many parts of saith, etc. Whence the Greek Theologues in the fifth Oecumenic Council anathematised him for his Errors. Of which see more, Vincentius Lyrinensis, lib. advers. Haeres. c. 23. How much these Primitive Churches were infested by Errors imbibed from Ethnic Philosophy, specially those of Origen and the School of Alexandria, has been well observed by that great French Divine Morelius, in his Discipline de l' Eglise, liv. 2. chap. 6. pag. 101. Human Philosophy has corrupted many, who desirous to mix it with the Gospel, disfigured the Doctrine thereof, and at length made of it a pure Human Philosophy. This happened not all at once, but by little and little, until it came to darken Grace. For Origen endeavouring to exhort men to perform works worthy of their Vocation, extolled good works without measure: and the more to awaken men hereto, he gave them to understand, that these good works were in their power and from their Freewill. Which opinion opened the door to the Pelagians.— In general the ignorance of all Science has produced great evils: but yet the greatest part have had their fource from Reason, Human opinion, and Philosophy; which for this reason Tertullian rejected and banished from the Church, as being the mistress of Heresies. Again, liv. 3. chap. 14. pag. 260. Morelius adds, That Philosophy and Curiosity corrupted this noble School of Alexandria, and by consequent the Church Which ought therefore to be carefully avoided; because these two evils are natural to Scholars, who not contenting themselves with the simplicity of the Gospel, are ambitiose to beautify it with human ornaments of Eloquence and Philosophy; and from a rage to get knowledge would fain mount up higher than their very Doctors.  
We find this mystery of iniquity excellently laid open by Owen, Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. where he shows us, how this Pagan Philosophy at first crept in amongst the Fathers, to the great prejudice of Christian Theology. The sacred Chorus (says he) of the Apostles being removed, Satan again attemted the corrupting of Evangelic Truth, and that not without success. For what he could not accomplish by open assault, he gradually obtained in defence of the Truth. For after the Apostles were removed, the Patronage of Truth came into the hands of Learned men. Of this number were Clemens, Origen, etc. whom it sufficed not to use the Word and Spirit of God against the enemies of Truth, but they were pleased to engage also with reasons drawn from secular learning. And it happened in progress of time, that these Philosophic arguments, which these learned men used in the defence of Truth, yea the very terms and words, were esteemed as necessary parts of Religion. But this Philosophic fatal evil did in a more particular manner infect the Church after the Peripatetic Philosophy, (which for some ages had lain neglected) began to please Students in good literature. For this Philosophy of Aristotle being revived and adorned by the Mahumedan Arabians, and thence sucked in by the Schoolmen, they utterly abrogated the Evangelic Theology. And as many of the Fathers thus corrupted the Doctrine of the Gospel by Philosophic Notions and Infusions; so in like manner the Worship of the Gospel was by their assuming Philosophic terms and rites greatly corrupted. Pythagoras, Plato, and other of the Philosophers had, in imitation of the Jewish Church, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And the Greek Fathers in imitation of these Philosophic Rites, call their Sacraments and other Mysteries by the same Names; yea assume many of the same Rites to cloth Christ's Mysteries withal. Thus the spurious Dionysius Areopagita calls the Eucharist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Casaub. Exer. 16. c. 43. assures us, 
Of these Teletae, see Court of the Gentil. par. 1. B. 2. c. 9 §. 10.  that when the first Christians call their Sacraments Teletas, etc. these and the like Names were transferred from the Sacreds' of the Pagans. The Grecians called the Deification of the Heroes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence among the Fathers, specially such as were Popishly inclined, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is attributed to Saints. But of this more fully in what follows of Antichristian Rites, Ch. 2. S. 3. §. 11.  
§. 9 But to descend to particulars. 1. All those hell bred, 
1. The Samosatenus & A●ian Heresy from Pagan Philosophy.  black Errors, which struck at the Deity of Christ, had their foundation in Pagan Philosophy. Such were the opinions of Samosatemus, Arius, etc. As for the Heresy of Samosatenus and its traduction from Pagan Philosophy, we find a good account in Melancthon, Chron. lib. 3. of the state of the Church under Valerius and Aurelianus: Paulus Samosatenus, (says he) who fell upon the blasphemy of Ebion and Cerinthus, had this occasion for his Errors: Plotinus the Philosopher (who was Scholar to Ammonius) reading in the School of Alexandria, had mingled with his Philosophy Allegories touching the Eternal Word. And in as much as there were many debates about these things from the writings of the Ancients, Paulus Samosatenus drew thence his impostures, and maintained, that Jesus Christ was only man, and that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word, Joh. 1.1. We may not understand any person subsistent, but the declaration and word of promise. These Reveries were received with much applaudissement by curiose spirits, and particularly by Zenobia Queen of Arabia and Dame of Antioch: by whose means P. Samosatenus was maintained secure for ten years' space. This Heresy of Samosatenus denying the Divinity of Christ was revived by Arius, and that from the very same foundation of Platonic Philosophy, yea in the very same School of Alexandria. This is well explicated by Aquinas, Sum. part. 1. Q. 32. A. 1. We find, saith he, in the Books of the Platonistes, That in the beginning the Word was: by which Word they understood not a person in the Trinity, but an Ideal Reason, by which God made all things— whence sprang the Error of Origen, and Arius, who followed the Platonistes herein. So again in what follows, Q. 34. Art. 1. Aquinas assures us, That Origen laid the foundation of Arianism, by affirming, That the Word in Divine ' matters, signified only Metaphorically, not properly. That Arius also had his Infusions from the Platonistes in this School of Alexandria is evident: For Arius was a Presbyter in this Church, and Student in this School, where the Pythagorcan and Platonic Philosophy was at this time wholly in request, (for Aristotle came not in play till afterward) which the learned Christians Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, etc. made use of as a medium to illustrate and prove the great mysteries of Faith touching the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, word, mentioned, Joh. 1.1. hoping by such symbolising, and claiming kindred with these Philosophic notions and traditions (originally Jewish) touching the Platonic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they might gain very much credit and interest amongst these Platonic sophists. Hence these learned Father's Clemens and Origen made it their business to lay open the cognation betwixt Pagan Philosophy and the Mysteries of the Gospel; proving, that Philosophy was but a reflex beam, or broken derivation and tradition of Sacred Revelation. Which design and undertaking had been of excellent use, had these learned Fathers withal discovered the Vanity and Corruptions of Pagan Philosophy as then constituted: but this they were so far from undertaking, as that they assumed a considerable part of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy, both Mater and Form, and mixed it with their Sacred Theology; and so out of all 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 contests in the School and Church of Alexandria; as also to the Heresy of Arius, as it had done to that of Samosetanus before. This is well taken notice of by that great French Reformer Morelius, Discipl. liv. 2. chap. 4. pag. 87, 88 It has been the custom (says 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 presumption and ostentation, and the starting of high and curiose Questions; which may afterward trouble the Church. The Arian Heresy had its rise from the particular conferences of learned men in the city of Alexandria. Indeed Constantine sharply reprehended these curiose Disputes, etc. The same may be applied to the Photinian Heresy, which was the same with the Arian and Samosatenan. Of which see Melanchton, Lib. 3. of the Church's 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 Heresy. See Justinian in 1 Joh. 1.1. and Origen's influence on Arianism in what precedes, §. 8.  
§. 10. Another great fundamental Error, which received spirit and life from Pagan Philosophy, is Pelagianism; 
2. Pagan Philosophy the cause of Pelagianisme.  which strikes diametrically at the free efficacious Grace of Christ, (as Arianism at his Divinity) and contains in it much of the spirit of Antichrist. We have before in what was laid down touching the Vanity of Pagan Ethics, B. 1. C. 2. §. 4. proved, that the Philosophers generally asserted a Moral power, or Free will, in all men to perform virtuose actions. They had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, right Reason; their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, good nature; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, freewill; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things in our power, and seeds of virtue, which they made the spring of all their good works. These notions the Greek Fathers, specially Origen, (who was bred up amongst the Philosophers in the School of Alexandria) sucked in with too much greediness, who made them the foundation of his Exhortations to good works, 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 men's freewill to perform the same. This laid the foundation for the Pelagian Heresy, 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, etc. Amongst all (says he) that preceded Pelagius, I find no more skilful Architect of the Pelagian Heresy 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 form than the Pelagian. Neither will you easily find any Dogme, one excepted, used by Pelagius, or Julianus, against the Church, or any interpretation of Scripture favouring that Heresy, which Origen did not form 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 will 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 well, etc. (3) From his pleading for Merits, and perfect Righteousness, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (4) From his overthrowing the Doctrine of free Election, Predestination, etc. (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 adds cap. 18. that the whole of this Heresy had its foundation in the Pythagorean, Stoic, and Peripatetic Philosophy. He also acquaints that the Origenists, or Monks 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 Heresy. 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 sanctity and holiness: which made way for that great Pelagian Error, touching Election from the prevision of good Works. More touching the Traduction of Pelagianisme from Origen's Dogmes, see what precedes §. 8.  
That Philosophy was the cause of Pelagianism also, Godeau, that great French Historian in the Life of Augustin, Liv. 2. Chap. 2. p. 200. demonstrates thus, Nevertheless the Philosophy of Aristotle and Zeno seems to have contributed much to Pelagianisme. And if Tertullian has named the Philosophers the patriarchs of Heretics, that is particularly true in regard of the Pelagians; who, if we may so speak, 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 Apathy, 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 consists in the moderation of them; yet both one and tother agreed in this, That virtue came from man, not from God. And Cicero explicating their Doctrine, saith, Who ever gave God thanks 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 man's self. Lo, the Abregement of the Pelagian Doctrine!— Philosophy furnished the Pelagians not only with Materials to build their fortress against the Church, but also with Arms to defend it. And Augustin doth reproach Julian, with the subtleties of Logic, which he had learned, etc. As Vanity and Pride is the character of Human Philosophy, so also of the Pelagian Heresy; and it is its specify difference: For if a man examine all its propositions, he shall find in them a spirit of pride in the most insolent degree.— We have a secret desire of Independence which is graven on the very fund of our corrupt nature. Thence one being asked why Pelagianisme did spring up in all Ages, answered, because there were Pelagianae sibrae, certain Pelagian sibres, or small venes of Pelagianisme in the hearts of al.  
Jansenius likewise tells us, Tom. 1. lib. 7. cap. 17. That the Greek Fathers, out of too great opinion of Origen and his Commentaries, sucked in from him the same opinions about Freewill; which chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theophylact were too guilty of Origen's opinion for Freewill see in his Philocalia, cap. 21, 23, 25, 26, etc. This may serve as a reason why Pelagius found so much favour from the Greek Fathers in the Council of Dispolis, An. 415. That Pelagius himself received much of his Heresy from these Origenistic Monks seated in Egypt, with whom he had conversation whilst in those parts, may hereafter appear, when we come to treat more fully of Pelagianism revived by the Schoolmen. It sufficeth at present to show, what foundation was laid for the Pelagian Heresy by the Greek Fathers, specially those of the Alexandrine School; who out of a vain design to gain reputation to the Christian Theology contempered some of the purer and more reformed parts of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy therewith, to the great prejudice, yea corruption thereof, which Antichrist afterwards makes use of for the exaltation of his throne, and introduction of his Mystical, Scholastic, Canonic Theologie, as it follows, C. 2. S. 1. §. 1, etc.  
But to give a summary account of the rise and progress of Pelagian Dogmes, Bradwardine in his Preface to his never-enough to be admired Book De Causa Dei, against the Pelagians, 
A summary of Pelagianisme.  tells us, that the lapsed Angels were the first Founders of this Sect, who depending on their mutable Freewill, though then Morally holy, fell from their Dependence on Divine Grace, into that miserable servitude of sin they are now chained under. The same Error Augustin, Aquinas, and other Antipelagian Schoolmen make to be the cause of Adam's Fal. And if his Moral Freewill when void of Sin could not preserve him from falling into sin and misery, when he depended thereon, how is it possible that corrupt Freewill in his lapsed posterity should raise them up to a state of Union and Communion with God, from whom they are now, by reason of the spiritual death and servitude of Sin, so far distant? Bradwardine also makes Pelagianism to have been avouched and owned by Cain, Nimrod, Nebuchadnezar, and other forerunners of Antichrist. That it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Pharisees is most evident both from Sacred Scriptures, as Luke 18.9, 11. and elsewhere, as also by the general consent of such as have written of the Pharisees, Drusius, etc. In the Primitive Christian Churches this Pelagian Infusion was diffused among the Gnostics, and other legal carnal Christians, even in the Apostles days; as seems evident by their Epistles, which elsewhere, if the Lord please, we shall make apparent. But the principal founder of this Pelagian Placite in the Primitive times was Origen, as Jansenius has incomparably well demonstrated in his History of Pelagianisme. From Origen and his Sectators the Monks of Egypt, Pelagius, the reproach of our ancient Britain's, imbibed his venomous Infusions, which proved the vital spirits of Antichrist that man of sin.  
To give check and confusion to these proud sentiments of that Pelagian Antichristian party God raised up Augustin for the succur of his poor bleeding Church, 
Augustin's Zele against Pelagianisme.  against the most pestiferous Heresy that ever infested it. He was a person of prodigiose natural acumen and Capacity: he had an ample vast soul, filled with Divine Lights and Heats: he was indeed the Restaurator of the ancient Faith in this point, and Doctor of Grace, being indeed an infatigable and invincible champion of Freegrace against Freewill: He penetrated all the secrets of the Pelagians, and opened their Vanity: he entered by the conduct of God's Spirit into the very bowels of corrupt Nature, and anatomised all its subtle Recesses and Diverticules: He descended into the darknesses of the blind mind, and discovered its venomous influences on human Acts: He also manifested the feeblesses and impotence of the corrupt Will as to what is spiritually good: He made a perfect Anatomy of the old Adam, dissecting the small fibres thereof. And this Pelagian Heresy, which may well be styled the Heresy of corrupt Nature, the daughter and mother of Pride, did but the more inflame his zeal for Divine Grace, and increase his profound Humility: and whereas the pride of man's spirit takes great satisfaction in such flesh-pleasing notions, his incomparable Humility led him to a more implacable enmity against them: and being fortified with the armour of Divine Light and Grace, he confounded the Fautors of Pelagianism, and Patroness of corrupt Freewill, discovered their puerile ignorant Sophisms, and impudent Blasphemies; as also contemned their reproaches and calumnies. He explicated his Hypotheses with clarity, and demonstrated them with invincible force, specially in his two last pieces; those he writ against the Semi-pelagians, of the Predestination of Saints, and of the gift of Perseverance. We have an incomparable Systeme of all his choifest sentiments about Grace collected by that great Patron of Freegrace, and Impugnator of Freewill, Jansenius, in his Augustinus; where also we find an excellent account of Augustin's Life, and Zele against the Pelagians: the like in Godeau, La Vie de St. Augustin. And because some of late have thought Augustin too warm and passionate in his Zele against the Pelagians, I shall give an abbreviate Idea or character of his spirit and zeal for God, which is more copiosely and lively delineated by Godeau, that great French Historian, in the forementioned History of Augustin's Life. Augustin was a wonder of nature for Parts, and a miracle of Grace for Piety. It were easy to find admirable Parallels between those two great men, Paul and Augustin, which Godeau calls the ancient and new Apostle of Jesus Christ. Augustin observed in Paul an admirable Fidelity, a celeste Eloquence, which was by so much the more capable to prevail, by how much the less human. He also observed in him a singular address to manage Spirits, an incomparable clarity to explicate Mysteries, a singular prudence to distribute Divine Verities according to the capacity of his Disciples, a marvellous judgement in his counsels, a profound intelligence to discover the secrets of men's hearts; a perfect charity for sinners, and yet an amorous vehemence against Sin. Libertines were constrained to admire in Augustin an exemple, which they were not willing to imitate. He studied more to become pious than learned, and to purify his heart from carnal Affections, than to enrich his Understanding with new Sciences. He thought he ought to grow in virtue according to the measure he grew in dignity. He was the Master of all by his Doctrine and Exemples; but by his Humility, charitable and prudent Conduct, the Servant of al. The Son of God chose him to defend the principal foundation of Christian Religion. Other Doctors had particular lights for the defending divers Truths, but he had extraordinary clarity for the defence of the prime Truth and Grace. If it be the nature of Science to puss up, than one might think such an eminent Science as Augustin had should greatly puff him up; but the malignity of Science was never so perfectly extinguished as in him: and he is yet more admirable for the profundity of his Humility, than for the sublimity of his Doctrine: he searched not for the praise of men. We might copy out all Augustin's Books, if we would report all the humble Sentiments which he hath couched touching himself, in a manner that is not affected, and wherein one cannot accuse him, that he searched for Glory in a seeming contemt thereof; he had no difficulty to confess his ignorance in many things, which men believed he could instruct others in. He thus speaks: I profess I am of the number of those which writ in profiting, and profit in writing. With what Sentiments of grief, with what sincerity, with what simplicity, with what diligence, with what confusion doth he in his Confessions speak of the Errors of his spirit, of his foolish imaginations, of his extravagant thoughts of Divine Verities? with what freedom doth he open his heart, that we may read all the disorders of his passions? we may call these Confessions of his the triumph of Grace. Augustin had in his house an Assembly of Ministers with whom he lived in common; he forgot nothing to bring them to perfection; he had for all a love truly Paternal: he counselled them in their doubts, supported them in their infirmities, fortified them in their seeblesses, accommodated himself to their ignorances'. He had a great natural tenderness of love towards his friends, which Grace form into a Divine love.  
After Augustin, when Pelagianisme, by the growth of Antichristianisme was come to a perfect stature, God raised up many great Reformers, specially Bradwardine and Wiclef, to oppose the same. 
The Jansenistes Zele against Pelagianisme.  Many also among the Dominicans, as Aquinas, Ariminensis, Alvarez, etc. have put forth great efforts to pull down this Idol of Pelagianisme. But none have been more bold and successful in the Roman Church, for the overthrowing this proud Pelagian Idol, than pious and great Corn. Jansenius, and his Sectators; whereof we have given a large relation in our Idea of Jansenisme. And we shall here only add, that it is, or aught to be the great wonder of pious souls, that in this Age, wherein so many Professors of the Reformed Religion have turned their backs on the Doctrine of Freegrace, and imbibed so many Pelagian Infusions, which are the very vital spirits and heart of Antichristianisme, God has raised up, even in the bosom of Antichrist, Jansenius and his Sectators, who, in vindication of Augustin's Doctrine, have approved themselves such stout Champions and Assertors of Freegrace, against all Pelagian Dogmes. O! what matter of Admiration will this be unto all Eternity?   

CHAP. II. Pagan Philosophy the cause of all Antichristianisme.  
Pagan Philosophy the cause 1. of Monachisme and Mystic Theology; 2. Of Scholastic Theology and Pelagianisme; 3. Of Canonic Theology; (1) Its form, 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col. 2.8. (2) It's Mater, 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antichrists Canonised Saints an Imitamen of the Philosopher's Demons. Their Parallel [1] in Origine; [2] In formal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [3] In Mediatorship, Col. 2.9, 10, 19 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or imitation of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Tim. 4.2. The essence of Antichrists Apostasy in Idolatry, Rev. 17.5. Rev. 13.1. (1) All Commemorations of Saints at their Graves, Demon-worship. (2) Saints Holidays and Festivals from Demon-worship. (3) Saints Images, Crosses, and Relics from Demons, etc. (4) Sacrifices and Offerings to Saints from Demons, Psal. 106.28. 1 Cor. 10.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (5) Exorcism, and Popish Miracles from Demons, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. Eph. 4.14. Pythagoreans great Magicians, as Apollonius Tyanaeus, etc. (6) Invocation of Saints. (7) Popish Rites, viz. holy water, fire, garments, etc. from Demons. (8) Antichrists Fasts, etc. from Demons, 1 Tim. 4.3. (9) Monastic Life and Rules Demon-Doctrines, 1 Tim. 4.3. Col. 2.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (10) Works of Supererogation and Merits from Demon-Doctrines, 1 Tim. 4.7, 8, 9 Col. 2.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Tim. 4.4. (11) Purgatory from Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Offerings and Prayers for the Dead from Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (12) Antichrists Primatie an Imitamen of the Pagan; its Origine at Alexandria, but its chief seat at Rome. The Pope a Demonarch, in Imitation of Divus Augustus, who was Pontifex Maximus. 2 Thes. 2.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, extensive and intensive. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the Roman Emperors Demons; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Emperor called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Divus Augustus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to rule; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. as a Demon. The Pope's gradual Advances. All Patriarches from Pagan Institutes. (13) All Popish Traditions from Demon-Dogmes. 1 Tim. 4.1. A summary of the whole.  

SECT. I. Antichrist's Mystic and Scholastic Theology from Ethnic Philosophic.  
§. 1. WE have shown the sad and evil Effects of Pagan Philosophy in reference to the Pagan's themselves, the Jews, and the Primitive Christians; we now proceed to demonstrate its perniciose causality and influence as to Antichrist his hellbred Doctrine and Discipline. And for our more Methodic procedure herein we shall reduce the whole of Antichristianisme to these three Heads: (1) Mystic Theology; (2) Scholastic Theology; 
1. The Monks drew Mystic Divinity from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy in the Alexandrine School. 1 Tim 4.3.  (3) Canonic Theologie. (1) As for Antichrist's Mystic Theology, it was the figment of the superstitiose Monks, who were the firstborn sons of this Man of Sin, and the main Pillars of his Throne, according to that part of his character, 1 Tim. 4.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forbidding to marry. It's true, there were some devote Christians, who in time of persecution chose a Monastic or solitary life; but the imposing hereof under certain Rules, yea Vows, and that as a more perfect state of Religion, proceeded from the spirit of Antichrist. Now these superstitiose Monks were first seated in Egypt at Alexandria; where they drank in the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy, and therewith many Philosophic superstitions. And to treat a little more distinctly of the Origine of these Monks, the first borne sons of Antichrist, and their Mystic Theology, we are to take a brief view of the School of Alexandria, and its Constitution when Monastic Life and Theologie was introduced into the Primitive Churches. This School of Alexandria, founded by Ptolomeus Philadelphus, was indeed the seat of all Philosophy, yea the eye of the world as to learning, at this time when Monastic Life and Theologie crept into the Church, as we have largely demonstrated, Court Gent. P. 2. B. 3. C. 4. §. 4, etc. The Philosophy that most flourished in this Alexandrine School at this time was Pythagorean and Platonic: and the principal Professors thereof were the Egypt an Priests, who were incorporated into Colleges, or Convents, affecting a Monastic Life and Severities, in imitation of the Essenes' among the Jews; who, in the times of the Babylonian and subsequent Persecutions under Antiochus, etc. affected a Monastic solitary life, and severe Discipline, to preserve the purity of their Consciences and Religion, as we have shown Philos. General. P. 1. l. 1. c. 1. §. 11. Hence, I say, both the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Priests traduced their Monastic Life and Discipline: of which see Philosoph. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. also l. 2. c. 3. §. 4. and Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. c. 6. §. 9 Now that the whole of Antichrist's Monks, their original Constitution, and Discipline, and Mystic Theology, was but a superstitiose Imitamen of the Egyptian and Pythagorean Monastic Life and Philosophy, 
1. Antichristian Monks an Imitamen of Egyptian and Pythagorean Colleges.  will be most evident by the subsequent Parallels.  
1. As to the origine of these Antichristian Monks, their several Orders and Rules, they were indeed all but superstitiose Imitamen, or Apes of Pagan Monks and Discipline. We have before P. 2. Book 2. C. 6. §. 9 shown how the Pythagoreans, in imitation of the Jewish Schools and Essenes', affected a Collegiate Monastic life, and Discipline. And that the whole of Antichristian Monachisme was but a reflex Idea or Imitamen of that Pythagoraen Constitution, learned Bochart in his Treatise against Veron, part 3. chap. 25. §. 4. Art. 1. proves at large: showing, how this injunction of Celibat and Monastic life was one great part of the Doctrine of Demons, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. which was one of the superstitions Pythagoras brought out of Egypt into Grece; for he forbade Marriage to those of his Sect, and erected a Cloistre of Virgins or Nuns, etc. then he proves, how that this institution of Celibat was by Christ's time established almost throughout the Pagan World. But to come to Particulars: (1) The Pythagorean Monks, in order to their more regular Collegiate life, entered into a most strict confederation or covenant to walk by the same common Rule, enjoined by their Master Pythagoras, as Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. c. 6. §. 6. Thus also the Egyptian Priests, as Philos. Gener. P. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. parag. 11. The same do the Antichristian Monks, who make a Vow to walk regularly according to the Rule of their Founder: whence they are called Regulars, in opposition to the Secular Priests. (2) Had the Pythagoreans in their College Novices and Perfect? So have the Antichristian Monks. (3) Did the Pythagoreans separate themselves and despise all that were not of their Order, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imperfect and uninitiate? So do these Monastic Sons of Antichrist, etc. (4) Did the Pythagoreans affect a superstitiose silence? so do these Monks; having this Motto over their doors, Silentium, silence. (5) The Pythagoreans enjoyed allthings in common; thence their College was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a community. The same do Antichrists Monks in their Convents, which they call by the same name, Caenobium. (6) Had the Pythagoreans their Rules for abstinence from flesh, & c? Thus also the Egyptian Priests gloried much in their abstinences from flesh, etc. as Philos. Gener. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. parag. 3. And have not Antichrists Monks the same Abstinences? are not the Carthusians and Praemonstrantes under a prohibition from ever eating flesh, according to their character, Col. 2.21. 1 Tim. 4.3? (7) The Pythagorean Collegiates had their white distinctive garments: so have these sons of Antichrist the like distinctive Garments or Vestments, which Constantin styles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Garment of darkness. (8) Did the Pythagoreans greatly reverence their Elders? so do these sons of Antichrist their Superiors and Elders, calling them, my Father, etc. (9) Were the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Priests much addicted to devotion or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superstitiose Demon-worship? so are these superstitiose Monks to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saint-worship, which exactly answers to the Pythagorean Demon-worship, as 1 Tim. 4.1. (10) Had the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Priests their Severities, Mortifications, and Purifications? so have these superstitiose Monks the very same. (11) The Pythagoreans divided their life into contemplative and active, etc. So also the Egyptian Priests, as Philosoph. Gener. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. So the Monks. Now to explicate more fully the manner how these Pythagorean and Egyptian Rites of Monastic Life and Discipline were introduced first into the Egyptian Churches, and thence into the Grecian, Roman, and other Churches, we must reflect on what was before mentioned of Origen, C. 1. §. 8. who, in imitation of that Monastic Life, so much affected by the Pythagoreans, Platonistes, and Egyptian Priests in the School of Alexandria, brought in the like Monastic modes into the Churches of Egypt; wherein he was followed by his Sectators, the Origenistic Monks of Egypt; from whom all Antichristian Monastic Life, Rules, Confederations, Orders, Abstinences, and superstitiose Rites proceeded, as before, also in what follows, S. 3. §. 9  
2. To proceed to the Mystic Theology hatched by these Antichristian Monks, and its production both as to matter and form, 
The Monks Mystic Theology from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy.  in derivation from, and in imitation of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy. We have already showed, that the Origine of this Mystic Divinity was laid by the Monks of Alexandria, and other parts in Egypt; the Idea or platform whereof was given them by Origen, who being brought up in the School of Alexandria under Ammonius, that great Reformed, and as some think Christian Platonist, was so drenched in Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy, as that he fills his Commentaries on Scripture with little else save Allegoric and Mystic Theology, answerable to the Pythagoric and Platonic mode of Philosophising. Wherein he is followed by his successors the Monks of Alexandria: amongst whom Origen, by reason of his great parts and acquired learning, was greatly idolised and imitated; whence they were called Origenists. And that which gave them great advantage for the spinning out this their Cobweb of Allegoric and Mystic Divinity, was their solitary Monastic contemplative life, which they greatly affected, and whereby they being freed from the encumbrances of worldly affairs, had the more opportunity to broach and perfect their Mystic contemplations. Thus also the Pythagoreans, Platonistes and Egyptian Priests, spent a great part of their time in sublime Mystic Contemplations, which made their Philosophy so Symbolic and Mystic, as Porphyry, de Abstinent. l. 4. §. 6. p. 149. and Philos. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. paragr. 5. Farther, that this Mystic Divinity was taken up in Imitation of, and Derivation from the Pythagorean, Egyptian, and Platonic Philosophy, may appear not only from the Authors of it, Origen, and his followers, (who were seated at the fountain of Platonic Philosophy) but also by its essential parts, both matter and form, 
Mater of mystic Theology Pythagorcan.  or mode. (1) As for the matter of this Monkish Mystic Divinity, it abounds with many Philosophic Fables, and lying wonders, answerable to the Mystic Fables in Pythagoras and Plato's Philosophy. Indeed the whole of Antichrists Theology is but a mere Philosophic and lying Mystery, as 2 Thes. 2.9. But yet no part of Antichristianisme is so stuffed with lying Fables and Demonic Miracles, as this Mystic Theology, framed by these Antichristian Monks. By whom were those Legends of fabulose wonders (supposed to be wrought by Saints) framed, but by these Mystic Divines; and that in imitation of the Pythagorean wonders wrought by Apollonius Tyanaeus and others of that Sect? Indeed the whole of this Mystic Monkish Divinity seems to be but a mere Pythagorean and Platonic Fable: for though the original Idea might be some Divine Scripture-Mysterie, yet these fabulose Monks mix so many of their own fantastic allegoric Fables therewith, as that a critical eye can hardly discern any elements or characters of Divine Truth amidst so many Fables. (2) Neither is the matter only of this Mystic Theologie fabulose, but its form also; 
Mystic Theology as to its Form, Pythagorean & Platonic.  answerable to the Mythologic, Symbolic, Allegoric mode of Philosophising so commun amongst the Pythagoreans and Platonists. How much do these Mystic Divines glory in their Tropologic, Anagogic, and Allegoric explication of Scripture? Neither is there any Scripture so plain, literal, or historic, but they have some Tropologic or Mystic sense for it: witness that of Job 1.14. where by the Oxen ploughing they understand, the people labouring: and by [the Asses feeding beside them] they understand, the Priests feeding on the people's labours. In which Mystic Explication, though most absurd as to the Text, yet we have more of truth than they ever dreamt of; namely, that all their Monastic Orders and Antichristian Priests are but so many idle Asses, which feed on and wax fat by the labours of poor Laics, as they call the people. Indeed this Monkish Mystic Theology does, in point of Fables and Allegories, seem to exceed either the Jewish Cabala, or the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy, whence it received its original Ideas. And we need no way doubt, but that the Spirit of God, in laying down such severe Premonitions and Cautions against giving heed to Fables, had a very great eye upon this fabulose mystic Divinity, which at first the Gnostics, and since these Monkish Divines, the firstborn sons of Antichrist, took up in imitation of their Grandfathers, the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophers. So 1 Tim. 1.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Philosophic Fables. 
1 Tim. 1.4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Allegoric Genealogies these Monks affected as well as the Gnostics. The like 1 Tim. 4.7. where he adds this as one part of these Doctrines of Demons revived by Antichrist, 
1 Tim. 4.7.  that they should revive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, old Philosophic fables: which these mystic Monks were greatly guilty of. The like Tit. 1.14. In all which Texts we find these mystic Divines the Monks fully characterised, as well as the Gnostics: of which see B. 1. Chap. 4. §. 1.  
§. 2. After the Mystic Theology framed by the Monks, 
The Origine of the Schoolmen and their Theology from Aristotle.  succeeded the Schole-Divinitie composed by the Schoolmen, which received its origine from the very same fountain of Pagan Philosophy, and tended to the very same end, namely the confirmation and farther propagation of Antichristianisme, though the medium and course taken up by the later was quite different, yea opposite to that used by the former. For the Monks deriving their Mystic Theology from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy, made use of all their fabulose Miracles and lying Wonders, all their allegoric and mystic Interpretations of Scripture, with all their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Pythagorean Institutes, Abstinences, Severities, and other pretended Sanctities of their Monastic life, as mediums to gain credit and authority to Antichrist, their Parent and Lord. But now the Schoolmen, those younger sons of Antichrist, though they had the same end in their eye, yet they proceeded on a new and different medium or way: For these vain Sophists traducing their Scholastic Divinity from their Grandfather Aristotle his Eristic Philosophy, made it their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or business, to maintain Antichrist their Father's Doctrine and Authority by vain disputations, according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contentiose Logic in the Eleatic and Peripatetic Schools. And to make the demonstration hereof more firm and evident, we shall a little consider the origine of Schoolmen and their Divinity, its parts essential and integral.  
As for the origine of the Schole-Divines, they began to flourish in the thirteenth Centurie, 
Scholasticorum apud Graecos Johan. Damascenus, apud Latino's Petr. Lombard. fuit Pater. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 6. c. 2.  about the middle thereof; and their chief feat was at Paris, which was then the eye of Europe for Liberal Sciences and Theology. For Charles the Great having in the ninth Centurie erected a famous University there, those who had inclinations to good Literature resorted thither, as to the common School thereof; specially considering the Inundation of Barbarism and Ignorance in Italy. But that which rendered this University of Paris more famous was the College of the Sorbonne, instituted by Robert D. brother of Lewis King of France, about the year 1270. Here the Schoolmen, Albertus Magnus, Hugo the Cardinal, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and the rest of that Gang seated themselves; making it their business to defend the Pope's Doctrine and Authority by their Philosophic distinctions and disputations; wherein they found at first great opposition from more sober Divines and Professors of the University at Paris; specially from Gulielmus de sancto Amore, a pious Reformer, who flourished about the year 1260, and greatly declaimed and writ against those Schole-Divines their Philosophic Infusions, as that which was likely to prove perniciose to the Church: wherein indeed he was a true Prophet. He writ many excellent Treatises against these Schole-Divines, viz. A Defensory of the Scripture and Church, against the dangers which hung over the Universal Church by Hypocrites and false Teachers: also of the perils of the later times: of the signs of false prophets, etc. Yet notwithstanding the Schoolmen, those great Champions of Antichrist, found so much favour from Alphonsus' Earl of Poictou, another brother of Lewis King of France, as that he, by threats and terrors, chased away the more zelose Reforming Divines, and established these Scholastic Doctors in the Sorboune, as it is well observed by our famous Baleus, de Script. Britan. Cent. 4 cap. 34. where he farther adds this: And as Cantipratensis has it in his Book of Mystic Bees, Albertus Magnus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and others of the same meal did many and wonderful things at Paris. And Erasnus says, that the Philosophy which these our Masters afterward used in the Schools had its origine in these days. Leland says, that in those times Arts degenerated from their purity, and I know not what sophistic garrulity made a noise in the School. Thus Baleus, who also (cap. 77.) acquaints us, that Arnoldus de Villa Nova, a famous Physician and Mathematician (who flourished about An. 1300.) opposed in like manner these Divines; affirming, that they had perfidiously adjoined the Dreams of the Philosophers to the Scriptures. Franciscus Petrarcha, lib. 1. de Remed. utriusque fortunae, Dialog. 46. complaines of these Schoolmen thus: They fable many things rashly of God and nature; by their airy Sophisms they circumscribe the most Omnipotent Majesty: they dispute so of the secrets of Nature, as if they came down from Heaven. By which we see, that in the first peepings forth of this Schole-Divinitie out of its shell, there were not wanting some zelose Reformers who opposed it, as being but a Philosophic dream, which would greatly prejudice the true Christian Theology. And to make the same more evident and clear we shall consider this Scholastic Theology in its Parts, both essential and integral, with their origine from Pagan Philosophy.  
§. 3. The first Essential part of Scholastic Divinity, 
The Eristic mode of Scholastic Theology from the Eleatic and Peripatetic Schools.  we shall consider, is its Form or Mode of Philophising, which is Eristic or Dialectic, answerable to that in the Eleatic and Peripatetic School. For, as we have formerly observed, B. 1. C. 2. §. 1. there was in the Eleatic School a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eristic or contentiose mode of Disputing, whereof there was also some spice in the old Academy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a probationarie or problematic mode of disputing, which yet was only about things doubtful; but in the new Academies it determined in an universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Sceptisme. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contentiose Logic, as seated in the old Academic Schools was more simple and plain, being managed only in a way of Dialogue, according to the Scriptural mode of Disputation. Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usually signify to dispute. But Aristotle, to avoid the prejudices which such a naked form of disputation was exposed to, reduceth the disputes of his School to a more artificial form and method of syllogising; wherein by reason of his natural acumen he was extreme dexterous. Him therefore these Schoolmen follow, as their Master; he having laid down a more succinct, accurate, artificial form of disputation. Thus Luther (as Sleidan, Lib. 11. Comment.) says, That Aristotle was in great repute among the Schole-Divines; and there was nothing so absurd, so remote from our Religion, which they defend not, which they cloth not with some interpretation, although far-fetched, that so his honour and name may be great. And Schmidius applies to them, 2 Tim. 2.23. Foolish and unlearned Questions reject, knowing that they breed contentions. But how guilty these Schole-Divines are as to contentiose disputes is set forth to the life by one of their own Religion, Erasmus in his Annotations, on 1 Tim. 1.6. where he discovers how far they have, by their frivolous vain Questions and Digladiations turned away, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to vain babbling. Though, to give Aristotle his due, he was nothing near so vain and contentiose in his Disputes, as these Schoolmen are. It's true, he left some Theses to be disputed by his Scholars, (as also Theophrastus his successor after him) as an exercise of their acumen and wits; but these disputations were nothing like those vain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or contentiose disputes, which are in use amongst the Schoolmen. Therefore to give a more particular account of the origine of these vain Scholastic Disputes, we must know, that these Schoolmen, though they pretend Aristotle to be their Master, yet they rather own their Eristic mode of disputing to Aristotle's Commentators the Arabians; 
How far the Arabians contributed to Scholastic Theology.  particularly to Aben roes, who having little or no skill in the Greek, and not much in the Latin, could only make some poor guesses touching Aristotle's mind and sense: whence he framed many exotic terms, and uncouth notions and distinctions as so many blinds to conceal his ignorance. We sinned this well observed by Owen, de Theolog lib. 6. cap. 7. pag. 515, etc. In all the Eristic disputations, Aristotle's name is pretended, when as they rather follow his corrupt Interpreters and Commentators. For the Arabians, (from whom the Schoolmen derived all their niceties) being most ignorant of Greek and Latin, were forced to make use of rude and unlearned Translations from the Latin to the Arabic Tongue, which in many places could no way reach the sense of the Original, etc. The like account I sinned in Hornius, Histor. Philos. l. 5. c. 10. of these Arabian Commentators on Aristotle, thus: I wish, they had been skilled (which is altogether necessary to accurate Philosophy) in the Tongues, and in philology. But they being borne in the midst of Barbarism, what else brought they to Philosophy, but Ingeny and Industry? There happened another evil, that whilst they esteemed Aristotle for the God of Sapience, who could not err, they oft err, with erring Aristotle. This also we may peremtorily affirm, that they who gave up themselves to Aristotle's Philosophy, could not understand Aristotle in his own tongue, nor yet in any tolerable Version. There were extant Arabic Versions, but those in many places maimed, perverted, corrupted. Which happened by the fault partly of the times, partly of men, partly of the Tongues. The times were so barbarous, that Grece itself was ignorant of her own Plato and Aristotle. For as it was difficult to turn Aristotle out of Greek, by reason of his concise and interrupted manner of speech; so was it most difficult for the Arabians, whose speech, as it is evident, 
Quanquam dubium non sit, quin, si ipsos Arabes sua lingua, quae scripserunt, lectitaremus, aut purior saltem versio adornaretur, propius ad mentem Aristotelis accessuri essent. Horn. Histor. Philos. l. 5. c. 10.  is most disserent from the Greek: hence it was that these Commentators so often mistake Aristotle. Thus Caelius, lib. 2. A. l. cap. 2. of Avincenna. He being, says he, imbued with the Arabic Idiom, and no way versed in the Greek literature, read Aristotle's Books not translated, but mutilated and perverted in his barbaric tongue: whence no wonder if he could not attain to the sense and mind of that most eminent Author, who for brevity's sake oft speaks so concisely, that the best Philosophers can hardly reach his sense. Yea that which adds to the schoolmen's mistakes of Aristotle, is that they understood only some Versions of these Arabic Commentators on Aristotle. That Abenroes, (or as they writ him Averro) the chief of the Arabian Commentators on Aristotle, was of great repute amongst the Schoolmen at Paris, yea more studied than Aristotle's Text, is evident, in that it was reputed the glory of a Scholeman to be a good Averroist. And not many years since we found Averro in great vogue there. We find an excellent character of these Aristotelic Divines, and their Eristic mode of disputing in Jansenius' August. Tom. 2. lib. pro 'em. c. 28. The Schoolmen being even drunken with the love of too much Philosophy, would fain draw out, penetrate, form, and judge those secret mysteries of Grace, almost buried and extinguished, according to the rules of human reason. Hence that ardour of disputing every thing, and calling all those mysteries into question. Hence their Theology is stuffed with a bundle of innumerable opinions, by which all things though never so contrary are made probable, which, according to their own declarations, it is lawful for any to defend. So that promtitude has scarce lest any thing certain, but a belief that it is lawful to form new opinions; for Scepticism and incertitude is the punishment of such temereity: neither is any thing more natural, than that men from Peripatetics should become Academics, etc. We find the like account of this Schole-Divinitie, and its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Owen, Theol. lib. 6. c. 7. pag. 516, etc. All the difference betwixt the Schoolmen and Philosophers lies in this, that they have mixed somewhat of Scripture with their Science.— In the beginning of Reformation nothing seemed so odiose in that Apostatised Church, as this Theologic Science, which ruled in the School.— From this Philosophic Theologic there has sprung many Errors, infinite contentions, which might be easily removed, if Christians would content themselves with the naked Word of God, laying aside that spinose Theologie, etc. Sir Francis Bacon, in his Novum Organum, speaking of these Scholastic Divines, says, That besides their reducing Theology into an order, and artificial form, they over and above effected this, that Aristotle's contentiose and spinose Philosophy should be more than was meet mixed with the body of Religion. This made Sir Henry Wotton give this as his Epitaph, Disputandi pruritus est scabies Ecclesiae, the itch of Disputing is the scab of the Church. And indeed Christ and his Apostles foreseeing the noxious influences of these Scholastic disputes, give frequent, and very severe Premonitions against them. So 1 Tim. 6.4, Doting about questions and strife of words: 
1 Tim. 6.4, 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. (as Grotius) answerable to the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Again v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sophistic disputes: which he calls v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, profane and vain babble: also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, opposition of science falsely so called, of which see more fully B. 1. C. 1. §. 6. Again, 1 Tim. 1.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which Book 1. C. 2. §. 1. as also, 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Scriptures, though they might have some fulfilling in, and regard unto those vain dispute began in the Primitive Churches; yet we may not limit them to those times: For without doubt the Spirit of God, in laying down such strict cautions against these vain disputes, had a particular regard to following times, wherein he foresaw these Philosophic contentions would be revived; as indeed they were by the School Divines.  
§. 4. As the Form, so also the Mater of Schole-Divinitie, 
The matter of School Divinity, specially Pelagian Infusions from Philosophy.  had its origine in good part from Pagan Philosophy. It's true, the Text these Scholastic disputers Theologise upon is usually the Sentences collected out of the Fathers by Lombard, but their Comments are for the most part little else but Philosophic Notions and Distinctions taken out of Aristotle and his Commentators, Abenroes, etc. I shall not treat at large of the Mater of School Divinity, but only of their Pelagian Infusions, which are their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the spirit of Antichrist, which they have greatly fomented by their Scholastic Disputes, and contemplations traduced from Pagan Philosophic. And here we may not bring all the Schole-Divines under this imputation and condemnation. For Thomas Aquinas and his followers the Thomists, who keep more close to Augustin, are nothing near so guilty of this Pelagian crime as the Jesuits. Yea, many of the Thomists, as Greg. Ariminensis, Alvarez, and others, have greatly opposed the Pelagians and Jesuits in the most principal of their Dogmes against Efficacious Grace. Yet, that the Schoolmen have been the great brochers and patrons of Pelagianism, is evident by their Writings: neither did Pelagius' Doctrine find any considerable favour and acceptation in the Catholic Church till the Schoolmen came in play. And that these Pelagian Infusions were foisted into their School Divinity by Philosophic Disputes and Principes, is as clear. We have in the foregoing Chapter, §. 8, 10. shown, what foundation the Pelagian Heresy received amongst the Grecian Fathers, particularly Origen, and that from Pagan Philosophy. Now that the Schoolmen build their Pelagian Infusions upon the same foundation, will be easy to prove. We find a great account hereof in Jansenius his Augustinus, Tom. 1. lib. 6. cap. 18. Although if we, would reduce the Pelagian Error to its proper fountain, and weigh it in its own balance, we shall find that it has been composed of nothing else but of the Placits of gentile Philosophers. Neither is the apparatus of that whole Heresy any thing else but pure Pythagoric, Stoic, and Aristotelic Philosophy; so that what Tertullian and Jerome said of the Philosophers, that they were the Patriarches of Heretics, may be affirmed of none more truly than of the Pelagians, their descent from the Philosophers. Which may easily be demonstrated of each hinge of the Pelagian Error: 
1. The Pelagian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Philosophy.  For (1) the first and chief Pelagian Dogme was concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apathy, or Impeccance; and what is this but that most known and proud reveree of the Pythagoric and Stoic Philosophy? against which both the Peripatetics and new Academics most stoutly dispute; whose opinions Tully in his Tusculan Questions has explicated. That the Schoolmen have been great Champions for this Philosophic Pelagian Impeccance, or state of Perfection in this life, 
2. Freewill from Philosophic.  is evident from all their writings, etc. (2) Another Philosophic infusion sucked 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 man's self. In which words the whole venom of the Pelagian impiety is comprehended. So Tully de Nat. Deorum, fine, Virtue, says he, is never acknowledged by any as received from God. That the Philosophers generally asserted a natural power or freewill 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. All which the Schoolmen have foisted into their Theology, both names and things. That this Scholastic Freewill and indifference to good and evil, was originally a Philosophic figment, 
3. Pelagian Errors about Original Sin from Philosophy.  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 Philosophy? 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, etc. And have not the Schoolmen made use of the same Philosophic Arms to oppugn the traduction of Original Sin?  
(4) Jansenius adds, That not only the Pelagian Dogmes, 
Pelagians Arms from Philosophy.  but also the very weapons which are used by its Defendants to maintain the same were taken out of the Philosopher's Shop: which is so far true, that if you take away the garrulity or babbling of Philosophy, the whole Heresy may be dissipated by one breath. Whence the Pelagians being condemned by the Church fly to the Philosophers, even by their sentence to be absolved from condemnation. Then he adds more particularly concerning the Schoolmen, how much they have fomented and nourished this Pelagian Heresy, by virtue of Aristotle's Philosophy incorporated into their own subtle Questions and Scholastic niceties. Moreover as Philosophy alone produced this Pelagian Heresy, so as many as in aftertimes amongst the Christians have adulterated the purity of Divine Grace, by a predominant mixture of human liberty, have been seduced by the inveiglement of Philosophy.— For by how much the more plain and simple the truth once was explained, and delivered; by so much the more vexatious subtlety found or cast in scruples; and that which it found certain, it made uncertain, by mixing therewith uncertainties: for too much of Philosophy has ever sophisticated, not perfected Christian truth, in that it does not believe sufficiently things divine and fised; neither does it sufficiently understand those human mixtures which by their seeming novity flater, etc. We find yet a more full 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 subtleties. Hence they would needs seem exact Dialectics and Aristotelics, that so they may by their Syllogisms cast mists on the eyes of the ignorant: Which vanity Augustin does most frequently upbraid the Pelagians withal. Hence they would have allthings doubtful 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, all the Scriptures must conform, although they seem to speak what is contrary thereto. Whence Julian fixing the Pelagian rule, saith, What reason argues authority may not deny. Thus Jansenius: wherein he gives us an exact character of these Pelagian Schole-Divines, and their Philosophic Theology. For what more Idolised in the Schools than their Recta Ratio, Right Reason, as they style 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 outgone 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, says he, vehemently wondered, 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 Infirmity of natural Ability to live well, of God to be loved in all acts, of the Souls Purgation and Beatitude, of the Necessity of Grace, etc. than many Christian Schoolmen. Neither truly can I find any other cause hereof but this, that they have universally followed Aristotle's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain ratiocination, who being willing to carp at the choicest Heads of Learning in his Master Plato, and that either from his ignorance of Divine things, or from an emulation of his Master's glory, he by his minute reasonings contemplated only terrene things: He supposed there needed not any adjutory of a superior Being, either to Virtue, or Happiness its reward; but being ignorant of his own Imbecility, he taught, that for every good work a man should confide in his own strength and virtue. This is the very poison which the Pelagians sucked from him as their Master, whilst they stifled the Grace of God as superfluous: This is the Doctrine which the Schoolmen have endeavoured to moderate, whilst they frame two men in one, a Philosopher, and a Christian. Whence also we see it happened, that so long as Aristotle's Philosophy stood banished from the Church's Schools, there was no mention found of these Pelagian Dogmes or blandishments of pure nature in the Writings of the Latin Fathers, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustin, etc. But the Schoolmen, because they remembered themselves to be Christians, placed a supernatural and natural man, as the Ark with Dagon, in the same house: For whatever they perceive to be predicated of Divine Grace in Scripture, that they apply to the supernatural man: and whatever they find mentioned in the Philosophers touching the power of the will, and Philosophic Virtues, this they apply to the natural man. Whence their distinction of Virtue and Happiness into natural and supernatural, as hereafter, P. 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 4. Thus we see how all the Pelagian Dogmes have been revived by the Schoolmen, and that upon Philosophic Principes.   

SECT. II. A general Account of Antichrist's Canonic Theology and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with its Traduction from the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
ANother great Pillar of Antichrist's Throne is Canonic Theology; 
§. 1. 3. Canonic Antichristianisme from Pagan Philosophy.  the main design whereof has been to defend Antichrist's Authority and Discipline by Ecclesiastic Canons. For look as the Monks by their pretended Sanctity and Mystic Theology, and the Schoolmen by their Eristic Theology; so in like manner the Canonists by their Canonic Theology have endeavoured to their utmost to maintain and propagate Antichrists sovereignty and Discipline. The chief Head of these Canonists was Gratian, who reduced the Ecclesiastic Canons to a body called the Canon-Law; the scope whereof chief is to support the Discipline of the Pope, under a pretention of the Catholic Church, and its Authority. For as the schoolmen's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or task was to defend the Pope's Power and Doctrine by Disputation and strength of argument; so the work of these Canonists was to maintain Antichrist's sovereignty and Discipline by producing the Canons and Authority of the Catholic Church. They pretend not to Scholastic Reason or Argument; for that (say they) does but diminish the Authority of a Law; but their great Diana is the Church's Authority, which they urge as the fountain of all their Ecclesiastic Canons and Impositions. But to run up this Canonic Theology to its origine or spring head, we no way doubt but to make it very evident, that the main, if not the whole of Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Canons and Discipline owes its origine to Pythagorean, or some other Philosophic Institutes. This we shall make good both by Divine and Human Authority. And the great hinge on which this our Demonstration shall turn, is that eminent Prophetic image or character of Antichrist, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. compared with Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. And to give a general key to these and such Prophetic descriptions of Antichrist; we are to know, that though they might have some typic and initial fulfilling in the Gnostic Heretics, which started up in the Apostles times, and were forerunners of Antichrist, as has been once and agian observed, Changed 1. §. 7. Yet their main scope is to characterise and delineate Antitichrist his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superstition and tyrannic Impositions. For it is usual with the Spirit of God in Scripture to paint forth and decipher the great and famous Apostasy under Antichrist, by lesser and more particular Usurpations and Apostasies of persons in those times wherein the Prophecy was delivered. So in the Old Testament, what is Historically spoken of Egypt, Babylon, Antiochus, etc. is in the New Testament applied to Antichrist and his Kingdom; in like manner as David and Solomon are made Types of Christ. So here, we deny not but that these Prophetic Characters of Antichrist, laid down by Paul, and John might have some foundation in, and regard unto those Gnostic Antichrists of their time, of whom Simon Magus was the Head; but to confine all these great Prophetic descriptions of Antichrist to Simon Magus, or some Heretic of those times, as Grotius and his Sectators seem to do, savours too much of an Antichristian spirit. No, it is our safest course to interpret Scripture in its largest sense: for as it has been well observed by Sir Francis Bacon, in his Advancement of Learning, Prophetic Scriptures have their fulfilling over and again in divers Periods and Ages: so that all these Scriptures which we have before made use of to characterise and describe the Gnostics and their Philosophic Infusions, who were the Forerunners of Antichrist, may much more truly and fully be applied to Antichrist, the great Antitype; who though last in Execution, yet was first in Intention, as we need no way doubt. Having given this key, we shall proceed to demonstrate, That Antichrists Canonic Theology, or Ecclesiastic Canons, were Derivations from, and Imitamen of Philosophic, and principally Pythagoric Institutes. And herein we shall follow our wont method, reducing the whole of our Demonstration to the Form and Mater of Canonic Theology.  
§. 2. As for the Form of Antichrists Canon Law, it received its Constitution from its formal Object, answerably to all other Laws. 
The form of Antichrists Canon Law from the Church's Authority, taken up in imitation of the Pythagorean Dogmes or Canons. 1 Thes. 2.13.  For the formal Object of any Law is the Authority of the Lawgiver, which is the principal foundation, or proper motive on which it depends. Whence the formal Object of this Antichristian Canon-Law is the pretended Authority of the Church, on which all their Ecclesiastic Canons are founded, as on their principal ground and proper motive. For look as Christ's Divine Law has for its formal Object his Divine Authority reveled in Scripture, according to 1 Thes. 2.13. As the word of God. This As is reduplicative, not specificative only, (as quatenus is used in the Schools) i. e. they received the Word of God under this reduplication, As the word of God, or as clothed with Divine Authority: so parallel hereto Antichrist's Canon-Law has for its formal Object the pretended Churches Autoritic; whence resultes its formal constitution, or obligatory spirit and force. Now that this formal constitution of Antichrist's Canonic Theology exactly answers to, and, as we may presume, was taken up in imitation of the Pythagorean mode of dogmatising, or imposing Institutes, seems evident from what intimations we find hereof in the forementioned Scriptures. So 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Doctrines of Demons. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as used in the Pythagorean School, signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Dogme, Decree, Institute, Canon: so also it seems to be used, Col. 2.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being appendent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies the Institutes and Dogmes of the Philosophers, (as Grotius) answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 20. of which hereafter, Sect. 4. §. 3. Thus Mat. 15.9. as also S. 4. S. 3. So that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines of Demons here we may understand those Dogmes, Institutes, and Canons, which Antichrist by his pretended Ecclesiastic Authority and Traditions, should impose upon the Churches of Christ, in imitation of those Pythagorean Dogmes, Institutes, and Canons imposed by Pythagoras on his Scholars, in reference to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship. For the Explication whereof we may remember, that amongst Pythagoras' Scholars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ipse dixit, HE SAID IT, i. e. Pythagoras, had the same weight and authority, as any Law or Canon in human Polities. They disputed not but obeyed their Master's Canons and Institutes, with as great reverence as the Sons of Antichrist do his Ecclesiastic Canons: so that a Dogme or Doctrine in his School had the ful force and obligation of a Law, specially in matters of Discipline and Demon-worship. In imitation whereof our Apostle here tells us, that Antichrist should introduce his Demon-Dogmes, or Canons, under a pretext of Church-autoritie or tradition. And this notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it implies a Dogme or Canon, suits well 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 Theology of the Canonisation of Saints, and Canonised Saints, etc. answerably to the Daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deification. So that it's evident, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Antichrist was to introduce, comprehends his Ecclesiastic Canons, at least such as refer to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saint-worship. This suits with v. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which implies a Canonic prohibition against Marriage, 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 all Antichrists Canons, notwithstanding their pretention to Church-Autoritie and Tradition. To which our Apostle opposeth v. 9 a Divine Christian Cabala, Canon, or Tradition: This is (says he) a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. (as Paulus Fagius) this is the true Christian Cabala, or Tradition, in opposition to all 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, etc. where he gives them (1) a strict charge, that no one spoil them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. plunder them of their Christian liberty, or lead them captive: which exactly suits with Antichrist, his plundering Christians of their Liberty, 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 liberty, etc. Where, says Grotius, he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the yoke of bondage, not only that which the Hebrews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 all 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 Harness, 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.  lays down the medium or means by which Antichrist leads captive the Consciences of men, and brings them under his Canonic yoke; that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Philosophy and vain deceit. Here is, says Grotius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he had said, by the vain deceit of Philosophy. By Philosophy here Grotius and Hammond understand the Pythagorean; which was stuffed with Dogmes, Institutes, Traditions, and Canons, which all who were of Pythagoras' Church or College submitted unto, as their Canon-Law or Rule of Discipline; wherein they were followed by Antichrist and his Church: (as well as the Primitive Gnosties:) so it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the tradition of men. This Grotius applies also to the Pythagorean Philosophy, and its Human Traditions and Canons imposed on all those of that Sect; who have been herein followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not only by the Gnostics, but also) by Antichrist; for what are all his Ecclesiastic Traditions and Canons, but corrupt Imitamen of Pythagorean and Talmudic Traditions and Canons? It's true, he pretends unto a Church-Autoritie as the fountain of all; and so did the Pharisees for all their Talmudic Traditions, or Oral Canon-Law; and yet notwithstanding both one and tother were but Traditions of men, yea of blind Pythagoreans. Thence it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philosophy signifies a first Principe, Dogme, Institute or Canon: and he adds, 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 signify 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 all of terrene extract, rudiments of this world, or, as Gal. 4.9. Beggarly elements, descended from Tradition, not from Christ, as it follows: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not according to Christ; i.e. says Grotius, not such rudiments or canons as Christ brought from Heaven. It's true, Antichrists Canons have Christ and his Churches name affixed to them, as the Jewish Talmud or Oral Law passeth under the name of Divine Traditions; but in truth both one and tother own 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 man's hand, whereby he binds himself to some payment of money or duty: Thence Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. such a Schedule or obligation under a man's 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, says our Apostle, Christ has canceled, by nailing it to his Cross, (this being one way of cancelling a Bond by striking a nail through it:) beware therefore how you suffer yourselves 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appendent thereto. It is well known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Philosophic notion, signifying an Institute, Injunction or Canon, imposed on their Disciples, specially in the Pythagorean School: 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 styled, 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judge, is a Law-notion, and as here applied to meat and drink, supposeth some Ecclesiastic Canons or Traditions, concerning the same. Grotius makes it the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Rom. 2.1. and understands it of those Pythagorising Masters, who imposed these their Ordinances under pain of damnation. Which indeed is of none more true than of Antichrist, who enjoins the Observance of his Ecclesiastic Canons and Ordinances under pain of damnation, Purgatory, 
Ver. 18.  etc. The like he adds, v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no man plunder you of your reward. By reward (says Grotius) he understands in this place the liberty vouchsafed by Christ. Now what has more abreged this Christian liberty, than Antichrists Ecclesiastic Canons? which we find more fully described v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Col. 2.20.  from the rudiments of the world. He repetes here what he had before mentioned v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (says Grotius) signifies all Institutions. They are called the Rudiments of this world, because they were commun to the Gentiles with the Jews; yea they seem rather to be traduced from the Gentiles to the Jews, than to proceed from the Jews to the Gentiles. So that we see what was the fountain whence Antichrist derived his Ecclesiastic Institutes, namely some human, and principally Pythagorean Institution or Canon; which the Apostle gives a strict caution against in what follows, Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to Ordinances? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. why do ye suffer yourselves to be imposed upon by those Antichristian Pythagorean Dogmes? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as has been before observed, signifies to impose a Dogme, Institute, or Canon, answerably to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to impose a Law. And look as the Pythagoreans had their Dogmes, Institutes or Canons, which they imposed on their Disciples; so Antichrist his Ecclesiastic Canons or Laws, which for the most part were of Pythagorean extract, as v. 21. of which hereafter. Thence it follows, 
Ver. 22.  v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Commandments and doctrines of men. This relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 20. as if he had said, All these Pythagorean Injunctions, Dogmes, or Canons, which these Gnostics have already assumed, and Antichrist will hereafter reassume, they are but human sigments or Traditions, not of Divine stamp and institution. Whence he adds, v. 23. Which things indeed have a show of wisdom. 
Ver. 23.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an appearance of Divine, Canonic institution. As all Antichrists Canons have a show of Church-Autoritie, or Divine Canonic Institution, though they are indeed but Human, Pythagorean, and Jewish Traditions, founded on Will-worship: as it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Grotius, signifies Rites or Ceremonies; which had its origine from the Thracians, as Plutarch teacheth us. Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Rites and Observations taken up of our own accord; which the Hebrews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such indeed are all Antichrists Institutes and Canons, no other than the Injunctions of his own Antichristian Pleasure, taken up in imitation of Pythagorean Dogmes, mixed with some Jewish Ordinances, and framed into a Canon-Law, for the conservation of his tyrannic Will-worship, which he imposeth on all his slaves, under the usurped pretention of Church-autoritie, and Apostolic Tradition. Thus we have shown what foundation Antichrists Canonic Theology, as to its formal constitution, had in the Pythagorean Philosophy.  
§. 3. 
2. The Mater of Antichrists Canon-Law from Pagan Philosophy.  As Antichrist derived the Form, so in like manner the Mater of his Ecclesiastic Canons from Pagan Philosophy; the Demonstration whereof will appear evident from an enumeration of Particulars. Indeed the whole body of Antichrists Canon-Law seems to be but a reviving of the old Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship, according to Paul's Prophetic description of that Man of Sin, 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We shall insist only on such of his Canons as are manifestly Derivations from, and Imitamen of the Philosopher's Demon-worship. And the main seat of this Discourse shall be that great character of Antichrists Discipline, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. 
1 Tim. 4 1, 2, 3.  Doctrines of Demons, etc. Before we enter upon the examen of Particulars, we are to make our way plain by removing those Antichristian Glosses, which are given by Grotius, and his Adherents, on this and suchlike characters of Antichrist. Grotius restrains these words to Apollonius Tyanaeus, that Pythagorean Sorcerer, and Hammond seems to limit them to Simon Magus, and other Gnostic Heretics; which so far as they were Forerunners of Antichrist, we have before admitted. But yet that the main scope of this Prophetic Character is to delineate Antichrist, and his Demon-worship introduced by his Ecclesiastic Canons, is excellently well proved to our hands by Mede, on 2 Pet. 2.1. (Diatr. 3. pag. 532). In these Prophecies (says he) of a general defection and Apostasy of the later times, 2 Thes. 2. 1 Tim. 4.1, etc. if St. Paul should mean no other but the Errors of particular men, and their trouble from the Church, they should make no Prophecy at all, or a needless one. For who knows not, that in St. Paul's, St. John's, and the Apostles times were divers Heresies and Heretics here and there dispersed: of all these they could not mean, when as (1) the known body of the visible Church disclaimed them. (2) They foretell of a corruption to come in after times, or as 1 Tim. 4.1. In the later times: for no man useth to foretell of things which are already, as if they were to come.— The corruption and defection therefore so much prophesied of, was another manner of one; such a kind of one as had neither been before in the Church, nor was to be; namely such an one as should not be disclaimed by the body of the Church, but should surprise and overwhelm the visible Church itself.  
We now proceed to the particulars of Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Canonic Demon-worship, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. 
1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines of Demons what.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies not a mere Speculative Doctrine, but an Institute or Canon, as Col. 2.22. answerably to the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col. 2.14, 20. we have proved §. 2. To which we may add, that this also suits with the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, according to Pagan and Scripture-phraseologie, signifies not a mere Doctor and Teacher, but also an Institutor or Preceptor, who has Authority to impose his Dogmes and Canons; whence the proper title given to Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, answerably to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rabbi. So that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we must understand those Ecclesiastic Institutes or Canons, which Antichrist was to frame, for the introducing the Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Demon-worship. And that this is the proper notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place, namely to signify Demons, (not Devils as Grotius will have it) is evident from those parallel places, Act. 17.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rev. 9.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 10.21, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Of which more in what follows. Now these Demon-Dogmes or Canons framed by Antichrist, in imitation of the old Grecian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (framed by the Philosophers, and made a chief part of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theologie) comprehend several branches parallel to the Pagan Demon-Canons.  
1. As the Philosophers had their Deified Demons, 
1. Antichrist's Canonised Saints in imitation of Pagan Demons.  which took up a good part of their Natural Theology, so also Antichrist has his Canonised Saints, who fill up a great part of his Canon-Law, as 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demons. Mede, in his excellent Discourse of the Apostasy of the later times, opens this Text at large, and shows, That the Primitive Christians Canonised Saints, and honoured their Relics in imitation of the Gentiles, their Daemon worship, thereby to allure them; which laid the foundation of Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Idolatry Apostasy. We shall discourse a little more distinctly and particularly touching these Antichristian Saints, and their derivation from the Pagan Demons. As for the origine of the Philosopher's Demons we have once and again discoursed thereof, as Part 2. Bock 2. Chap. 8. §. 11. and P. 3. B. 2. C. 1. §. 1. also Philosoph. General. P. 1. L. 3. C. 4. §. 4. We shall add thereto what account we find hereof in Augustin and Ludovicus Vives thereon. August. de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 18. tells us, That Apuleius (and whoever are of the same opinion) does in vain defer or bestow this honour on those Demons, whom he placeth as middling Gods in the Air, as those who must transport the prayers of men to the Gods, and thence the commands of the Gods to men. For they who believed these things thought it unworthy for men to mingle with the Gods, or the Gods with men; but that it was meet for these Demons to mingle with men and the Gods. Where Ludovicus Vives gives this whole Mystery more fully to us: This is the opinion of Plato in his Convivium, and attributed to Socrates, who ask Diotima what Love was? she made answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A great Demon, O Socrates: for every Daemon is a middle betwixt God and Mortal. Socrates not yet understanding, demands what this Demon's power and nature was? then Diotima answers, to interpret and convey human affairs to the Gods, and Divine affairs to us: i e. prayers and sacrifices from men to the Gods, and precepts and rewards from the Gods to men. Wherefore Demons being placed in the middle, they fill up that place, that so the universe may be well disposed and conjoined. Hence flows Prophets, and all Sacerdotal art, and whatever belongs to Sacrifices, and Incantations. To these she adds, what Augustin citys, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. God mingleth not with man; but all commerce betwixt men and God is by Demons. These Apuleius calls Administers and Salvation-bringers. They are called by Capella, Angels, i.e. Messengers. Now that the Popish Saints were taken up, and brought into the Church in imitation of these Pagan Demons seems very evident, and that according to the general consent both of ancient and modern Writers. Indeed there was a great foundation laid for these Antichristian Demons or Saints in the fourth Centurie, as soon as the Church began to have any relaxation from Pagan persecution. This I gather out of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 26. But that Egyptian Trismegistus seems to grieve, that the Commemorations of our Martyrs should succeed the Temples and Commemorations of their Demons; so that he who shall read these things with a mind perverse and averse from us, may think, that as the Pagans worshipped their Gods in their Temples, so we worship our dead Martyrs at their Graves, etc. By which it is evident, that in Augustin's time the Christians performed many Commemorations and other solemnities at the Graves of the Martyrs and Saints, all which had a very great ressemblance with the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon worship; though as yet it was not arrived to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Saint-worship. For Augustin, in his following Chapter endeavours to vindicate this respect which some gave to the Martyrs and Saints from the imputation of Saint-worship; though it is most certain, that it laid a very great foundation for the same, as it may appear by Augustin's own words, and the observations of learned Papists thereon. August. de civet. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 27. speaks thus, Neither do we notwithstanding constitute Temples, Priesthoods, Sacreds', and Sacrifices to these Martyrs; because they are not our God, but their God is ours.— wherever therefore there be performed Religiose Obsequies, in the places where Martyrs suffered, they are only Ornaments for Memorial, not Sacreds', or Sacrifices of the Dead, as if they were Gods. Whoever also carry their Banquets thither, which truly is not performed by the better sort of Christians, and in many Countries there is no such custom; yet whoever they be who do this, (which Banquets when they have set down at the Martyr's Sepulchre, they pray and carry them away, that they may feste thereon, or that they may bestow them upon the poor amongst them) they will that their Banquets be sanctified there, by the merits of the Martyrs, in the name of the God of the Martyrs. But yet he who acknowledgeth one true God does not acknowledge these to be Sacrifices of the Martyrs. We therefore worship not our Martyrs with Divine honours, as they worship their Daemon Gods. Thus Augustin. By which, though he endeavours to vindicate the Christians of his age from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship performed to the Saints; yet it is evident by his own confession, that some superstitiose Christians were too much inclined thereto: for he says, That they carried their Banquets to the Sepulchers of the Martyrs, and there prayed, and so carried them away again, supposing them to be sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs. Yea, Augustin, Lib. 6. of his Confessions, relateth of his own Mother, That she brought to Milan, for a Commemoration of the Saints, Bread, and Fruments, and Wine, and gave them to the doorkeeper: But these things were prohibited by Ambrose, to avoid occasion of rioting, and because these kind of Parentals were most like to the Gentiles superstition. This also is taken notice of by Cassander, that learned and moderate Papist, Consultat. Art. 21. de Venerat. Reliqu. Moreover, in the times of Ambrose and Augustin this custom prevailed, that the people brought Banquets for the Commemoration of the Martyrs, which that it was not done by the better Christians, but prohibited by Ambrose at Milan, Augustin testifies, Confess. l. 6. c. 2. And that these and suchlike Imitamen of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship, gave a great and effectual entrance to the Popish Canonised Saints, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is confessed by some ingenuous Papists. So Ludovicus Vives, on these words of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 27. But these are not the sacrifices of Martyrs. Many Christians, says he, often offend in a good mater, in that they worship their He-and-She-Saints as God: neither can I discern any difference in many things between this their opinion of Saints, and that which the Gentiles had of their Gods. Which is indeed a great and most true Confession, and is taken notice of by several of our Writers: as by Reignolds in his Conference with Hart, where he tells, That Ludovicus Vives saith in his Comment on Augustin, l. 8. c. 27. that Saints are esteemed and worshipped by many as were the Gods amongst the Gentiles. The like Confession I find in Cassander, that moderate Papist, in his Consultation, Art. 21. where quoting this place of Augustin, he saith, That the ignorance of the common people hath attributed Divine honour to the Saints; as when Temples, Altars, Sacrifices, Priesthoods, Vows, Festivals are conceived to be consecrated not only to the memory, as the Ancients speak, but to the honour and worship of the Saints. Which Error Augustin now and then refutes: We, says he, build not Temples to the Martyrs, as to Gods, but memorials for them as dead men. Where Grotius observes well, That we should take diligent heed, lest under too favourable inclinations in this matter, the Pagan customs be reduced into Christianisme.  
Thus we see how Antichrists Canonised Saints were but Imitamen or Apes of the Gentile-Demons. 
The Origine of Popish Saints the same with that of the Pagan Demons.  And to make the parallel yet more exact and clear, we shall show how these Popish Saints had the very same origine amongst Christians, as the Deified Demons had amongst the Pagans. We have already, C. 1. §. 3. treated of the Origine of those Demons out of Plato, who tells us, That they were certain noble Heroes belonging to the Golden-Age, who having been exceeding famous for their Wisdom, Virtues, or some wonderful achievements and warlike exploits, were after their death, according to the appointment of the Divine Oracle, Deified and worshipped as Gods. We find the like account in Hesiod, (whom Plato citys to the same purpose) who says, That the men of the Golden-Age being dead became, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demons and Conservators of mortal men. By men of the Golden Age, we need no way doubt but Hesiod and Plato meant the first patriarchs and Heads of mankind; who having gained a great estime with their Posterity, for some conceived excellence of Wisdom, Virtue, or Warlike exploits, were, by the Devil's inveiglement, Idolised by Superstitiose spirits, as Demons, or deified Mediators. This is well observed by Mede, on Gen. 3. 13-15. (Diatrib. 2. p. 428) Here I observe, (says he) that overmuch dotage upon a conceived excellence, whether of Wisdom, or whatsoever else, without a special eye to God's Commandment, hath ever been the occasion of greatest Errors in the World; and the Devil under this mask, useth to bleer our eyes, and with this bait to inveigle our hearts, that he may securely bring us to his lure. The admired Wisdom of the long-living Fathers of the elder World, having been for so many Ages as Oracles to their offspring grown even to a People and Nation while they lived, was the ground of the ancient Idolatry of mankind, whilst they supposed, that those to whom for Wisdom they had recourse being living, could not but help them when they were dead. This we may learn out of Hesiod, who saith, The men of the Golden Age being dead, became Demons, or Godlings and Patrons of mortal men. So the opinion of the blessed Martyrs superlative Glory in Heaven, was made the occasion of the Newfound Idolatry of the Christian-Churches, wherewith they are for the greatest part yet overwhelmed. And the estime which Peter had above the rest of the Apostles, in regard of Chiesdome, even in the Apostles times, was abused by the old Deceiver, to install the man of sin. This made St. Paul to say, 2 Thes. 2.7. The mystery of iniquity was then working, etc. Thus we see how the Popish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saint-worship, had the very same origine or foundation as the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. some conceived excellence, pretended merit, or wonder-working power.  
§. 4. We have given some account of the origine of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Primitive Churches of the third and fourth Centurie, we shall proceed to treat more particularly of it as reduced by Antichrist unto his system or body of Canonic Theology in the following Centuries, with endeavours to demonstrate its exact symbolisation with the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in this procedure we shall discourse more particularly (1) of the origine of these Canonised Saints; (2) of their formal Canonisation; (3) of their Mediatory office; and all in imitation of the Pagan Demons, their origine, etc.  
1. 
1. The Origine of Canonised Saints answerable to that of Demons from a fond conceit of some great excellence in them.  As to the origine of these Canonised Saints, it was, as it has been hinted, the very same with that of the Pagan Demons, namely from a superstitiose conceit of some Divine Wisdom, Power, and Excellence in their Ancestors. For look as in the old World, its infant-state, God vouchsafed several gloriose Manifestations of a miraculose Power and Providence with his Church and People, thereby to confirm their Faith and amaze their Enemies; which the Devil in following Ages endeavouring to imitate by his fabulose Apparitions, and lying wonders, alured the credulous Superstitiose World into a fond admiration of their Demon-Gods, their Miraculose Apparitions and Power: so in like manner in the Primitive Churches, Christ vouchsafing a Miraculose Power and Providence to the first Planters of the Christian Faith; Antichrist in following Ages affected the like wonder-working Power, and ascribed the same to his Canonised Saints. 
1 Tim. 4.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  All this seems fully implied in that 1 Tim. 4.2. where having made mention, v. 1. of Antichrist's Doctrines of Demons, which he should introduce into the Church under his Canonised Saints, he adds v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, or through the hypocrisy of liars. These lies which Antichrist speaks are called, 2 Thes. 2.9. Lying wonders, or lying miracles; which he pretends to work in and by his Demons, or Canonised Saints; and these he is said to speak, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in hypocrisy. The primitive notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a personation, or imitation: so in Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an hypocrite, is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitator, or one that personates another. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, (1) to simulate, feign, or counterfeit either a person or thing. 
Luk. 20.20.  So Luk. 20.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who feigned themselves righteous. Thence (2) to act the part of another, to imitate, personate, or represent another. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to represent Nestor. Whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies among the ancient Grecians, Histrio, or Mimus, one that personates or imitates another. Thence also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies an Histrionic Art, the representation or imitation of another person, the fiction of a person on the Theatre or Stage. And this seems the proper import of it here, 1 Tim. 4.2. Where the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the cause and manner of the action, and therefore it is rendered by Beza and Schmidius, per, through the hypocrisy of liars. Which Mede understands Transitively, and so to be repeated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as applicable to all the following branches; namely, that through the hypocrisy, simulation, or imitation of liars, of men of scared Consciences, of those that forbidden Marriage and Meats, etc. all those Demon-Doctrines should be introduced by Antichrist and his Sectators. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be very properly rendered here, in or through Imitation, or Hypocrisy, as Schmidius and Beza. By which is signified, that they should act the part of Stage-players, or Mimes, that imitate some other person; and by their Histrionic or Hypocritic Imitation introduce all the old Pagan Demon-Doctrines and Superstitions. And so the sense is this: that Antichrist's Canonised Saints should be introduced into the Church of Christ, in imitation of the Pagan Demons, by lying wonders, etc. This began about the fifth Centurie, after the death of Julian the Apostate; though these Saints came not to be formally Canonised 'til about the middle of the ninth Centurie. We have the whole of this Mystery of Iniquity excellently unfolded to us, by Mede on this, 1 Tim. 4.2. Touching the Apostasy of the later times, Edit. 2. pag. 120. The Deifying and invocating of Saints, and adoring relics, is the most ancient for time of all the rest of the Daemon Popish Idolatry, and began to appear in the Church presently after the death of Julian the Apostate: the grounds and occasions whereof were most strange reports of wonders showed upon those, who approached the Shrines of Martyrs, and prayed at their Memories and Sepulchers; Devils charmed, diseases cured, etc. which the Doctors of those times avouched to be done by the power and prayers of glorified Martyrs, and by the notice they took of men's devotions at their Sepulchers; though at the beginning such devotions were directed to God alone; and those places only chosen for the stirring up zeal and fervour, by the memory of those blessed and gloriose champions of Christ. But while the world stood in admiration, and the most esteemed of these Wonders, as of the gloriose beams of the triumph of Christ, they were soon persuaded to call upon them as Patrons and Mediators; whose power with God and notice of things done upon earth, they thought that these signs and miracles approved. And then he adds, pag. 121, 123. But here is the wonder of wonders, that none of these miraculose signs were ever heard of in the Church for the first three hundred years after Christ.— But in this also the Idolatry of Saint-worship was a true counterfeit of the Gentiles Idolatry of Demons. Did not Demon-worship enter after the very same manner? was it not first insinuated, and after established by signs and wonders of the very selfsame kind? Whence he adds, pag. 125, etc. The second particular of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was fabulose Legends of the Acts of Saints and Martyrs. This was also another means to advance the Doctrines of Demons. For the true acts and stories of Martyrs being extinguished for the most part, by the bloody Edict of Dioclesian, they now begin to supply again that loss, by collecting such tales as were then current of them, and adding such Miracles as were fabled after their death, fashioned all to the best advantage of what they meant to promote in the Church, and was already on foot in the same. 
Revel. 13.15.  Hence Revel. 13.15. it's said, that Antichrist, by his lying wonders and hypocritic assuming of a Vicarious power from Christ, had power to give life to the Image of the Beste. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the image, i.e. to form an Antichristian Church, Worship, Ceremonies, and Institutes exactly conformable to the Demon-worship, Institutes and Ceremonies of the Pagan Beste. By all which it is most evident, that, as face answers to face in the glass, so these Canonised Saints, their origine from lying Wonders and fabulose Legends exactly answers to the Pagan Demons, their origine from lying wonders, and Poetic fables. So that we may safely conclude, according to 1 Tim. 4.2. that the origine of these Popish Saints, 
The Canonisation of Saints an Imitamen of the Daemon- 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  etc. was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through the personation or imitation of those liars, who by their lying wonders, etc. introduced those Gentile Demons and their worship.  
2. Having given the original grounds and occasion of Antichrists Canonised Saints, exactly parallel to that of the Gentile Demons, we now proceed to their formal Canonisation, to demonstrate how this also was according to 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of that fabulose, lying, Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Deification of their Demons. And for the clearing hereof we must remember, that though Antichrist's Demons or Saints had their vital and principal parts form betimes, even assoon as he himself received his Spirit, Head, and Power, namely about the fifth Centurie, as has been proved; yet they came not to be Canonised Saints, or complete Mediators, till about the middle of the ninth Centurie. For we must know, that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Demon worship, introduced by Antichrist, was opposed in the Eastern and Greek Churches by divers Emperors, Nobles, Bishops, and People, from the year 720 till after the year 840. Yea some denied the title of Saints unto Martyrs: neither could any of the Popes before Adrian, about the year 880 obtain a fixed Canon for the Canonising of Saints, and establishing their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This has been well observed by a French Author, Traitè des anciennes' Ceremonies, pag. 67. In the year 880, Pope Adrian was the first who resolved to Canonize the Saints, imitating therein the apotheosis of the Romans under Paganism. And that this Canonisation of Saints was indeed the very same with the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apotheosis or Deification of Demons, appears from the very confession of their own Canonists, quoted by learned Bochart, in his Discourse against Veron, p. 815. The Roman Church has other Gods, the Pope, the Masse-God, the Virgin Marie; to whom Leo the tenth gives the title of Goddess; the Angels and all the Saints, who are Gods by participation, according to the Doctrine of Cajetan: whence it is that the Director of the Inquisitors calls the Canonisation of Saints, Apotheosis, i.e. Deification. Wherein note, that Cajetan's Gods by participation, are the very same, both name and thing, with Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made-Gods, which is the title he gives his Demons. And that this Popish Canonisation of Saints is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a personation and imitation of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apotheosis, is farther evident from the sameness of Rites and Modes used both in one and tother. As for the Demon-Apotheosis we have it mentioned in Plato, Rep. 5. pag. 469. We consult the Divine Oracle in what rank those blessed divine men are to be had, and with what ensigns they are to be honoured; and we perform unto them the same honours which he prescribeth, and for the future we serve and worship them as Demons. And do not the sons of Antichrist take the very same course in the Canonisation of their Saints? do they not first consult the Pope their great Oracle, and then according to his Prescript or Canon, worship their Saints? yea, to demonstrate this yet more fully, it is observable, that the Papists give unto their Canonised Saints the very same Rites, Ceremonies, and Ensigns, which the Pagans gave to their Demon-Gods. Thus Bochart against Veron, part. 3. cap. 25. pag. 888. They have transferred to their Saints all the Equipage of the Pagan Gods: to St. Wolfang the Hatchet, or Hook of Saturn; to Moses the Horns of Jupiter Hammon; to St. Peter the keys of Janus. In brief, they have chass away all the Gods out of the Pantheon at Rome, to place in their room all the Saints: Whose Images they worship with like devotion, as those of the Pagan Gods sometimes were. They dress them up in apparel, they crown them with garlands of flowers, they carry them on their shoulders, they bow before them, they address their prayers to them, they make them descend from Heaven, they attribute to them miraculose virtues, etc. By which it's manifest, that these Popish Canonised Saints were introduced by Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 1 Tim. 4.2. in an hypocritic lying imitation of the Pagan Deified Demons.  
5. 
3. The Saints mediatory Office in imitation of the Pagan Demon-Mediators.  As Antichrist's Canonised Saints are parallel to the Pagan Demons as to their origine and formal Canonisation, so in like manner in point of Office, as Mediators betwixt God and men. This also is implied in 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. teaching lying false Saint-mediators, in imitation of the Pagan-Demon-mediators. We have before Chap. 1. §. 3 proved out of Plato and others, that the great office of the Pagan Demons was to be as Mediators betwixt the supreme God or Gods, and men; because as Plato affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the supreme God mingles not with men, but by the mediation of these Demons. And more particularly, he tells us, that these Demons were appointed (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to interpret and transport the prayers and sacrifices of men to God, and the commands and rewards of God to men. (2) That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all Divination was from these Demons. (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all communion with God was by virtue of these Demons. (4) To which add, that of Hesiod, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demons are patrons of mortal men. So Diogenes Laertius, in the Life of Zeno, says, that the Stoics held such Demons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. who had compassion of men, and a very great care of human affairs. Now do not the Popish Canonic Saints exactly answer to these Pagan Demons in all these points? Are they not made Interpreters of men's desires to God, and conveighers of God's gifts to men? do not these sons of Antichrist, by virtue of their Saints work Miracles, divine, & c? Have they not all their Tutelar Saints, or Demons? Lastly, is not all communion betwixt God and men in the Roman Church transacted by their Canonised Saints or Demons? We have a good reflection hereon made by judiciose and holy Deering, on Heb. 4 15. The Papists have learned to make the Saints their Mediators from the Heathens. The Gods of the Gentiles, which were Devils, had this worship amongst them: the Devils amongst themselves, they who were reputed of a lower sort were made as means to come unto the higher; whereof they were called Dii Medioxumi, i.e. Gods only for intercession. The Gentiles Books are full of Exemples, how these things were practised: as if Neptune would speak to Jupiter, he made Mercury his intercessor.— And what else do the Papists but teach all their posterity in choosing many Mediators, to have confidence in none, no boldness unto God, & c? Yea Cardinal Perron observing this ressemblance betwixt the Grecian Demons and their Canonised, Saints makes use of the former to prove the later. So Bochart contre Veron, pag. 883. The Sieur du Perron citys Plato to prove, that the Dead have care of things here below. These Canonised Saints are also exactly parallel with the Phenician Baalim (which were the same with the Grecian Demons) brought into the Jewish Church by Jezebel, and set up as Mediators in the room of the true Messiah, of which we find a good account in Mede on 2 Pet. 2.1. Diatrib. 3. pag. 548. The second main Apostasy is called the way of Ahab; not because he was the first bringer in, but the chief establisher thereof,— which was to worship Baal-Gods, or Baalim; supposing either by these to have easier access to the Lord of Hosts the Sovereign God; or that these he might have resort unto at all times for all matters; as being near at hand, and not so high in dignity, etc. when therefore Christians do worship or invocate Saints or Angels, whether with Images or without, to be as under-Mediators with God for them, or of themselves to bestow some favour upon them, those who do this are fallen into the Apostasy of Ahab.— Here note, that wheresoever you read in Scripture of the Idolatry of Jeroboam's Calves, and of Ahab's Baalim, think of what I have told you, and know that whatsoever God speaks against those things here, the same he speaks of the Apostate Christians under Rome, whose case is in all points the same, etc. These Baalim or Demon-Mediators seem pointed at by Paul, 1 Cor. 8.5. 
1 Cor. 8.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Lords many. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to the Phenician 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baalim. They derive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyrus, Pers. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coresch; which among the Persians was one of the greatest Titles of honour, signifying Lord; whereby they called, (1) The Sun, their supreme Lord: So Plutarch in Artoxerxe, informs us, That the Persians called the Sun, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cyrus: and so it agrees with the Hebraic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cheres, which signifies the Sun. (2) Cyrus their great Emperor, who was dignified with the same title of Honour, as their supreme Lord on earth, and after his death worshipped by them as a Daemon, or one of their Baalim, mediatory Lords. Hence the Exploits of Cyrus' being most famous among the Grecians, or else from the Sun's Dominion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signified among the Grecians supreme Dominion, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supreme Lord, the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baal. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here being of the same import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baalim, plainly indigitates the Philosophers Demons, or mediatory Lords, which were the original Exemplars of Antichrist's mediatory Saints. But more expressly Col. 2.8, 9, 10, etc. v. 8. our Apostle gives us an account of the means by which the Gnostics of that Age, and Antichrist after them, should introduce these Demon-Mediators, and that is vain Pythagorean Philosophy; to which v. 9 he opposeth Christ, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 
Col. 2.9, 10, 18, 19  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. really, essentially, and perfectly, in opposition to those Demons or Idol-Gods. Whence he adds, v. 10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. i.e. Christ is your complete Mediator, who is Head or Sovereign of all Angels and men, and therefore infinitely above all tho2e Pythagorean Demons, Gnostic Aeones, and Popish Canonised Saints, be they what they wil Thence he subjoines ver. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility and worshipping of Angels. Which the Gnostics then, and Antichrist since introduced, placing Angels as Mediators in the room of Christ. So it follows, ver. 19 Not holding the head. i.e. They who are guilty of this Angel-worship do thereby disclaim Christ, who is the only Mediator and Intercessor to the Father. By which Prophetic discovery the Spirit of God doth fully strike through all those Demon-Saint-Mediators, which Antichrist by his Ecclesiastic Canons has introduced and placed on Christ's Throne. It would be an endless thing to enumerate all those Canonised Saints, which Antichrist has by his creative power erected as Mediators, in imitation of the Pagan Demons: I shall yet mention one or two of the chiefest. The supreme and head of all Antichrist's Canonic Saints is the Virgin Marie, who passeth amongst his Sons for a Deesse or Goddess, yea they seem to lay more stress upon her Mediation and Intercession than upon Christ's. This our blessed Lord foreseeing seems to give a tacit check unto, in not admitting her to be an Intercessor here on Earth, in a small and trivial case. So Joh. 2.4. 
Joh. 2 4.  What have I to do with thee, O woman, & c.? Christ denies her Mediation and Intercession in a trifle, thereby to rebuke those fond conceits, which he foresaw Antichrist would in following times insinuate touching her prevalence and Intercession with himself. Another great Saint-Mediator is Peter; to whom they give the Keys of Heaven. But we find Paul to put a stop to this Idolising humour, as much depressing him as Antichrist exalts him. Yea indeed nothing is more injuriose to those blessed Spirits than to attribute to them a mediatory Office. Whence the Spirit, of God calls this, blasphemy against those heavenly inhabitants, 
Revel. 13.6.  Rev. 13.6. And them that dwelled in heaven; i. e. says Mede, (in his Clau. Apocalyp.) against Angels and men, by Demon-worship. And indeed what greater contumely or blasphemy can there be cast forth against those glorified Spirits, than to place them in the room of Pagan Demons, to occupy and possess the mediatory Throne of their dearest Lord, whose glory is so dear unto them? Certainly Antichrist will never receive thanks from them for this pretended favour, but real blasphemy against them.   

SECT. III. That Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but an Imitamen of the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, demonstrated from the several parts thereof.  
§. 1. 
Antickrist's Canonic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an imitation of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Tim. 4.1, 2.  WE have hitherto treated of the Origine, Canonisation, and mediatory Office of Antichrist's Canonised Saints, and proved, that all was but, as 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a personation or imitation of Pagan Demons: We shall now proceed to discourse more professedly and particularly of Antichrists Canonic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saint-worship, with endeavours to prove, That all is but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Mimic imitation of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship. And to make our way hereunto clear, we shall lay down these two Premunitions. (1) That the formal constitution, or essence of Antichrist's Apostasy lies in Idolatry. (2) That this Antichristian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saint-worship, is really Idolatry.  
First, 
The essence of Antichrist's Apostasy in Idolatry. Revel. 17.5. The Mother of Harlots. Why Antichrists Idolatry is styled Adultery.  That Antichrists formal Idea or essence consists in Idolatry, is evident by those Characters which are given him in Scripture. Babylon his royal feat, is called, Rev. 17.5. The mother of Harlots; and so elsewhere the great Whore, etc. Now this is the usual Character of Idolaters in the Old Testament, as Hos. 2. And there is much reason why Antichrist's Idolatry, as all other, should be expressed under this Symbolic image of Adultery. For Believers in regard of their Consciences are looked upon as the Spouse of Christ. So 2 Cor. 11.2. I am jealous of you, etc. wherefore to submit the Conscience to any but Christ, is according to Divine estimation spiritual Adultery. This is the case of Antichristian, as of all other Idolatry, which cuts the bond of Communion betwixt Christ and any Church, as Adultery does the Marriage bond betwixt Husband and Wife. This is well observed by Mede on 2 Pet. 2.1. Diatrib. 3. pag. 554, 555. As a Wife who hath given her faith to one Husband, if she commits adultery with others, denies him to be that she calls him, though she call him her Husband never so much; so the Church, the Spouse of Christ, if she bow down herself to other Mediators, she commits spiritual adultery, i.e. Idolatry, and denies the Lord that bought her, 
2 Pet. 2.1.  as here 2 Pet. 2.1. That this should be the meaning here, let this one reason serve the turn, that this is always the meaning of the like phrase in the Old Testament; where instead of the Lord that bought them, we have the Lord that brought them out of the land of Egypt. So Deut. 32.15. Judg. 2.12. Psal. 81.10, 11.— The Holy Ghost placeth the essence and soul of the great Apostasy, under the Man of Sin, in Idolatry and spiritual fornication: other Errors or Heresies, how gross soever are but accidental to that great Apostasy: even as Whores have usually other faults, which yet are no parts of Whoredom; so hath the spiritual Whore many other Heresies, but her Whoredom is Idolatry. Idolatry is the only character and note, whereby the great Apostasy of the visible Church is distinguished from all other blasphemies and heresies of what age soever. The same he adds, Diatr. 4. pag. 254. Babylon is not called the Liar of Babylon, the Tyrant of Babylon, the Heretic of Babylon, the murderer of Babylon; but the Whore of Babylon.— Now if the Church of Rome be not an Idolatress or spiritual Whore, prostituting herself to other Gods, to Stocks and Stones, and many ways breaking her faith to her one Lord and Mediator Christ Jesus, by committing fornication with I know not how many other Mediators, there never was a Whore in the World. And certainly if the Church of Rome may herein be justified, the Church of Israel had but hard measure to be condemned for spiritual Adultery or Idolatry. This also is well observed by Mestrezat, de l' Eglise liv 2. c. 4. Idolatry cuts the bond of Communion betwixt the Creature and the Creator, in the same sort as Adultery does the Mariage-bond, etc. And there is yet a farther mystery in this name of the great Whore of Babylon, Rev. 17.5. Mystery, Babylon the great, mother of Harlots. 
Revel. 17.5. Babylon the great. 2 Thes. 2.7.  (1) The first part of this Antichristian Name is Mystery, which denotes, that her Apostasy is a Mystery of Iniquity, as 2 Thes. 2.7. i.e. [1] A profound infinite Golphe or Abyss of all manner of Iniquity. So Josephus speaking of Antipater the Son of Herod, a most wicked wretch, saith, That man errs not, who affirmeth, that the life of Antipater was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a mystery of iniquity. Of which more hereafter, S. 4. §. 2. [2] This Antichristian Whore is said to have Mystery written on her forehead, in that all her Doctrines and Superstitions were but a mysteriose hypocritic Imitamen of Demon-Doctrines and Superstitions, under the mask and vizard of Christianity. Thence the Antichristian Beste, when he came upon the Stage, appeared in the form, not of a Dragon, as the Pagan Beste, Revel. 12.7. but of a Leopard, 
Rom. 13.2.  or Panther, Rev. 13.2, which by his sweet smell and beautiful colour allures all Bestes to it. And it's said, Rev. 13.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. that Antichrist had two horns like a Lamb, [i.e. like Christ] and did wonders, and deceived men, etc. and all this in a mystery, or under a semblance of being Christ's Vicar; though indeed he gave life to the Image of the Beste; i.e. revived all the Demon-worship of the Pagan Beste. And to decipher this Mystery of Antichrist, what Joseph Scaliger mentions on Revel. 17.5. is worthy of particular remark: Mr. de Montmorency being at Rome, when they spoke freely of the Pope, was told by a Father of good repute, that on the Frontal of the Pope's Mitre was writ in letters of Gold, MYSTERIUM; which title was since altered by Julius, as that which demonstrated this name, Revel. 17.5. to belong to him. But then, (2) Why is she called Babylon the Great, & c? Why, we must know, that she is called Babylon the Great, in the same respect that Nimrod is called a mighty hunter, Gen. 10.9. i e. in regard of tyrannic usurpation: for look as old Babel was the first seat and pattern of ambitiose usurpation and tyranny under Nimrod; so the Roman Church, which is here named spiritual Babylon, is the seat of Antichrist's tyrannic Usurpation and Domination. But this is not al. (3) There follows another part of her name, that is, the mother of Harlots, etc. Herein also this Antichristian Whore imitates old Babel, which we know was the first foundress of Idols and Demon-worship or Idolatry which is spiritual Adultery. And has not Rome exactly answered her pattern, old Babylon, in Spiritual fornication or Demon-Idolatrie? So that we see this Mystic name of the Whore of Babylon contains two parts. [1] Spiritual Usurpation. [2] Spiritual Fornication, or Idolatry: and all in imitation of old Babel's tyrannic Usurpation and Idolatry. And it is farther worth our observation, that these two have usually by a secret judgement of God gone hand in hand; for when God's people will serve other Gods or Mediators, God in righteousness leaves them to fall under the Tyranny of other Lords. This is God's regular course to punish Idolatry with slavery, as Mede has well observed on Jer. 10.11. Diatr. 2.  
2. 
Rev. 13.1. The name of Blasphemy.  Another name given to Antichrist, whereby his Apostasy is notified to us, is Blasphemy; so Rev. 13.1. and upon his heads the name of Blasphemy. That this name of Blasphemy is here given him to signify his Idolatry and Demon-worship, is evident from the usual phraseology of Scripture, which frequently expresseth Idolatry by this name of Blasphemy. There are three words in the Hebrew by which Idolatry is signified unto us, all which the LXX and Vulgar Latin render Blasphemy. 
Ezech. 20.27.  (1) Ezech. 20.27. your Fathers have blasphemed me: the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 garats, signifies Idolatry. (2) Esa. 65.7. And blasphemed me: 
Isa, 65.7.  the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which answereth to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Theodotion translateth it, signifies also to play the Idolater. (3) Another word, whereby Idolatry is signified, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies properly to provoke to wrath by reproaches and contumeliose words; and therefore it is rendered by the LXX, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is used to express Idolatry, Deut. 31.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Deut. 31.20.  And indeed the very thing speaks so much; for what greater reproach or blasphemy can there be against God, than to attribute that mediatory glory to the Creature, which is due only to Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Farther, that this name Blasphemy given to Antichrist is a signal distinctive character of his Idolatry, is apparent from the several branches thereof, 
Revel. 13.6.  mentioned vers. 6. where the general name is distributed into three severals, each of which implies Idolatry. (1) He is said to blaspheme the name of God: i. e. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image-worship. (2) His tabernacle; i.e. the human nature of Christ, by worshipping his breaden God Transubstantiated. (3) The heavenly Inhabitants; i e. Angels and Saints, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon and Saint worship. As Mede, Clau. Apocalyp. on this place. By all which it is evident, that the formal reason, essence, and soul of Antichrists Apostasy consists in Idolatry.  
A second thing to be premissed is, that Antichrists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
2 Antichrists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is really 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Saint-worship, is really Idolatry, yea the chiefest part of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship. This follows upon what has been already laid down, and will farther appear from what follows: we have it proved at large by Mede in his Apostasy of the later times, on 1 Tim. 4.1. pag. 44, 49. where he proves, that the Holy Ghost placeth the essence of the Antichristian Apostasy, not in every error or heresy, how foul soever, 
Saint-worship an imitation of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship.  but in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idolatry, etc.  
Having laid this basis we shall now proceed to the Demonstration of our Hypothesis, namely, That all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Saint-worship, which sils up a great part of Antichrist's Canonic Theology, was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitation, or Imitamen of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship introduced by that man of sin. I find a good general account hereof in Mede, his Apostasy of the later times, on 1 Tim. 4.1. pag. 40, 42. The Doctrines of the Demons comprehended in most express manner the whole Idolatry of the mystery of iniquity, the Deifying and Invocating of Saints and Angels; the bowing down unto Images; the worshipping of Crosses, as new Idol-columns; the adoring and Templing of relics; the worshipping any other visible thing upon the supposal of any Divinity therein.— I must confess, I cannot think of this Demon-ressemblance without admiration; specially in that the advancers of Saint-worship in the beginning did not only see it, but even gloried, that they had a thing in Christian-worship so like the Doctrines of Demons. Thus many of the Fathers, as Eusebius, Theodoret, etc. Wherein we have several branches of this Demon-worship and their Origine: of which more particularly hereafter. We have also a good account of this Demon-worship, and the manner how it at first crept into the Christian Church, in that great French Divine Morelius, Traitè de la Discipline, liv. 1. chap. 5. pag. 22. Moreover this good Emperor Constantine, making use of his coactive power, constrained every one to make profession of the Christian Religion; whereby, instead of an infinity of Christians which he hoped to make, he made an infinity of Hypocrites: who first under the Empire of Constance his Son, who became Arian, conforming themselves to his pleasure, followed for the most part, as it usually happens his error: and afterward under Julian returned again to their vomit of Idolatry. Since that time, albeit the people under the good Emperors made some semblance of Christian Religion, yet were there very few who truly embraced the same. For by reason of the defect in good Discipline, the precedent Idolatries were mixed with Religion; 
1. The Commemoration of Martyrs at their Graves by Panegyrics and Temples from Demon-Panegyrics and Temples.  and the people brought in their spirit the conception of their Idols into the Temple of the Lord, imagining Jesus Christ to be as one of their Heroes, Demons, or Semigods: unto which corruption all the evils that followed owe their origine, etc. But to come to Particulars.  
1. The first great piece of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship introduced by Antichrist, which makes a great part of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the solemn commemoration of deceased Martyrs, and Saints at their Sepulchers, with the building and consecrating of Temples in the same places. And this indeed is most easy to demonstrate; namely, that all those Funeral-Orations, or Sermons, and all those consecrated Temples, which Antichrist by his Canonic Law erected and dedicated to his Saints, were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation of the Doctrine or Canon of Demons, according to 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. For the clearing whereof we are to remember, that all the Pagan Demons being but the souls of men deceased, they supposed these Ghosts did still frequent those places where their bodies lay buried; and indeed it was usual for the Devil, their great Daemon, to appear and exhibit his lying wonders in such places, thereby to gain credit to his petty Demons. 
Mark 5.2, 3.  So Mark 5.2, 3. these Demons or unclean spirits are said, to dwell among the Tombs. Whence the Pagans finding some Diabolic Presences and powers of these Demons at their Graves and Sepulchers, they there built Temples to them, where their bodies or ashes lay buried. So Plato Rep. 5. p. 469. speaking of their Demons, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and we will worship their Shrines. And elsewhere he tells us, That they had their yearly Funeral Orations and other Commemorations of their Demons at their Sepulchers. Whence the Primitive Fathers, which writ against the Heathens, do often upbraid them, That their Temples were nothing else but the Sepulchers of deadmen. We have a good observation hereof in Ludovicus Vives, on Augustin de Civ. lib. 7. cap. 34. The Religion of Sepulchers, says he, is most ancient; whereby it was prohibited for any to violate, throw down, or break them: which Law was not only in the twelve Tables, and amongst Solon's, but also in the most ancient Laws of Numa, and of both Latins and Greeks: which seem to belong not so much to the Civil Law as the Sacreds'; because Sepulchers were esteemed as Temples of their Manes or Demons: whence there was inscribed on them D. M. S. i.e. Diis Manibus Sacrum: and the Sacreds' which were performed to them were called Necia. We have this well given us by Mede, Diatrib. 3. p. 545. Another way (says he) to worship the Baalim or Demons was in Religiose Graves and Sepulchers, for there they hoped to find their Ghost Gods; specially seeing, as we yet suppose, that spirits frequent Churchyards and places of the dead. Thus in his Apostasy of the later times, pag. 22. (Edit. 2. 1644.) citing those words of Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Coffins of Demons, he tells us, That Plato would have the Shrines or Coffins of his Canonised Demons worshipped. So Clemens Alexandr. Strom. 6. out of whose words he observes, That the Heathens supposed the like presences and powers of Demons at their Coffins and Sepulchers, which was exhibited in their Images; as though there always remained some natural tie between the Souls deceased, and their Relics, and therefore they builded Temples unto them, where their bodies and ashes were entombed; and hence it is that the Primitive Fathers so oft upbraided them, That their Temples were nothing else but the Sepulchers of dead men. Thus we see what the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was, as to the worshipping these Demons at their Graves and Sepulchers. Now that Antichrists worshipping of Saints at their Graves was but an imitation hereof, is evident. Indeed this piece of Saint worship began very early, even in the second Centurie in some degree, as we find it in a French Treatise, Traite des Anciennes Ceremonies, on the year 160. Amongst the Greeks they celebrated yearly the memory of the Heroes, those illustrious persons who died in the defence of their Country; and this solemnity was performed at their Graves, thereby to animate the survivant, and to encourage them to the like exploits. The Christians imitated this exemple, judging it would prove a means very proper to induce many persons to suffer death for the Gospel. After this there was a custom introduced to make an yearly Commemoration of the combats and constancy of the Martyrs, on the same day in which they suffered death, and at the same place where they were buried. Whence it came to pass, that the Cemeteries, or Church yards, became the ordinary place of their Assemblies: for these annual Commemorations were very frequent, by reason of the great number of Martyrs. Though as yet we find no mention of any consecrated Temples or Holidays dedicated to Saints, nor in some following Centuries. I find the like observation in Mede, Diatrib. 3. pag. 613. The leaders of the Primitive Church, however they acknowleged their liberty in choosing any place where they would for the worship of God, yet they used to select for their Assemblies such places as God had any way dignified, either by some work of mercy, or the gloriose sufferings of his Martyrs; whereupon the most ancient Momments of the Christian Churches do mention the Assemblies of Christians in coemeteriis martyrum. That this superstitiose usage was taken up in imitation of the Gentiles solemn Commemoration of their Demons celebrated at their Graves and Sepulchers, is farther evident by what we find in Tilenus, Syntag. part. 3. disp. 10. Those solemn Panegyrics of the Ancients at the Graves of the Martyrs, and their Assemblies in those places, although at first they were instituted with no i'll intent, yet have they eventually almost ruined the Church; and as they were brought into the Church in imitation of the Pagans, so have they by little and little been infected with Ethnic pollutions and Idolatry. We find the like in the Nonconformists Admonition to the Parliament in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, where they plead for the taking away of Funeral-Sermons, because they were taken up in imitation of this piece of Demon-worship. This also has made some Reforming Christians declare against Popish Temples, because consecrated to Saints in imitation of the Daemon Temples, erected at the Sepulchers of their dead bodies. Though these beginnings of Saint-worship at the Sepulchers of Martyrs had their foundation in the second and third Centuries, yet they came to no perfection till about the year 600, when Gregory the first, setting Saints in the place of Demons, dedicates Temples to them, etc. which was afterward confirmed by the Canon of Pope Adrian, who Canonised the Saints about An. 880. Yea these Popish Commemorations, and Dedications of Temples unto Saints at their Sepulchers, seem to have had the very same origine with the Demon-Commemorations and Temples. For what made the Pagans place so much Religion in the Sepulchers of their Demons, but a superstitiose presumption, (grounded on diabolic apparitions at such places) of some extraordinary presence and power of their Demons at their Sepulchers? And did not the sabulose Monks coin many strange stories, of Wonders wrought upon those who frequented the Shrines of Martyrs, and made solemn Prayers and Commemorations at their Sepulchers? Did they not make the Superstitiose people believe many lying Wonders of Devils charmed, and Diseases cured, etc. by the Prayers of glorified Martyrs, upon notice they took of men's Devotions at their Sepulchers? Do not the Papists at this very day, specially on their Feste of Al-Saints, pray at their Sepulchers and Graves? What more exact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or imitation could there be of Demon-superstition?  
2. 
2. Popish Festivals, Hymns, Plays, etc. from Demon-worship.  Another piece of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 introduced by Antichrists Canon-Law, under the form of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, takes in all those Canonic Festivals, Hymns, Plays, and other solemnities performed on certain Holidays, consecrated and dedicated to their Saints. I have before observed out of Plato, that it was the custom of the Heathens to celebrate yearly the Commemoration of their Demons on certain days dedicated to them, and that by Panegyric Orations, Hymns, Plays, and suchlike solemnities: These Days they reputed very holy; whence Pythagoras (as Jamblicus relates) required that on such Holidays they cut not their hair, nor pair their nails. Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 468. gives an excellent Idea of these Pagan Rites, which appertained to their Daemon worship: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For we in Sacrifices and suck-like Assemblies shall honour good men [or Saints made Demons] so far as their merits shall appear, with Hymns, and that kind of honour whereof we even now spoke, namely with the dignity of seats, and flesh, and full cups; i.e. libamen. Then he adds, pag. 460. Therefore we will consult the Oracle of God, in what rank those blessed and divine men are to be had, and with what ensigns they are to be honoured,— and for the future we will worship their Shrines as Demons, etc.  
1. That all the Popish Holidays were but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or personation hereof, I think will not need much proof more than a parallel. We shall mention only their Festival of Epiphanie, which was but a Transcript of the Pagan Epiphanie. 
Antichrists Epiphanie front Pagan Epiphanie.  For we must know that these Demons had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphanies, or Apparitions to their Devoti, (in imitation of God's Apparition to Jacob, as we have proved, Court Gent. Part 1. B. 2. Chap. 7. §. 8, etc.) which days the Heathens made Sacred. This Feste the Sons of Antichrist transfer to the Apparition of the Magis, and call it by the same name, Epiphanie. Of which we have this excellent account in Isaac Casaubon, Exercit. 2. An. 1. Num. 36. Baronius errs, in that he judgeth, that the Epiphanie was instituted, in the Primitive times, in Commemoration of the Magis, their Apparition. This opinion is refuted first by the very Appellation of Epiphanies, and thence by the use of Authors and History. The Appellation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Epiphanies was brought into Ecclesiastic observation, from Pagan Rites on a pious account. Greek Writers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphanie, the Apparition of a Deity, whatever the manner were, by which such a Deity was supposed to have given some sign of his presence. So Diodorus, l. 1. saith, that Isis was wont to appear by night, and to inject dreams, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, giving manifest Indices of her presence. And Dionysius Halicarn. oft useth this word, and somewhere greatly reprehends such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, derided the Epiphanies of the Gods, by which they manifest themselves to men. The Grecians, in Commemoration of these Ephiphanies, or Apparitions of their Gods, instituted certain festival-days, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphanies. So Athenaeus relates of King Demetrius, that he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, celebrated the memory of his dead brother, whom he worshipped as one of the Celestial Divi, and called the day Epiphanie. According to this Ethnic Exemple, in the ancient Greek Churches, they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphanies, wherein they solemnised the Day, not of the Magis their coming, but of our Lord's Nativity. For his very Nativity is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphanie, by Suidas, Eusebius, and others. Thus also Schmidius, on Mat. 2.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epiphanie, signifies an illustrious Apparition. This name was fixed in the Greek Church on the sixth day of Januarie. Neither was the name Theophanie, which signifies the Apparition of God, or the Gods, unusual even among the Gentiles; which one of the Popish Monks not understanding, as it is reported, he said, Perhaps this Theophanie, or Epiphanie was the Nurse of Christ.  
2. As the Pagans had their Holidays dedicated to their Demons, 
2. Popish Hymns from Demon-Hymnes.  so also Sacred Hymns, whereby they sung their Praises, and solemnised their Memorials. So Plato Rep. 5. says, That the Commemoration of their Demons was celebrated with Hymns. Thus the Greeks had their solemn Hymns, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they sung to their propitious Demons. So Bacchus had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tragedies, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Comedies: the former so called from the sacrificing a Goat; the later, in that they were sung in the Villages, answerably to the Popish Wake-songs. The Romans also had their Assamenta, or peculiar Hymns sung to some private God, as their Assamenta Janualia, Junonia, Minervalia, etc. And are not those Hymns, which the Sons of Antichrist sing to their Canonised Saints on their Holidays, an exact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Imitamen of these Pagan Hymns? etc.  
3. 
3. Popish Plays, and Mumming from Demon-Playes, etc.  The Pagans had also their Plays, which were a part of those Solemnities they performed to their Demons on their Holidays. So August. de Civit. l. 8. c. 26. I omit, says he, what Varro says, that all those dead Demons were esteemed Gods; and he proves it by those Sacreds' which were performed to all those dead men; where he mentions Funeral Plays, as though this were the greatest note of Divinity; because Plays were not wont to be celebrated to any but Gods. He says also, that this dead Demon was worshipped at the place where his Sepulchre stood. And what are all the Popish Masques, Mumming, and all such superstitiose plays, by which they solemnise the memory of their Saints on their Holidays, but Imitamen of these Demon-playes?  
4. 
4. Popish Festes from Demon-Festes.  The Pagans had their Festes, by which they solemnifed the memorial of their Demons on their Sacred days. And have not the Superstitiose Sons of Antichrist their Wakes, Revels, and other Sacred Festes, whereby they celebrate the memorial of their particular Saint, answerable to, and in imitation of these Demon-Festes. This indeed was commun amongst the Superstitiose Christians in Augustins' time, who, de Civit. l. 3. c. 27. makes mention of some, that brought their Banquets to the Graves of the Martyrs, and then returning again feasted upon the same, in Commemoration of those Martyrs. Thus we have shown, what an exact parallel there is betwixt Antichrists Holidays, and all his Festivals, Hymns, Plays, and other Solemnities performed to his Demons. By which it's evident, that the former were but Imitamen of the later.  
And to speak a little of the manner of the derivation, we must know, that these Festival Solemnities had some foundation in the later end of the second Centurie; for the Christians, living then under Pagan Persecution, were wont to make Annual Commemorations of the sufferings and constancy of the Martyrs, on that very day on which they suffered martyrdom, thereby to encourage others to the like Christian sufferings and constancy; and all this in imitation of the Pagans Panegyric Commemorations and Festival Solemnities, which they vouchsafed to their Heroes and Demons. But yet still these Primitive Christians meddled not with those Idolatrous Rites, which the Pagans used in such Solemnities: neither were those Festival days and Commemorations made Sacred or Canonic in the second or third Centurie. But after Constantin had constrained all to make a public profession of Christianity, and Julian had revived the old Demon-worship, the carnal professors of Christianity, who were most numerose, though they were content to assume the name of Christians, yet were they not content to part with their Pagan Rites and Customs: wherefore to compromise the matter, they turn their Pagan Rites into Christian Solemnities; and so christian their Demon-Festivals under the name of some Christian Martyr and Saint. And that which made this design more plausible was this, some groundless hopes, by such symbolising with the Pagans, to gain them over to the embracing of the Christian Religion: which vain attemt was so far blasted by God, as that it proved but a door to let in Antichrist and all his Demon-worship into the Church of God. Yet these Demon-Festivals, or Holidays dedicated to Saints, came not to be established by Antichrists Canon-Law, 'til about the beginning of the seventh Centurie, under Gregory the first; who placing the Saints in the room of the Pagan Demons, dedicates to them Temples and Holidays, etc. Yet were there not wanting some who opposed these Demon-Festivals: yea the whole Council of Antisiodorense in France (Canon 74.) declare, That it was not lawful to observe the Festivals of the Gentiles, to keep their worship and observation of their Calends, to adorn Houses with Laurel and green Bays; (at Christmas) for all these practices (saith the Council) favour of Paganism. Thus much for Antichrists Canonic Festivals, which he introduced as a main part of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of the Demon-Festivals, as 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. and Col. 2.16. In respect of an holiday. Which strikes as well against Antichrist, as the Pythagorising Gnostics, and their Impositions.  
§. 3. As Antichrist has his Canonic Plays and Days, 
3. All Idol-worship from Demon-worship.  so also his Images, Crosses, Relics, and other Idol-representations of his Saints, and all in imitation of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This also seems fully implied, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Doctrines of Demons, in Imitation, etc. i. e. all Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idol-worship, (which takes in a great part of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is but an Imitamen of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
1. 
1. Popish Images from Pagans.  One chief part of this Antichristian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image-worship, which we need no way doubt, was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitamen of Pagan Images or Representations of their Demons. For the more full explication whereof we are to remember, that howbeit some of the vulgar Heathen (as some Papists still do) might worship the Images of their Demons as Gods; yet the wiser of them, specially the Philosophers, were not so grossly stupid, as to conceit those Images to be Gods: no, they looked upon them only as Demon-traps or lures to allure their Demons to be present; or as Bodies which their Demon-Ghosts informed and influenced. So Plotinus, Enn. 4. l. 3. c. 11. pag. 380. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And truly those Ancients seem to me wise, who desiring the presence of the Gods, framed Sacreds' and Statues, directing the eye of their mind towards the nature of the Universe, etc. Whence he shows, That their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image, being erected, the Deaster or Heavenly Demon, to which it is dedicated, presently descends unto it, and informs the same, as the species or image of the Sun does a glass held Diametrically opposite thereto. For (adds he) there is nothing in nature, but there is some Heavenly power answerable thereto, (according to that Oriental maxim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence there being in the mater of the Image some ressemblance of that Divine Power, unto which it was erected, hence there ariseth a relation between them, etc. We find this mystery well opened to us, by August de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. c. 23. Hermes the Egyptian, whom they call Trimegistus, says, that some Gods are made by the great God, and some by men. He assertes, that visible Images are as the Bodies of the Gods, and that these Bodies are informed by Spirits invited thereunto, which have power to hurt men, or to fulfil their desires, who give them the Obsequies of Divine honour and worship. Therefore to copulate or conjoin, by a certain art, these invisible Spirits to visible Images made of Corporal matter, which are as it were living bodies dedicated and subjected to these Spirits; this is (says he) to make Gods: which great and wonderful faculty of making Gods men have received. So again, August. Civ. l. 8. c. 24. A Demon being chained to an Image by a Diabolic art is made a God, etc. These Images stood usually in their Temples, where they had a chair of state placed for them. So Plato lib. 5. de Repub. tells us, That they allowed their Demons Royal seats, etc. Now that all the Popish Images dedicated to their Saints were taken up in imitation of these Demon-Images, is very apparent. This Mede, on the 1 Tim. 4.1. (touching the Apostasy of the later times, pag. 22, etc.) proves at large, viz. That the worshipping of Images is by its original a piece of the Doctrine of Demons, etc. Yea its farther evident, that the very original ground or end for which the Sons of Antichrist have brought in this Daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image-worship, into the Church of Christ, is the very same with that on which the Pagan Philosophers at first took it up. For what made those blind Heathens at first erect these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Images? was it not a sense of their Demon-God being absent? with which the Prophet upbraids those Demon-Friests of Baal, 1 King. 18.27. For we must know that the wisest of them, their Philosophers, supposed the main residence of their Demons to be in the Stars; whence they called them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deasters: as they supposed their supreme God to have his residence in the Sun, which they termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Divine body of their supreme God, styled Moloch, Saturn, Jupiter, Apollo, or suchlike. Now they finding these Planetary Demons very remote, they erected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idols or Images, to allure them to their Temples, and receive their Influences, as Glasses do the Image of the Sun. And was not the origine of the Popish Images the very same? were they not at first introduced as Symbols and pledges of their Saint's presence? As the Golden Calf, Exod. 32.1. and Jeroboams Calves were pretended pledges of God's Presence. Do not the Papists vouchsafe their Saint-Images chairs of state in their Temples, and costly apparel, with supplications to them, etc. exactly conformable to the Pagan's Demon-Images? hoping by such superstitiose honours to gain the presence, attention and intercession of their Saints. It's true, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image-worship, being such an apparent gross Imitamen of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, could not for a long time after the rise of Antichrist gain the privilege of Canonic Constitution: for it was opposed in the Eastern Greek Churches by divers Emperors, with the greatest part of their Bishops and People, from the year 720 'til after 840, as Mede in his Apostasy of the later times, pag. 131, etc. Amongst these Popish Images we may reckon all their lesser Representations or Images of their Saints, which they wear about their necks, or carry in their Pockets, as their Agnus Dei, etc. answerable to the superstitiose Teraphim, and the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Diana's Shrines, and the like.  
2. 
2. Popish Crosses Imitamen of the Pagan Columns.  Another fort of Popish Idols, or Idolatrous representations of their Demon-Saints are their Crosses, erected in Highways, as memorial and remembrances of some Saint, which also are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation of those Pagan Baetylia, Columns, Pyramids, and Pillars of stone, which they erected as memorial of their Demons, and their Apparitions. The most ancient of these Demon-columnes were their Baetylia; whereof Sanchoniathon, in his Phenician History gives us this account, according to the Version of Philo Byblius, in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The God Uranus conceived the Baetylia, when he had framed the living stones. Learned Bochart, Geogr. S. par. 2. l. 2. c. 2. p. 785. for living, reads anointed stones; 
Gen. 28.18, 19  and makes these Baetylia to be an Imitamen of Jacob's anointed stone, Gen. 28.18, 19 Which he erected as a memorial of God's Apparition to him. This rite the Idolatrous Phoenicians transferred to their Baalim or Demon Gods, as a Commemoration of their Apparitions. 
Dent. 16.22.  These Sacred Columns the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; So they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Leu. 26.1. Deut. 16.22. Here God forbids them to erect these Stela's or Columns; because they were abused by the Pagans to Demon-worship, as Mede on this place. They had also their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which Clemens makes to be Imitamen of the Pillar of Cloud, that went before the Israelites in the Wilderness. Now all the Popish Crosses, and Fillars, which they erect in places most notable, are but corrupt Imitamen of these Pagan Columns. Thus Mede proves, Apost. lat. pag. 48, 49. That adoring Crosses came in the room of the Demons Idol-Columnes, etc. Yea 'tis very evident, if we compare the origine both of one and tother: For as the Pagan Columns were erected as memorial of their Demons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apparition, etc. So these Crosses were erected by the superstitiose Sons of Antichrist, as memorials of their Saints, their famous acts done in such or such places. 
3. Templing of Relics.   
3. Under this head of Popish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we may reckon also the Templing and superstitiose Adoration of Saints Relics, with which the Roman Church abounds, and wherein they do but play the Apes or Mimes of Pagan Idolaters; who had a very great respect for the Relics of their Demons: Of which see Mede, Apost. lat. pag. 40, 42. So Traitè des Ancien. Ceremonies, on the year 160, having showed how the Christians imitated the Pagans in the Commemoration of their Demons, he adds: They had then a great care first to bury their Martyrs; and where they could not recover the body entire, they endeavoured to gather up the least pieces, if the rage of persecutors had left any rests, or relics. Now these Relics were buried honourably, without those practices, which have since happened, etc. namely for the Templing and adoring of Relics. This is well explicated by Cassander, that learned and moderate Papist, in his Consultation, Art. 21. touching the veneration of Relics: In these things, saith he, abuse by little and little crept in. For Basil in definite. Latior. c. 40. complains, that the custom of holy men was corrupted.— And it's evident, that in aftertimes there was too much attributed to the Relics and Memories of Saints.— There happened also other Evils, namely that out of Avarice to delude the simple people, false Miracles were coined and cried up, whereby the superstition of the people was nourished; so that they were more ravished into an admiration of the Miracles, than provoked unto an imitation of the Saints, or unto an emendation of life: sometimes also by the craft and illusion of Satan, abusing the superstition of men, new Relics were reveled, whereby also Miracles seemed to be wrought. Hence that Lugdunense Decree, c. 62. Let not Prelates suffer the people to be deceived by vain figments, as for profit sake it is wont to be. Also many are found, who make gain of the Saints Relics, whether true or false, so that they are everywhere carried about by vile and vagrant men, like the Sacreds' of Isis, and are commended by many lies to the ignorant people. Whence he concludes, That seeing all are full everywhere of the Relics of Saints, it is to be feared, that if Princes and Prelates would inquire into them, great numbers of them would be found to be impostures and cheats. Thus we have shown how all these Antichristian Images, Crosses, and Relics, which fill up a great part of their Canonic Theology, are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 1 Tim. 4.1, 2.  
§. 4. Another piece of Antichrists Canonic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Anticlrists' Sacrifices from Demon Sacrifices.  consists in those Sacrifices and Offerings, which he brought into the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of those Sacrifices the Pagans performed to, and by their Demons. We have shown before out of Plato, that one great office of the Philosopher's Demons was to convey men's Sacrifices to the supreme God, thereby to render them the more acceptable; and do not the sons of Antichrist transfer their Sacrifices to God by their Demon-Saints? But further, the Pagans had peculiar Sacrifices which they offered to their Demons. So Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 468. tells us, That herein they followed the Authority of Homer, worshipping these Demons in their assemblies by sacrifices of flesh and full cups, etc. And we have this expressly mentioned in Scripture. So Numb. 25.2, 3. where Israel is said, 
Num. 25.2, 3.  v. 2. To bow down or worship before the Gods of Moab, with their sacrifices: & v. 3. particularly, Israel is said, to join himself to Baal-Peor. Again, Deut. 32.17. 'tis said, They sacrificed to Devils, or Demons. And that this is meant of these deified Baalim and Demon-Gods, is evident by David's Explication, 
Psal. 106.28.  Psal. 106.28. where he says, They joined themselves to Baal-Peor, and eaten the sacrifices of the dead. By Sacrifices of the dead, is evidently meant, those Sacrifices they performed to their Baalim or Demons, which were but great personages Deified after their departure out of this world, as Mede, Bochart, and Diodate have observed. Now that Antichrist's Sacrifices are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a personation or imitamen of these Sacrifices, which the Pagans gave their dead Heroes or Demons, will be evident by the following parallel.  
1. 
1. The Sacrifice of the Mass an Imitamen of Demon Sacrifices.  The great Sacrifice which the sons of Antichrist so much adore is that of their Mass; or Hostie, as they call it, wherein they sacrifice and eat their Breaden God, in Commemoration, as they fancy, of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross. Yet really it is no other, but an imitamen of those Heathenish Sacrifices of the dead, Psal. 106.28. Though we must acknowledge, that in this piece of Blasphemy against the Body of Christ mentioned Rev. 13.7. these Papists have much exceeded the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship, or Sacrifices. For those devote Heathens had more honour for their Demon-Gods, than after they had made them such to eat them presently, as the Papists eat their Breaden God, which is a piece of Idolatry so monstrose, that Averro himself abhorred it, 
Anima mea sit cum Philosophis. Mat. 24.26.  crying out, That he had rather his soul should be with the Philosophers, than with such as did eat their God. This Idol-Christ seems Prophetically struck at by our Lord, Mat. 24.26. where he tells us, that some should pretend their false Christ to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we translate, in the secret Chambers; but it is more properly rendered by the French, es ciboires, i.e. say they, in the Cabinets, wherein meat is preserved: and so it properly denotes the Priest's Pixe, or Cabinet, wherein he lays up the Hostie, or Breaden God. And thus indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primary notion imports, namely a secret place or Cabinet, wherein any provision is laid up: whence also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Dispensator, or Steward that lays up, and brings forth, as need requires, provisions, etc. Thus our Omniscient Lord foreseeing how much these sons of Antichrist would blaspheme him, by pretending the Transubstantiation of the Bread, that Sacred Symbol, into his body, and idolising the same, he gives this general premonition to all Christians, Not to believe those Antichristian Priests, who pretend to have Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Bread cabinets, or Pixe, wherein their Hostie lies hid. And O! what a world of contradictions lie involved in this Sacrifice of the Mass? Is it not an high contradiction to pretend, that the quantity of the Bread should continue without the substance? Do not all Philosophers now grant, That Quantity is not really distinct, much less separable from the body it appertains unto? See the Contradictions that attend this Popish Transubstantiation well demonstrated by Derodone, in his Funeral of the Mass. And as many Contradictions, so also many ridiculous absurdities attend this Sacrifice of the Mass. We find this well described by Learned Bochart, in his Conference with Veron, part. 3. chap. 24. Paragr. 122. pag. 1292. In this Masse-Sacrifice what a world of ridicules are there? the Priest makes his reverences to the Altar, kisseth it, sprinkles Incense on it on solemn days, to chasse away the Devils: He runs on the right hand, and then on the left; and anon turns towards the people; after he turns his back, he bows himself, and then lifts himself up: he raiseth, and then let's fall the tone of his voice; he beats his breast, he groans, he joins his hands, and crosseth his thumbs; he closeth and then extends his arms; he makes many signs of the Cross in the air; he seems to sleep, and then in a moment to awake; he shows his God in one hand over his shoulder, then hides it, and again lifts it up with both hands over his head; and after he has played with it, he eats it. Thus Bochart. Who in what foregoes, Paragr. 15. of the same Chap. 24. pag. 1140. says, That hence it comes to pass, that the Priests vaunt, how they create their Creator. So Gabriel Biel, on the Canon of the Mass, Lect. 4. He that hath created me, has given me leave (if it be lawful to speak it) to create him. And in the Book called Stella Clericorum, the Priest is named, the Creator of his Creator, etc. This indeed exceeds in some regards the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it were originally an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereof, as 1 Tim. 4.1, 2.  
2. 
The Cup in the Lords-Supper turned by the Papists into a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 10.21.  Another part of the Pagan's Demon-Sacrifices takes in their Libamina, or Drinke-Offerings. So Plato in (the forementioned) Repub. 5. pag. 468. says, They worshipped their Demons with full Cups. So Jer. 44.18. we read of Drinke-offerings to the Queen of Heaven. But more expressly 1 Cor. 10.21. we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cup of [Devils, as we render it, but it is better rendered] Demons; i e. those Drinke-offerings they offered up to Demons, as Mede, Apostasy of later times, p. 29. The Pythagorising-Gnostics symbolised with the Pagans in partaking of their Demon-cup, or Drink offerings. And do not the Papists come under this very condemnation? done't they turn the cup of the Lord into a Demon-cup? Surely this Popish Sacrifice of the Mass made up of their Breaden-God and Wine-God equaliseth, if it doth not exceed, the Table and Cup of Demons, which our Apostle strikes at, 1 Cor. 10.21. and therefore comes under the same sentence.  
3. 
Popish Tenths and Offerings in imitation of the Demons.  The Heathens (in imitation of the Jews) had their Tenths, and other kind of Offerings, which they conferred on their Demons. So Tertullian, Apol. cap. 14. says, That the carthaginians paid their Tenths yearly to Hercules, who was their chief Daemon, and of Phenician extract. And Diogenes Laertius tells us, in the life of Solon, That the Athenians separated their Tenths for public Sacrifices. And are not the Tenths, which the sons of Antichrist pay unto him their great Demon the Pope, an exact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Imitamen of these Demon-Tenths? Again, the Pagans had several other Offerings which they conferred on their Demons, when they drew near to their Temples and Altars. And do not the sons of Antichrist, when they draw near to his Demon-Table or Altar (as the Apostle calls it, 1 Cor. 10.21.) give their Offerings to Antichrist, and their other Demon-Saints, exactly conformable to the Pagan's Offerings to their Demons? Thus we see how Antichrists S crifices are all, as 1 Tim. 4.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of Demon-Sacrifices.  
§. 5. Another part of Antichrists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is his Exorcism, 
5. Popish Exorcism and lying Wonders from Demon lying Wonders.  Sorcery, and power of working wonders, which he pretends unto and claimeth, as a privilege appendent to his Chair, as successor of Peter, but indeed had its origine from Pagan Divination and Sorcery. That this also may be gathered from Paul's character of Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. seems probable from Grotius' explication of these words; 
1 Tim. 4.1, 2.  who understands them of the Pythagorean Magicians, amongst whom Apollonius Tyanaeus was chief; ' Who (says he) came to Ephesus while Timothy lived, and is here in a particular maimer denoted. Though we have no show of reason to restrain this famous character of Antichrist, with Grotius to Apollonius Tyanaeus, or with Hammond to Simon Magus and his Gnostic Disciples; yet thus far we may yield to these learned men, that these famous Pythagorean Magicians, as they were forerunners of Antichrist, may be allowed some room in this Text. For look as Apollonius Tyanaeus was by reason of his Demoniac Wonders, made by the Pythagoreans and Platonistes, Porphyry, etc. a counter Christ, or equal to Christ, as also Simon Magus by the Gnostics; so the great Roman Antichrist has, by his lying Wonders, Sorcery, and Exorcism or Devil-chassing power, made himself a corrival with Christ. This seems farther evident from v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speaking lies in Hypocrisy, or (as the proper idiom of the word inclines) in imitation. And so the meaning will be this, All the lying Wonders, Exorcism, or conjuring power, which Antichrist shall, by his Ecclesiastic Canons, bring into the Church, are indeed but an Imitamen of the Pythagorean Sorcery, and Magic Arts, which they, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by virtue of their Daemon Theologie and power pretend unto. Of which see more Book 1. Chap. 3. §. 9 That the Pythagoreans were great Magicians and herein types of Antichrist's Exorcists, appears farther from what Grotius observes on Ephes. 4.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Eph. 4.14.  etc. We are to understand, says he, that these men acted very cunningly, and that from an art of seducing, which they received from the Devil. The Pythagoreans are chief indicated here, of whom the most part were Magicians. That Magic Arts were much exercised at Ephesus, appears Act. 19.9. Thus Grotius, whom I cite only for this, to show that the Pythagoreans, Apollonius Tyanaeus, etc. were great Sorcerers, and so herein Forerunners of Antichrist, whose sons glory in nothing more, than in their lying Wonders, whereby they make good their Father's Prophetic character. 
2 Thes. 2.9.  2 Thes. 2.9. he saith, They should come, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by lying wonders, which yet they impose on the simple people as Divine Miracles. This Wonder-working Power, which the Popish Exorcists pretend unto, is also a part of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For (as we have observed before Sect. 2. §. 4, 5. of this Chapter) these lying Wonders were first brought into the Church by the fabulose Monks, immediately after Julian the Apostates death, who coined many lying reports of Wonders wrought at the Shrines and Sepulchers of the Martyrs, which they pretended to be wrought by the Intercession of those glorified Martyrs, upon notice taken by them of men's devotion at their Sepulchers. Whence Antichrist, when he came to the stature of a perfect man of sin, appoints by his Ecclesiastic Canons certain Exorcists in his Church, for the continuation of this Wonder-working Power, which he at first received in imitation of the Pythagorean Magicians, and still exerted by virtue of compact with, and assistence from the Devil that great Demon. And as the Popish Exorcism in general, so particularly all their lesser spells, for the chassing away of Devils, the healing of Diseases, etc. seem to be but derivations from, and Imitamen of Demon-Magic, practised by the Pythagoreans and others. So Bochart against Veron, part 3. pag. 888. tells us, That in the Popish Church they make use of the sign of the Cross to chasse away Devils, in imitation of that we find in Ovid. lib. 3. de Fast. 
‛ Signaque dat digitis medio cum pollice junctis  
‛ Occurrat tacito ne levis umbra sibi.  Baronius acknowledgeth, That the Agnus Dei, which they hang about their necks, is made alike to those bulls or boulets of Wax, which they hung about the necks of Children to defend them from charm. So Aelian tells us, That the Egyptian Priests hung about their necks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little image of Saphir, whereby they divined, etc. unto which the Agnus Dei, which the Papists make so great use of as an universal spell, seems to answer. And the Jesuits generally have some spell or other hanging about their necks or elsewhere.  
§. 6. 
6. Invocation of Saints from Demon-Invocation.  But the great and masterpiece of Antichrists Saint-worship is his Invocation of Saints, which fills up a good part of his Canonic Theology, and is indeed but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship. That Invocation was a chief part of that worship which the Pagans performed to their Demons, is evident by what Clemens Alexandrin. Strom. 6. mentions of these Demons: Which, saith he, they made Temples unto, placed their Images therein, and called on, etc. This is farther evident by what we have afore cited out of Plato, who makes it one main office of the Demons, to transfer men's Petitions to God. So 1 King. 18.20. Baal's Priests are said, to cry aloud to their Demons. And Christ, Mat. 6.7. bids us, 
Mat. 6.7.  not to use vain repetitions, as the Heathens do. For the Heathens would repete over their Demon's name, on whom they called, an hundred times. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye shall not use vain Repetitions. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is deduced from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which some derive from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bata, to blaterate or babble. Hesychius with others make this Battus to be a Lybian King, who stammered, and thence oft repeated the same syllable: others make Battus to be a certain Poet, who writ many Hymns, in which the same things were repeated. But all grant, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which follows in our Lord's admonition, Mat. 6.7. So Casaubon, Exerc. 14. Sect. 8. ' In battology there are two vices, (1) vain Repetition of the same words. (2) Multiloquie, or much speaking. And herein both the Pagans in their Demon-worship, and the sons of Antichrist in their Saint-worship, have been greatly guilty. As for the Heathens we find in Aeschylus an hundred times over such vain Battologies as these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Io, Io, Io, etc. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Fie, fie, etc. And have not the sons of Antichrist in imitation of the Pagans, assumed the like Battologies in their Saint-worship? How oft do they repete their Ave Maria? so in their psaltery they repete the name Jesus 15 times together: as Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, etc. The Athenian Philosophers, who were according to Paul's character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 17.22. had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consecrated places, where they worshipped and invocated their Demons. So Act. 17.19. we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mars' Page, Well, or Column, where he was invocated; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a fountain; whence they who drank of the same Well were called Pagans. Now that the Popish Invocation of, or praying to their Saints, is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imitation of the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is largely proved by Mede on this 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. Apost. lat. Times, pag. 31, 32, etc.  
§. 7. 
Many Popish Rites and Ceremonies which they derived from the Pagans. 1. Their Holy-water, and other Purisications.  There were many other Ceremonies used by the Pagans in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship, which Antichrist has since reassumed, thereby to complete his Prophetic character, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. (1) The Pagan Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, (who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) had their Purisications, Purgatories, and Washings, (as before Part 2. Book 2. Chap. 6. §. 8.) whence the Pharisees seem to have traduced their Purifications and Washings, as Christ hints to us, Mark 7.2, 3, 4. And did not all Antichrists Purifications and sprinklings of holy water receive their origine from this Pythagorean fountain? 
2. Their Sacred fire.  (2) The Pagans had their Sacred sire, which the Grecks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as some think from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the Latins Vesta. This they honoured as a God or Demon; so Stobaeus, Serm. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, honour or worship Vesta: and for the conservation of this Sacred fire in their Temples they had their Vestal Nuns, whose office it was to preserve the same. And has not Antichrist the very same Sacred fire, which is always burning in his Temples, and said by Tapers, Lamps, & c? Yea, has he not also his Covents of Nuns, whose main office it is to conserve this his Sacred sire, and other Pagan Rites?  
(3) The Pagans had Sacred Groves and Trees which belonged to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
3. Their Sacred Groves and Trees.  So here in Britanny the Oak was esteemed most holy by the Druids; whence according to Pliny, l. 16. c. 44. they were called Druids, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from an Oak. And has not Antichrist his Sacred Groves and Trees in Churchyards, & c? Deut. 16.21. God forbade the Jews planting Groves of Trees about their Altars, because these were usual amongst the Gentiles.  
(4) Another piece of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was their Ceremony of bowing and worshipping towards the East. 
4. Their bowing towards the East.  For the Pagans universally worshipped the Sun as their supreme God, even the more Reformed of them the new Platonistes, Plotinus, Porphyry and Julian the Apostate, as it appears by his Oration to the Sun. Whence it came to pass, that the Sun rising in the East, they usually worshipped that way: (as the Jews in Babylon usually worshipped towards the West, because Jerusalem stood west thence.) Hence also they built their Temples, and buried their dead towards the East. So Diogenes Laertius in the life of Solon, says, That the Athenians buried their dead towards the East, the head of their Graves being made that way. And do not Antichrist and his sons exactly follow this Pagan Ceremony in building their Temples and high Altars towards the East, and in bowing that way in their worship?  
(5) The Godfathers conferring gifts on the Baptised Insant, and all such gifts brought to women in childbed are supposed to have flown from the Heathens, specialty the Grecians, who observed the fifth day for the purification and naming their Children: on which day the neighbours sent in gifts called munera natalia.  
(6) We might add also all Antichrist's distinctive Garments, 
6. All distindive Garments.  as Surplices, Gowns, Hoods, Caps, etc. which are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation of Demon-Ceremonies as hereafter. Apulcius saith, l. 11. Miles. That the Priests of Isis were clothed with a white linen garment. And Herod. l. 2. acquaints us, That the Egyptian Priests used a white linen Vestment as most pure. The like we have proved of the Pythagoreans, P. 2. B. 2. C 6. §. 8. But at present we shall content ourselves with a few Observations out of learned men. Bochart against Veron, Part 3. Par. 84. Chap. 23. having given us the mention of several Pagan Rites taken up by Antichrist, (of which before) he adds; from the same Pagan source comes their holy-water, their Tapers, their Incense, their extreme unction; for all these were in use amongst the Pagans. Also their baptising of Bells answereth to the Pagan Tubilustrium, i. e. the purification of Trumpets; their Canonisation, to the Apotheosis; the spittle which they use in Baptisine is taken from that of Persius, Satyr. 2. Lustralibus ante salivis expiate, etc. Baronius, on the year 44. Num. 88 makes a long list of those Ceremonies which the Church has borrowed from the Pagans. The French Author, des Anciennes Cerem. pag. 24. gives us an account how these Pagan Ceremonies crept into the Christian Churches. He had shown before, That there were some rudiments laid in the second and third Centurie. But, adds he, about the year 300, and since prosperity produced many Ceremonies.— The people (from Constantin's compulsion) presented themselves in troops to crowd into the Church: but the simplicity of Christianity disgusted many, who retained before their eyes the pomp and magnificence of Paganism: wherefore it was thought expedient to cloth Religion with more splendid Ceremonies, that so the splendour of these Ornaments might render it more august and recommendable. And to accommodate themselves to the Jews and Gentiles, who talked of nothing but Sacrifices, the Christians gave to the Lords Supper the name of Sacrifice, and to the Table the name of Altar, though not in that sense the Papists now give. The same Author acquaints us, that the body of these Ceremonies came not to be form into a complete Systeme of Canonic Rites ' till about the year 600, under Gregory 1. So Traitè des Ancien. Ceremon. pag. 59 The most notable changement, says he, which happened in Religion, was about the year 600. Those times were already very tenebrose; Gregory the first was then Bishop of Rome, who set up the Saints in the place of Gods, dedicating to them Temples, Festes, Sacrificators. Now according to the measure, that new Doctrines or new Ceremonies were introduced, the form of Divine service was also changed. Till now Liturgies had been always different, etc. But Gregory undertook to melt all the Formularies of the Church; he changed and adjusted or adjoined many pieces; and out of this Melange or mixture he composed the Office of the Mass, almost in the same form as it stands at this day. Though we must acknowledge with this Author, that these Antichristian Ceremonies were not form into a body, and imposed on all as matter of Ecclesiastic conformity 'til about the year 600 under Gregory, and his successor Boniface the third, who obtained the title and dignity of Universal Bishop; yet we are also to know, that there was a very heavy yoke of Pagan Ceremonies imposed upon the Roman Churches, and some other in the foregoing Centuries, specially about the year 410. by Innocent the first, who brought in the worshipping of Relics, the erecting of Altars, and offering of Sacrifices at the Graves of Martyrs: who also secretly permitted the superstitiose people at Rome to worship their Demon-Gods. Under him also the legenda aurea, or fabulose narrations of Miracles wrought at the Graves of Martyrs, received a great composure. He also it was that framed many Ecclesiastic Canons for Fasts, Abstinences from Meats, prohibition of Marriage to Presbyters, and many Monastic Orders, (as Platina;) not to mention his expelling the Novatians (those godly Reformers) from Rome, Excommunicating the Emperor Arnadius, affecting an Universal Primatic in the Church, and Secular Domination, as Socrates the Scholiast & Antichristi, Excidium Praefat. de Innocentio 1, etc. And Augustin, who was Contemporary with this Innocent 1. complaines, That Ceremonies were grown so numerose and burdensome, as that they well nigh exceeded the yoke of the Jewish Ceremonies. Thus we have shown how all Antichrist's Saints and Saint-worship is but according to what was foretold of him, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. Demon-Doctrines, Canons, and worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of the Pagan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon worship.  
§ 8. Another part of Antichrist's Canonic Law comprehends all those Ecclesiastic Abstinences, Fasts, bodily Severities, 
All Antichrists Canonic Fasts and Abstinences from Demon-worship.  and other Purgatories, which he enjoines his sons, by virtue of his Canonic Supremacy. This also had its origine from the same fountain of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to that discovery which the Apostle makes thereof, 
1 Tim. 4.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  1 Tim. 4.3. He having made mention of Antichrist's Demon-Dogmes, or Canons in general, ver. 1. and then given the source or root of all, v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, speaking lies, or lying wonders in imitation of the Pagans lying wonders, which they attributed to their Demons, and made the foundation of their Demon-worship; v. 3. our Apostle descends to some particulars of these Demon-Dogmes or Canons, which Antichrist should introduce; whereof this is one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to abstain from meats. That those who were the great devoti and worshippers of Demons, were also greatly addicted to superstitiose Abstinences from flesh, etc. has been before once and and again observed. And herein none more exact than the Pythagoreans, (who were also followed herein by the Pharisees as before) whose Infusions were first sucked in by the Gnostics, those forerunners of Antichrist, and after re-assumed by Antichrist himself. And our Apostle Paul, having by the spirit of prophety, a prevision of the dangerous consequences which would ensue upon these Pythagorean Abstinences, and their establishment in the Churches of Christ, gives many severe Prohibitions against them. So Col. 2.16. Let no man judge you in meat and drink, etc. 
Col. 2.16.  These Canons for Abstinences Grotius conceives to belong more peculiarly to the Pythagoreans, than to the Jews. For, says 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 lays down more Categorically and Positively, on ver. 20. They are, says Grotius, 
Ver. 20, 21.  called the Rudiments of this world, because commun to the Gentiles with the Jews: for there is nothing in these Rites proper to the Jews; yea they seem to proceed rather from the Gentiles to the Jews, than from the Jews 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 Jews 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 all Antichrist's Canons for Abstinence and Fasts 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, Apostasy of the later times, from Page 141, to 152. Edit. 2. And to speak 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 Fasts and Abstinences even in the beginning of the second Centurie, as it is well observed by the Author of Traitè des Ancien, Ceremon. pag. 6, 7. About the year 110, (says he) there was introduced the diversity of Junes, or Fasts, not as a Canon whereof the observation was necessary, but only by custom, proceeding not from any public Authority of the Church, but from the simplicity of private persons. The custom 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 days.— From the same root sprang the observation of Lent, which began only with the observation of a few days before Easter, set apart as preparatory to that work. Yet these Fasts 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 custom. Thence we read, that Constantin continued the Sacred Vigils even unto day, and caused Torches to be lighted throughout the City, and Lamps 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 Fasts were left free and indifferent. At this time therefore, inasmuch as the profession of Monks ought to consist in a more severe life than that of others, there was imposed on them certain Canons for the regulating of Fasting-days, etc. 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 Supremacy, institute several Orders of Monks, 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 Apostasy of the later times, pag. 141, etc. I come now (says he) to the last description of the means, whereby the Doctrine of Demons was to be advanced, viz. through the hypocrisy of such as forbid Marriage, etc. 1 Tim. 4.3. To which we may add what he pag. 97, etc. 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 well 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 all 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 drawn 'twixt one and tother. But to give a more full demonstration hereof, we shall add 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 Marriage, etc. appears by that great Pythagorean Canon, Colos. 2.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Col. 2.21.  handle not. This, says Grotius, refers to the avoiding of Women, which the Jewish Priests sometimes did, but the Pythagoreans always. 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 well-nigh established throughout Paganism, 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 forbade Marriage 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 approached to a Woman. By which it's apparent, that Antichrist's prohibition of Marriage and Monastic Constitutions or Canons are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation of the Pagan Celibat and Monastic Rules. That the Popish Nuns are but Imitamen or Apes of the Pythagorean Nuns, seems evident from their origine and office, as described, Traitè des Ancien. Ceremon. An. 240 Lo the origine of these Virgins: The Persecutions of those times obliged Christians not to engage themselves in the world more than need required: Now in as much as Marriage oft hinders the liberty of this profession, many Virgins took up a resolution, with the advice and consent of their Parents, to live in perpetual continence, and so to join themselves more strictly to Christ, (according to Paul's Counsel, 1 Cor. 7.40.) Thence they presented themselves to the Church, who recommended them to God by solemn prayers, that they might take care of the poor and sick. Yet were not these Vows of Continence esteemed then irrevocable; though afterward they were, in imitation of the Pythagoreans, etc.  
But to proceed to the origine of these Monastic Constitutions and Canons, established by Antichrist as part of his Demon-Theologie; 
The origine of Monastic Constitutions.  it cannot be denied but that there was some foundation laid for Monastic life about the middle of the third Centurie after Christ, though it is as certain, that Celibat or Monastic life was never established by any Ecclesiastic Canon, or judged necessary 'til Antichrist came to some Head and Supremacy. This is well observed by the Author of Traitè des Ancien. Ceremon. pag. 28. In time of Persecution many Christians avoiding that tempest retired themselves into deserts, etc. When the Persecution ceased, there were not wanting some who having turned this solitude into habitude, continued and passed the rest of their days there; either because accustomed to such a mode of life; or because the simplicity of it was more agreeable to them than the noise of the Towns; or because they feared subsequent storms. But others afterward, even in the midst of peace affecting such a solitary life, made that voluntary, which was before necessitated by reason of Persecution. And from hence sprang the origine of the Monastic life, the first foundations whereof were laid in Egypt, about the year 300, by Antonius; which were afterward extended even unto Syria, by Hilarion; unto Armenia by Eustachius; unto Grece by Basil, unto Italy by Ambrose. By which (as also by what we have afore mentioned S. 1. §. 1. of this Chapter), it is evident, that this Monastic Celibat and Constitution began in Egypt, at Alexandria, where was then the most famous School in the world for Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy. For here the great Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyry, and the rest of those Pythagorising Platonists, were bred up; who were great Patrons of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon worship; and particularly of Celibat and Monastic life; for which Pythagoras laid down such severe Institutes and Canons, as Plato after him. Now Origen having been bred up in this same School of Alexandria together with Plotinus, under the famous Ammonius, (whom some take to be a Christian) he drank such full draughts at this fountain of Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy, as that being made drunken therewith, and thence forgetting himself to be a Christian, he at last drank in also much of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-superstition and dregs; and amongst other Demon-superstitions this of Monastic life and Celibat; which the Monks his Successors, communly called Origenists, received from him as a foundation for Antichrist to ground his Demon-Canons upon, according to 1 Tim. 4.3. as before in our account of Origen, B. 2. C. 1. § 8, & C. 2. S. 1. §. 1. Thus we see how Antichrists Canonic Constitutions for Monastic life, received their foundation in the School of Alexandria from the Greek Fathers, Origen, etc. their symbolising with the Pythagorising Platonistes in Demon Theologie. And here it's very observable, that the first entrance of Celibat and Monastic life into Britanny was by Pelagius the Britain, that eldest son of Antichrist; who having traveled unto Egypt, and there confirmed himself in his Pelagian Infusions, by conversation with the Origenistes, he was by them also initiated in the Orders and Rites of Monastic life, which he brought back with him into Britanny. For before the return of Pelagius, Britanny knew not what belonged to Superstitiose Monachisme, as Balaeus de Script. Brit. Cent. 1. c. 38. Yet we must remember, that though Monastic life was introduced into these Countries by Pelagius, and embraced by some, it was not however brought under any Canonic Constitution ' till Augustin the Monk, that great 〈…〉 of Antichrist, his entrance. So ●alaeus de Script. Brit. 〈…〉 came into England with Augustin 〈…〉 and the Canonic Regulars with Birinus, 〈…〉 So again, Cap. 97. of Centur. 1. Until Augustin the Monke's entrance the Apostolic Monks in Britanny had liberty of Marrying, according to the exemple of Paulus Antonius, Hilarion, Macdrius, Jerome, and other pious Hermit's, who led a Monastic life in the deserts of Egypt and Palestine, yet freely and without any prohibition against Marriage. By which it's evident, that albeit some pious persons might affect solitude and Monastic life in the third and fourth Centuries, yet there was no prohibition of Marriage or Canonic Constitution of Monastic life ' till Antichrist came to maturity.  
§. 10. All Antichrist's Works of Supererogation, Satisfactions, Merits, 
All Antichrists works of Supererogation and Merits parts of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and other pieces of Will-worship, may deservedly be reckoned as a part of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship, which he, by virtue of his Canonic Supremacy, established in his Church. Plato, Repub. 5. p. 468. speaking of the Deisication of their Demons, makes them to be originally nothing else but Good men, or Saints, whose merits were maenifest, etc. And whence sprang all Antichrist's Merits and Satisfactions, which he ascribes to his Saints, but from these Demon-merits? And this indeed seems to be implied in our Apostles character of Antichrist his Demon-Theologie, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. For what design could Antichrist have in Canonising of Saints, forbidding of Marriage, enjoining of Abstinences, 
1 Tim. 4.1, 3.  and suchlike bodily mortifications, but thereby to fill up his Treasury of Supererogations, and Merits, which he by his Indulgences would dispense forth, according to his Sovereign pleasure. This seems more fully hinted, 
Ver. 7.  in what follows v. 7. where he exhortes Timothy, and in him all Christians, to shun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, profane and old wives fables. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word much used amongst the Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, who were great Mythologists; under which they comprehended most of their Moral precepts or Canons: and it seems to be used here by our Apostle to signify those fabulose mortifications and bodily severities, which the Gnostics then, and the Monks afterward brought into the Churches of Christ, for the filling up Antichrists Magazeen of Supererogations and Merits. And that this is the true meaning of the words, seems evident from what follows in the same vers.. But exercise thyself to Godliness. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Godliness is opposed here to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fables, before mentioned. As if he had said, instead of these Pythagorean fabulose Mortifications, which the Gnostics now, and Antichrist by his Monastic Canons hereafter, will bring into the Church of Christ, I exhort thee and all Christians to exercise yourselves in true Gospel-mortification and spiritual Godliness; which though it has not those Supererogations, Satisfactions and Merits, which Antichrist's bodily mortifications pretend unto, yet it is far more profitable in all regards, both as to this life and that to come. And that this is the genuine sense of the words appears from what follows, v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For bodily exercise, 
Ver. 8.  etc. Bodily exercise here signifies the same with, or is exegetic of old wives fables, v. 7. i.e. All those Pythagoric fabulose Abstinences, 
1 Tim. 4.9.  Purifications, Severities, and other extern mortifications, which the Pythagorising Gnostics then, and the Antichristian Monks since have foisted into the Christians Canon. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies primarily, an exercise in the Gymnade, which was greatly in use amongst the Grecians: it is also sometimes used to express intellectual and moral exercices. It has here an elegant reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 7. as if he had said, It's true, these Pythagorising Gnostics now, and the superstitiose sons of Antichrist hereafter will all pretend, by these their bodily exercices and severities to promove Mortification and Godliness, but in truth they effect nothing less: For bodily exercise profiteth but a little, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to little. i.e. Al those Pythagoric Abstinences, Severities, and other extern Mortifications, which the sons of Antichrist make the foundation of their Supererogations and Merits, are so far from meriting any thing at the hand of God, as that they are little or nothing worth, etc. But Godliness is profitable to allthings, having the promises of this life, and that to come. i.e. True Christian piety, though it can merit nothing at the hand of God, yet it has a very great instrumental causality and influence, by virtue of God's gratiose promisse, on our well being, both in this and the coming life. Whence our Apostle adds, 
1 Tim. 4.9.  ver. 9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers exactly to the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cabala, which the fabulose Jews, in imitation of the Pythagorean Institutes, made their Codex, or Canon-Law, by virtue of which they introduced all their Fables, and mixed them with the Divine Oracles. So in like manner the Pythagorising Gnostics, and fabulose Monks had their Cabala or Systeme of Pythagorean Institutes, which they foisted into their Canonic Theology, and thereby introduced all their bodily exercices or Mortifications. To this Pythagorean, Jewish, Gnostic and Monkish Cabala, our Apostle here opposeth this Divine Cabala or Canon touching Christian Godliness: the like, 1 Tim. 1.15. B. 1. C. 4. §. 1. Thus we see how these Pythagorean Abstinences, 
Bodily exercices and Will-worship.  Mortifications, and other bodily exercices were brought into the Church by the Monks, those eldest sons of Antichrist, thereby to lay a foundation for their works of Supererogation and Merits; whereof we find the like account given by Paul, 
Col. 2.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Col. 2.23. Our Apostle v. 20, 21, 22. had mentioned some Pythagorean Dogmes, Canons, and Institutes, which the Gnostics then, and Antichrist afterward imposed, as Ecclesiastic Canons, on the Churches of Christ: and in this v. 23. he runs them up to their spring head, Which things indeed have a show of wisdom in Will worship. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. an accurate, artificial Form, Image, Idea, or Picture. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of wisdom; namely of some Divine mystic Cabala, or Tradition dropped from Heaven. For both the Pharisees, Gnostics and Monks pretended unto some Divine Cabala or Tradition for all their fabulose Abstinences and Mortifications; though in truth they are all but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in imitation of Pythagorean Dogmes and Institutes, as it follows: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Will-worship. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says Grotius, is a middle word signifying Rites and Ceremonies: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies, that these Rites were taken up of their own accord, etc. Our English Councils, pag. 449. Canonibus sub Eadgaro, Can. 60. amongst other particulars adds this, We teach that all Priests shall blot out all superstitions of the Gentiles, and we forbidden Wilweorthunga. Which is there translated in Latin, Fictas ad libidinem adorationes, with a Marginal reference to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col. 2.23. But learned Hammond, to avoid the force of so great a Testimony against Will worship, for Wilweorthunga would read it Welweorthunga, i. e. Wel-worship; it being, says he, commun then to worship Wels. But this is too poor a gloss to need consutation: yea he himself grants in his Annotations on this Text, That the Pharisees pride and boasting was censured by Christ; and their forming those voluntary acts of Devotion into precepts, and entering them into Books, and separating themselves from all that did not perform their severe prescriptions, rendered them Pharisees, and divided them from the Hasidei, etc. By which he grants, that the imposing human inventions is Pharisaic Will-worship, and the cause of needless separation or division. But it's evident, that our Apostle here strikes at the very root of all bodily Abstinences and Severities, which he calls neglects of the Body; affirming, that they were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will-worship. i e. the original Idea of all these extern Mortifications was some Pythagorean Dogmes, Institutes, and Canons, as v. 8, 16, 20, 21, 22. Whence the superstitiose Pharisees transcribed all their, as also the fabulose Gnostics and Monks all their bodily Severities, in order to works of Supererogation and Merits. For it's evident, that nothing can establish a foundation for works of Supererogation and Merits, but some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will worship, or somewhat not commanded: and no Will-worship has more suited with the palate of proud Pharisees, Gnostics, and the sons of Antichrist, than the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which by reason of its many extern Severities seemed most expedient to build human Merits and Satisfactions upon. Of which see more C. 1. §. 7. And farther, that Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Canons for the stablishing Merits and Satisfactions is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitation of the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Will-worship, appears by what Grotius lays down, 
2 Tim. 4.4.  2 Tim. 4.4. And turn aside to Fables. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These Fables are concerning the Expiations of Sins, taken from the Chaldean and Orphic Discipline: Amongst which Sea water had the first place, than fountain-water, Scylla, Sulphur, Bitumen, etc. The Orphic Discipline, which Grotius here mentions, takes in also the Pythagoric which was but a branch thereof. 
2 Tim. 3.13.  And so Grotius on the foregoing, 2 Tim. 3.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deceiving and being deceived. These Doctors, (says he, meaning the Gnostics) who deceived the people, were themselves deceived by the Philosophers, specially by the Pythagoreans, of whom there were many at Ephesus. And it is apparent, that the whole of Pythagoras' Discipline was calculated to lay a foundation for human Expiations, Satisfactions, and Merits: whence Antichrist did the more cheerfully close with it, as most proper to establish his works of Supererogation and Merits. 1 King. 18.28. We find the Priests of Baal cutting and lancing themselves as the sons of Antichrist now do: and therefore, Levit. 19.28. & Deut. 14.1. God forbids these Rites; because abused to Demon-worship. We find also in Cicero de leg. lib. 2. Sect. 46. That our merits carry us to Heaven, as Bochart observes. Indeed this Doctrine of human Merits found too much footing amongst the Fathers, specially Origen, who being of the Alexandrine School, affected too great a mixture of Pythagorean and Platonic Dogmes, and amongst others this of Merits, (as in the foregoing Chap. 1. §. 8.) which opened a door to Antichrist, for the introducing his Canonic Satisfactions, Merits, Indulgences, etc.  
§. 11. Antichrist's Purgatory and prayers for the dead is another piece of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Antichrists Purgatory from the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which he introduced, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Imitation of the Pythagorean, Platonic, and Stoic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Purification of Souls by fire after death. That the Pythagoreans and Platonistes held some kind of Purgatory or Purification of Souls separated, has been before hinted. This they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Purification of the soul by fire; which the Stoics termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the Purgatory so much defended by the Devoti of Antichrist, is indeed but an Imitamen of the Platonic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Purgation of the soul by fire, brought into the Primitive Churches by Origen, we have before B. 2. C. 1. §. 8. intimated. And to make good this charge we may consult Origen's Comments on Exod. Hom. 6. Psal. 36. Hom. 3. & Luk. Hom. 6. Where he would needs persuade men, That both Believers and Insidels must pass through that fire, which at last shall consume the world. This opinion was followed by his Sectators, the Oreginistic Monks of Egypt, yet condemned by the Orthodox. But these disputes touching the condition and Domicile of Souls after death, came to be multiplied: and about the year 400, many had their minds corrupted with those fabulose Platonic Philosophemes, That the souls of men were purged in a certain place, before they were taken into Heaven. Yet these Sentiments were laid down only as Problems to be disputed, not in form of Dogmatic Articles, as it's well observed, Traite des Ancien. Ceremon. pag. 64. That the Antichristian Purgatory is but an Imitamen of the Platonic Purgatory will be evident to any that takes a view of Plato's Idea thereof: who in his Phaedo, pag. 113. treating professedly of the threefold state of Souls after their separation from the body, namely of the righteous in bliss; of the desperately wicked in Tartary, or the Stygian lake; and of those who are wicked, but curable in a temporary Tartary; he adds concerning these two last, But if by reason of the magnitude of their sins they may seem incurable, than an agreeable destiny casts them into Tartary, whence they never get out. But such as happen to be curable, though obnoxious to great sins, on these there is laid a necessity of falling into Tartary; but after they have continued there one year, the Lake casts them out again. Thus Plato. Where he evidently makes mention of a Temporary Tartary, (distinct from the eternal fixed Tartary of such as are incurably wicked) which exactly answers to the Popish Purgatory, or Temporary Hel.  
Now such as were in this Philosophic Purgatory or Temporary Tartary, 
Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacrifice for the dead.  that they might have the more speedy egress or dismission thence, Plato, Repub. lib. 2. tells us, That there were certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. mysteriose, sumtuose sacrifices offered for them. And that this is the proper import of Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teleta, is made evident by Ludovicus Vives, on August. Civit. lib. 4. cap. 31. Suidas, (says he) affirms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teletam, to be the greatest and most sumtuose of all the mysteriose Sacrifices; so called because the greatest part thereof was consumed. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to consume; although it signifies also to perfect: and therefore there are some who think these Teletae to be so called; because they were the most perfect Sacrifices, to which there was nothing wanting. Such were the Sacrifices of the Sun and Moon, and of Bacchus, and some Expiations, by which the sins not only of private persons, but also of Cities, and of the Dead, as well as of the living, were purged away by Sacrifices, plays, and all kind of sports; which Sacreds' were called Teletae: and so Plato, Repub. 2. affirms, That these Teletae belong only to the dead, and thence so called, namely from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being Sacrifices appointed to deliver us from the infernal sufferings, or the Temporary Tartaries. By which it's evident, that Plato his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were no other than certain Sacrifices performed to ransom men's Souls out of the Temporary Tartary, or Purgatory. And further, that these Teletae, or Sacrifices for the Dead, were part of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demon-worship is manifest, by what Plato mentions thereof in his Symposium, pag. 202, 203. where having discoursed at large of Socrates' Daemon, his original nature and office, both to convey the Gifts and Commands of the Supreme God to men, and the prayers and sacrifices of men to the supreme God, he adds this as one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Teletas, etc. So that the Teletae or Sacrifices for the Dead did in a more peculiar manner belong to their Demon-worship. Moreover Virgil (Aen. 5, 6.) teacheth clearly a Purgatory and prayer for the dead, as Bochart, Country Veron, P. 3. C. 25. S. 4. Art. 1. hath observed. By which it is evident, that Antichrist's Purgatory, Sacrifices, and Prayers for the dead are all but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as 1 Tim. 4.2.) in imitation of the Philosopher's Purgatory and Teletae, or Sacrifices and prayers for the dead, their being delivered out of the Temporary Tartary or Purgatory.  
Now to inquire a little when and how these Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or sacrifices for the dead, were introduced into the Christian Churches; we are to take notice that something hereof was found in them very early; and that out of a symbolising humour, 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 Assembly, 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 solemn, presented to the Church, or to the Poor of the Congregation then present, a quantity of Bread and other food. Many also to keep alive their memory in the Church, would leave on their last Will 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 confess 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 Daemon worship, and particularly in these their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or sacrifices for the dead. This is incomparably well explicated by Is. Cas. Exer. 16. N 43. where he shows, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 Body. 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 Hell, by promising the purgation of their souls, by those which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teletas. Which gives us a great account of that Antichristian Purgatory, 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 Purgatory, began indeed very early to gain footing in the Churches of Christ, 
Antichristian Purgatory from the School of Alexandria.  and as we need no way doubt had its foundation from the School of Alexandria, where the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy was then in great vogue; whence Origen, with many other pieces of Demon-worship, sucked in this also of Purgatory, Sacrifices, and Prayers for the Dead; which the Monks his successors afterwards digested and improved; and at last Antichrist established and confirmed by his Ecclesiastic Canons, as before. These Antichristian Teletae, or Sacrifices and Prayers for the Dead, were come to some maturity even in Augustin's time; for he de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 26, 27. tells us of certain superstitiose persons, who carried their Junkets to the Graves of Martyrs, and there made their prayers, etc. And the Author of Traitè des Ancien. Cerem. pag. 39 affirms, that about the year 380, there was a considerable progress wade in Prayers for the Dead. And the same Author, pag. 44. shows us, how the Vigils or Watch 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 call it) at the Soul's departure out of the body; which is always in the Roman Church attended with Prayers. Lastly, all Funeral-treatments, Orations, Sermons, Prayers at the Grave, so much in request in the Roman Church, seem all to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of these Daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacrifices and Prayers for the dead, thereby to redeem their Souls from Purgatory, etc.   

SECT. iv Papal Primatie and Traditions from Ethnic Philosophy.  
§. 1. ANother piece of Antichrist's Canon-Law is that which concerns his Canonic Papal primaty, 
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 well observes, the whole of Antichristianisme is comprehended under this Prophetic character of Antichrist. And indeed, that the whole of Antichrist's primaty is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or an Imitation of the Pagan Primatie established 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 patriarchs; some [summi Pontifices] high Priests or Popes. This difference was introduced chief from the Gentiles, who called their Flamens, some Arch-flamen, others Proto-flamen. Thus the Canonist: who indeed gives us a good Genealogy of all their Canonic primaty. I find this well observed by learned Bochart, Country Veron, part. 3. Paragr. 86. cap. 23. pag. 883. To the Ceremonies of the Jews they have joined those of the Pagans. It is upon this Model that they have built all their Papal Hierarchy, etc. I find the like observation in Grotius, de Imp. Sum. Potest. cap. 11. pag. 350. It may be demanded by what exemple chief the Episcopal dignity was introduced into the Church? That there were Degrees of Priests amongst the Gentiles is most evident. Neither was this a new custom, or proper only to the Greeks, and their Descendants, as the Discipline of the Druids teacheth us. The Druids, says Caesar, have one Precedent, who has the chiefest authority 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, says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there were the chief Rulers of the Priests. On which place the ancient Scholiast adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It was the custom to take the chief Priest from the Metropolis. Strabo makes mention of one chief Priest of the Cattis: and Marcellinus, of a chief Priest amongst the Burgondians, etc. Thus Grotius. So Bochart tells us, there were Priests in Phrygia called Galli and Archigalli as before, S. 3. §. 9 of this Chapter. By which it is evident, that the Pagans generally had an Hierarchy, and one chief Priest over the rest: and it is apparent, that the Papal primaty was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitation of the Pagan; which will farther appear by the following particulars.  
1. This Papal primaty began at Alexandria; 
Papal primaty began at Alexandria in in imitation of the Philosopher's Schools.  which as it was the chief Seminary of Pagan Philosophy and Demon-worship, so also the fruitful womb, wherein all the principal Parts and Lineaments of Antichrist received their first conception and Formation. And amongst other Parts of this Man of Sin, his Head, which consists in his usurped primaty, was also form in this Philosophy Church or School of Alexandria. Thus much I gather from Grotius his Gallic Epistles, Epist. 162. pag. 397. where proving, that Clemens' Epistle to the Corinthians was genuine, he gives this as one argument, namely, That he never makes any mention of that extravagant Authority of Bishops, which, by the custom of the Church, began after Marke's death to be introduced at Alexandria, and by that exemple elsewhere, etc. Thus we see that Papal primaty began very early in this Philosophising Church at Alexandria, soon after Marke's death; and we may presume from their too great symbolising with that Pythagorean Platonic School in point of Discipline. Neither is Grotius singular in this his observation, for Jerome long ago observed the same, who makes Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria, the first Authors of advancing one Minister above another in power, about the year 140. And a learned Divine assures us, That Julianus Bishop of Alexandria was the beginner and breeder of Diocesan Government, which came in by little and little, etc. Yea so speedy was the growth of this Antichristian primaty at Alexandria, as that at the Council of Nice it arrived to a patriarchy.  
§. 2. But albeit the Papal primaty had its first conception and Fomentation at Alexandria, 
2. The chief Seat of Papal primaty at Rome, and that from imitation of Pagan-Rome.  yet its chief Nursery and Throne was at Rome: for here, according to Divine prediction, Antichrist, that Man of Sin, and Head of this Papal Hierarchy, has his main seat and residence. Now that the whole of this Papal Hierarchy established at Rome was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Imitation of Pagan Hierarchy, or rather Demonarchie established at Rome and elsewhere, we shall prove by its Parts.  
First, 
1. The Pope's Supremacy an Imitamen of the Pagan Empire.  The Head of this Papal primaty is the Pope, the whole of whose usurped Dignity and primaty is but an Image of, and extract from the Demonarchie or Hierarchy of the Pagan Emperors, as it will easily appear to any that shall consider, how exactly parallel they are. Touching the first establishment of the Roman Hierarchy by Numa, Plutarch gives us a good account in the Life of Numa. Numa Pompilius, saith he, erected the Pontific College; and he himself was the first Pontifex; the chief of those Pontifices, whom they call the great Pontifex: Who has the dignity and authority of the High Priest and Master of the Pontific Law; who was to see that none broke the ancient Ceremonies, nor brought in any new thing into Religion; but that every one should be taught by him, how they should serve the Gods, etc. And has not the Pope assumed the very same Pontific Dignity both Name and Thing? Has he not assumed the very Name of Pontifex Maximus? and is he not Master of the Pontific Law, or the Ecclesiastic Canons? Does he not take upon him to teach every one how they should serve his Demon-Gods, or Saints? Again Augustin, de Civit. l. 15 c. 15. tells us, That the Romans made Romulus a Flamen; which was a sort of Priesthood so excelling in the Roman Sacreds', (witness the Apex) that they had only three Flamens instituted to the three Gods; the Diale, to Jupiter; the Martiale, to Mars; the Quirinale, to Romulus. Ludovicus Vives on this place, explicating what this Flamen dedicated to Romulus was, tells us, That amongst the Orders of Priests, Numa Pompilius made some, which he called Flamens; whose chief Ensign was an Hat, as the Bishops now, wherein there was a thread of white wool; whence they were called Filamines from fila lanae. And then as for the Apex, which Augustin makes mention of, Ludovicus Vives gives us this account, That it was in the Flamen, that which covered the Head, namely the fila lanea or Cap. This Apex, adds he, the Romans gave to none but their chiefest Priests, as now the Mitres. So Lucan, Et tollens Apicem generoso vertice flamen. And has not the Roman Bishop the very same dignity and primaty, as it has been already observed, §. 1? Is he not the Proto-Flamen? and has he not his Mitre exactly answering to the Proto-flamen's Apex? But to carry on this parallel a little farther; the Roman Emperor, (as we just now observed of Numa Pompilius) reserved to himself the Title and Dignity of Pontifex Maximus, the Great Highpriest; by virtue whereof he was Head in all matters Ecclesiastic, as well as Civil; and had an absolute disposition of the Pontific Hierarchy, College, and Law. This Title and Dignity the Emperors affected 'til the dissolution of the Empire. Yea after Pagan Rome turned Christian, the Christian Emperors for some while retained the Title and Dignity of Pontifex Maximus, both Name and Thing, 'til the Bishop of Rome, upon the declension of the Empire, usurped the same. Which is a good Clavis to that prediction of Paul, 2 Thes. 2.7. He who now letteth; i.e. The Roman Emperor, 
2 Thes. 2.7.  who had the very Title and Dignity of the Pontifex Maximus, which Antichrist was to be invested with, but could not obtain 'til after the dissolution of the Empire. And the event has made this evident, that the Rise and Growth of Antichrist, and his Tyrannic Empire, was according to the Declension and Dissolution of the Civil Empire; yea in the same measure and proportion that the later decreased, the former increased, as it was foretold, Revel. 13.1. That he should receive his power at the same time with the ten Horns: which were to rise up out of the broken parts of the Empire. Thus was the generation of Antichrist out of the corruption of the Empire. Yea, that Antichrist exerciseth all the power which was exercised by the Pagan Emperor, seems clear from that part of his Character, Rev. 13.12. And he exerciseth all the power of the first Beste before him. So v. 15. 
Antichrist's Character by Paul.   
But all this will more fully appear by that Character which Paul gives him, 
2 Thes. 2.3, 4.  2 Thes. 2.3, 4. That man of sin, etc. I know Hammond, in his Annotations on this Text, [Note E] understands by this Man of Sin, Simon Magus, and that exclusively, without any respect to the Roman Antichrist. So Bellarmine also understands it of a single person, as Grotius after him. But this fond conceit has been already refuted sufficiently out of Mede, S. 2. §. 3. of this Chapter, and the vanity of it will farther appear by an explication of the parts. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Apostasy.  It is said first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there shall come a falling away, or an Apostasy; i.e. a total, universal, horrid Defection of the visible Church. Which cannot be meant of any particular Heretics, or Heresy in those times: (1) Because he speaks of it Propheticly as a thing to come, not then existent. (2) He here speaks of an universal and total Apostasy of the visible Church, which can't be applied to any Heresy then in being; because all the Heresies of the Gnostics and others then on foot were but particular, and generally disowned by the Churches of Christ, etc.  
2. He describes this general revolt by its Head; 
That man of sin.  whom he calls, 
2 Thes. 2.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That man of sin. (1) We may consider him as a Man, and so he is styled, That Man, in a way of Eminence and singularity, which denotes him to be such a monster, as never had, nor shall have his parallel. If we have a curiosity to know [1] his Names, he is styled ver. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that opposes Christ, or a counter-Christ, i.e. Antichrist. He is styled also Rev. 13.11. The two-horned Beste; and Rev. 16.13, 19, 20. The false Prophet. [2] As for his Ancestors, we may run up his Gnealogie to Cain, and the Pharisees, from whom he received his Doctrine of Justification by Works; to Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Antiochus Epiphanes, from whom he derived his Tyrannic persecution; to Balaam, Barchozba, Apollonius Tyanaeus, and Simon Magus, from whom he received his Impostures and Lying Wonders; to the Gnostics, from whom he received his Pythagorean Infusions and Superstitions. Yet his immediate Parents were the Old Serpent, Rev. 12.9, 15. and Babylon the mother of Harlots, or the Apostate Church, Rev. 17.1, 5. [3] As for his first conception, it was very early, even in Paul's time, as 2 Thes. 2.7. which John was more fully instructed in, as 1 Joh. 2.18. [4] His Nativity and Birth, Cluverus on Revel. 11. Tom. 3. pag. 29, etc. refers to An. 440, or thereabouts: and so he makes Pope Leo Magnus, the first of the Antichristian line, in whom the Number of the Beste began. And indeed his Arguments to begin the Antichristian Tyranny with Leo Magnus seem weighty; because he was the first that assumed an Universal Domination, by virtue of the power of the Keys given to Peter, Math. 16.18, 19 Of which see more Cluverus. And if we begin the Birth of this Man of Sin with Leo Magnus, than his Destruction will be about An. 1700 according to the Prophetic determination, Rev. 12.6, 14. where Antichrist's Duration is confined unto 1260 years. But (2) if we consider him as That man of sin, then observe here the abstract for the concrete, which implies an universality or perfection both of Parts and Degrees. He is a perfect man of sin, both Extensively and Intensively. [1 Extensively, or as to the parts and kinds of sin, he is the complexe of all manner of sins. What sin is there so flagitiose and monstrose, whereof we have not some Idea in this Man of sin? Doth not his Head contain all the Heresies that were ever found in the Church? Are not the Pelagian Infusions the vital spirits of his heart? Is he not also a man of Schisms? Has not his Tyrannic Domination proved the womb of the greatest Schisms in the Church? Is he not also a man of Idolatries and Superstitions? Are not all the Demon-superstitions to be found in him, as S. 3? Is not his mother-Church styled, Rev. 17.1. the mother of Harlots, i.e. Idolatries? Yea is he not a man of Blasphemies, as Rev. 13.1, 5, 6? Doth he not blaspheme the Tabernacle or Body of our Lord, by his Doctrine of Transubstantiation? Are not the Heavenly Inhabitants, i.e. Angels and glorified Saints, blasphemed by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Saint worship? Is not also the Name of God, i.e. his Sovereign Nature, Attributes, and Perfections, blasphemed by his Idolatry and Will-worship? What is Blasphemy, according to its formal Idea, but the diminishing or blemishing the Name and Honour of God? (1) By taking that from God that belongs to him. (2) By ascribing that to God, that belongs not to him. (3) By ascribing that to the Creature that belongs to God? Is he not also a man of Pride, Ambition, and Usurpation? Can there be a more Hellbred piece of pride, than for a poor beggarly Priest to exalt himself above all the Princes of the world, as 2 Thes. 2.4? May he not also be justly styled a man of blood, as Revel. 17.6? Yea is not all the blood of Saints that was ever shed from Abel to this day approved by him? Was there ever such a Murderer found as this man of sin, Rev. 11.7? And is he not likewise a man of avarice or covetousness? was there ever such an avariciose miser found as this, who measures all Godliness by Gain? Is not the Chamber of Rome well Characterised by one, who styles it an Infernal Golphe, which swallows up all that comes to it, without ever refunding any part? May we not also deservedly term him a Man of Sorceries, and Witchcrafts? Is not Exorcism or Conjuration one of the principal Offices of his Church? 
Rev. 14.8.  Do we not read, Revel. 18 23. of his Sorceries? 
Rev. 18 23.  which we find explicated, Revel. 14.8. The wine of the wrath of her fornication. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies not wrath, but poison, the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Revel. 18.23. namely those poisonous Philtres, or bewitching charms, whereby the Whore of Babylon bewitches the Nations, in allusion to Whores, who were wont to drink Philtres to their Paramours in a Golden cup, thereby to charm their affections, as Mede. Again, is he not a man of sensualities and impurities? was there ever any guilty of such uncleannesses both corporal and spiritual? O! what Luxury, Sodomy, and all manner of Sensuality is to be found at Rome, under the Throne of this Antichristian Beste? And doth not all this proceed from the just judgement of God, who usually punisheth spiritual fornication with corporal, as before? Is he not also a man of Ignorance? Is not his Kingdom subordinate to that of Satan, a Kingdom of Darkness? Is not Ignorance styled by him the mother of his Devotion? How many intrigues has he to keep his subjects in darkness? Doth not the power of his Sceptre consist in the power of darkness? With what black Curses doth he seal up the holy Scriptures from the people's view? How do all his Devoti fly from the light of life, and turn their backs on the Sun of Righteousness? Is not Ignorance the main pillar of his Throne? What black darknesses covered Europe so long as this man of Sin gave Laws to it? Yea farther, may we not with justice term him a man of Atheism? Whence sprang all that Machiavellian Atheism, which like a deluge hath overflowen all Europe, but from the Doctrines and Practices of this man of sin? What more potent to make men Atheists, than such a ridiculose superstitiose Religion, as that of this man of sin? Doth not carnal Policy, which is the quintessence of Popery, naturally tend to Atheism? Moreover, is he not a man of Irreligion and Profaneness? Hath he not for more than 1000 years profaned the Temple of God by his Abomination of Desolation? how has he polluted all the Ordinances, Sacraments, and holy things of God? Again, may we not without injury term him a man of Hypocrisy, Lie, and Deceit? Are not Lying wonders and fabulose Legends the main foundation of his Kingdom, as 2 Thes. 2.7, 10? Is he not said, Rev. 13.11. To have two horns like a lamb; i.e. to counterfeit the power of Christ? So 1 Tim. 4.2. he is said to introduce all his Doctrines of Demons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the hypocrisy, etc. as before S. 3. §. 1, etc. Yea what is all Popery but a profunde Mystery of Iniquity, a complexe of Pharisaic rank hypocrisy, a mere carnal lie? Lastly, to sum up the Ideas of Antichrist, is he not a man of Apostasy? Are not all the Apostasies of the Church in all Age to be found in this man of sin? Is not this the principal reason why Babylon is styled the mother of Harlots, Rev. 17.5? Thus we see how he is That man of sin extensively; i.e. of all kinds of sin; the system and complexe of all Heresies, sins, and blasphemies, etc. It's true, there were many errors and corruptions in the Primitive Churches, and many Antichrists, as 1 Joh. 2.18. yet none of them were this man of sin; but he is the aggregate and compende of all of them; he is as it were the Ocean, into which all those foregoing Heresies and Abominations did flow. Thus he is said to be that man of sin; i.e. of all kinds or sorts of Sin and Heresy, in whom all Heresies met as lines in their centre. [2.] This phrase, That man of sin, implies an intensive universality, or perfection of degrees; i.e. in whom all sins meet in their highest degree; for it is well known, that Abstractes speak, forms, essences, and quintessences of things. So that Man of sin, implies the most notorious sins, abominations, and blasphemies, enormities in the most sovereign degree. Some conceive this character given Antichrist to be borrowed from the like given by the Jews to Antiochus his Type, 1 Maccab. 2.48, 62. who is there styled, That sinner; i.e. such a sinner as outwent all that ever were. Hence the prodigiose sin of Antichrist is termed, 2 Thes. 2.7. a mystery of iniquity; i.e. a profunde infinite abyss of iniquity. So it's said of Babylon, the royal seat of this man of sin, Revel. 18.5. For her sins have reached unto heaven; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Rev. 18.5.  i.e. her sins following each other, and arising each from other grew so numerose and great, as that at last they reached up to Heaven, just like a pile of Wood, etc. Again, there is some emphasis in the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that man; i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he who is not only a disloyal servant, or a declared enemy, but a Traitor and Usurper of Christ's Empire. Oh! what a world of Treasons and Blasphemies against Christ is he guilty of, and that under a pretext of being Christ's Vicar? In sum, if you should rake Hell, you could not find a sinner either extensively or intensively equal to this man of sin.  
Then follows the other part of his Character, 
2 Thes. 2.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That Son of Perdition.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That son of perdition. i.e. (1) Actively, he who will destroy himself, and all that adhere to him, as 2 Pet. 2.1. And bring upon themselves swift destruction. Antichrist's Perdition shall arise out of his own bowels; he shall perish in and by his own designs, endeavours, and oppositions. As Christ makes the necessities of his enemies to serve his Church's conveniences; so also doth he not make the oppositions of his Enemies subservient to their own ruin? Antichrist has been these twelve hundred years digging a grave to bury the Church alive; but will he not at last fall himself thereinto, and fill up the living Churches place? Do not Antichrist and his Adherents, whiles they strike at Christ and his Members, break their own arm on that rock? (2) Antichrist is That son of perdition, passively, [1] as worthy of perdition. So Ephes. 2.3. Children of wrath; i.e. who deserve wrath. If ever any deserved perdition, this man of sin doth. In which sense Judas as his Type is termed, Joh. 17.12. That son of perdition. [2] As under the curse of God, which at last brings perdition. So we read, 2 Pet. 2.14. of cursed Children, or Sons of the curse. And is not Antichrist a son of all the Curses in the Word of God? What curse is there which belongs not to him? [3] He is the son of that famous perdition, so much spoken of in the Word of God, and typified by all the great Perditions of God's Enemies: a perdition in which all other perditions meet, the perdition of the old world, Sodom, Pharaoh, Babylon, Jerusalem, etc. So Revel. 17.8. it's said, that the Antichristian Beste shall go into perdition; i.e. into that famous perdition so much spoken of. [4] He is that son of perdition, because devoted, adjudged, sentenced to perdition, as his proper Inheritance. As the Inheritance belonged to the Son, so Perdition to the man of sin. What is said of the destruction of the Ninevites, Nah. 1.9. He will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time, shall be the portion of this man of sin. As Judas was that son of perdition, because adjudged to it; so the man of sin is that son of perdition; i.e. wholly devoted to perdition: it being an Hebrew idiom where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a son, being used with a Genitive case of Appellatives, signifies such an one as is wholly given up to such a thing, as Prov. 31.8.  
But than follows Antichrist's formal Usurpation of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demonarchie, which the Pagan Emperors assumed to themselves, v. 4. And lifting himself up above all that is called God; 
2 Thes. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. called God. The Roman Emperors called Demons.  i.e. Above the Roman Emperor, who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called God, and that (1) Truly, though Figuratively, as he was appointed by God, to be his Vicegerent in Civil affairs. So the Scriptures call Civil Magistrates Gods, Psal. 82.1. I said ye are Gods, etc. in this sense the Emperor was truly called God. But this seems not the whole or chief import of this phrase here. Wherefore (2) by called God, we may understand the abused sense and opinion which Parasites and the vulgar people had of their Emperors, to whom they ascribed a Divinity, specially after their decease. For we must know, that the Roman Emperors generally affected the title of Gods; and such as were deserving amongst them were esteemed as such, specially after their death, passing for Demons, Deastri, or Medioxumi. Such were Romulus, Numa, Julius Caesar, and the rest of the more noble Emperors reputed. Now it's said, that Antichrist should lift himself up above all that is called God; i.e. he should usurp all that pretended Hierarchy or Demonarchie, which the Emperor, as Supreme Head in all Matters Civil and Ecclesiastic, assumed; yea he should lift up himself at an higher pitch of usurped Empire, than ever the Emperor either as Civil Magistrate, or as Pontifex Maximus, affected. So much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lift up, notes. Some render the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contra, against: the meaning is the same. That this is the proper import of the words, appears by what follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that is worshipped: the French renders it, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Divinity. The Greek signifies whatever is in any sovereign degree reverenced, be it Civil, be it Religiose. (1) It signifies that Civil worship which they gave to their Emperors: whence all the Emperors after Octavius were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Augusti, (which is of the same origination and import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place.) So Act. 25.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Augustus; and v. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Act. 27.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Augustus signifies Illustrious, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lustre of the Sun. (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies also Religiose Worship, (from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to worship, 
The Emperor called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. Divus Augustus.  and this from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sabah to celebrate), which the Emperors affected as well as Civil. Whence the Roman Emperor was usually styled Divus Augustus, and so worshipped as a Daemon after his death. And that this is the genuine import of the words is acknowledged by Milletere, (after his Apostasy to the Roman Church) Positiones xii. Romae proponendae de fide propag. Posit. 3. Paul (says he) points out to the believing Thessalonians the son of perdition by these characters, 2 Thes. 2.4. That he exaltes himself against all that is called God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Augustum. This is the proper name by which the Emperors were called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Augusti. The ordinary name of the Emperor was Divus Augustus, Saint Augustus; which is form of those two words used here by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus Milletere, who here sufficiently lays open the nakedness of his Father the Pope, who has indeed fully made good our Apostles character, in exalting himself above the Pagan Emperor, who was by his flatterers and the superstitiose people called and worshipped as God, or as one of their Divi and Demons. And is not the Pope indeed called Sanctissimus Papa, the most holy Pope; which is the very name the Gentiles gave their supreme God Jupiter. So Bochart, contre Veron, pag. 883. ' This name Papa is given him from that amongst the Pagans: Jupiter was called Pappas, i.e. Father. So Jupiter is by Muis derived from the Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jah, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Father. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jah, being pronounced by the Grecians first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence Ju-pater, Father Jah: whereunto Pappas, and Papa answer. Neither does the Pope affect the name only, 
The Pope above the Emperor.  but also the Divinity of a Pagan Demon-God; and that in an higher degree than ever the Pagan Emperors did. For (1) does he not pretend to an extraordinary Sanctity and Divinity, more than ever any Divus Augustus did? (2) Does he not affect and usurp an absolute Supremacy both in Civils and Ecclesiastics, beyond what the Emperor either as Civil Magistrate, or as Pontifex Maximus assumed? (3) Does not the Pope assume a power of making Demons, or Saint-Mediators, more than ever any Emperor did? (4) Are not the Popes, at least some, Canonised as Saints, and so worshipped, as Demons were? (5) Yea, are not the Popes worshipped while living with great Ceremonies, both Sacred and Civil, more than ever any Pagan Emperors were? Thus this man of sin has by his usurped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demonarchie, exalted himself above all that is called God or worshipped.  
But than follows the description of his Papal Throne or Seat, 
Ver 〈…〉, to rule, notes the Pope's Empire  in that phrase, Sitteth in the Temple of God: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to sit, according to the Scripture-Phraseologie, signifies to Rule, or Preside. So Psal. 110.1. Sat thou at my right hand etc. The like Psal. 9.8. & 20.10. Revel. 17.15. & 18.8. So Thomas renders it, Principari, dominari; and Theodoret, to usurp the chief seat. In this regard Antichrist is said to be a counter-Christ, or an Usurper of his Royal Throne; who is said, 
Heb. 1.3. Psal. 110.1.  Heb. 1.3. out of Psal. 110.1. To sit at the right hand of God, which denotes his Prophetic and Regal office: for to sit in the School belongs to the Doctor; and on the Throne, to the King. Thus Antichrist, by sitting in the Temple of God, usurps Christ's Dignity and mediatory Office as Doctor, and King in his Church. Mestrezat, de l' Eglise, liv. 2. Chap. 20. pag. 430. refers this to what is mentioned of the King of Babylon, Esa. 14.12, 13. 
Esa. 14.12, 13.  I will sit also upon the Mount of the Congregation. To sit, (says he) in the Scripture signifies, to exercise Authority and Empire. And we are to remark here, that the Apostle speaking of Antichrist, that he shall sit in the Temple of God, alludes to Esa. 14.12, 13. where the Prophet represents the words of the King of Babylon, Glorifying himself in having subjugated Judea, etc. The Apostle therefore being about to describe the Usurpation of Antichrist in the Church, does it by this of the King of Babylon, and by his pride; in as much as the King of Babylon was the type and figure of Antichrist, who does that spiritually upon Religion and the Consciences of men, which the other had done corporally on the Church of the Jews, etc. Deodate, in his Annotations on these words, 2 Thes. 2.4. Sitteth, etc. 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, etc. 
Ezech. 28.2.  We may take in both; because they were both Types of Antichrist. Yea, we may add 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 magnify himself above every God, etc. 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 all these Pagan Monarches 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 regards exceedeth all 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, etc. tells us, That this last Persecution under Antichrist which he calls the Eleventh, would be of all 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 enemy, but under the pretext 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 Tyranny is not extern and open, but intern, and under pretext of a Vicarious power from Christ, Revel. 13.11. This Man of sin is not a bare-faced, but Masked enemy. (2) We may render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra, against. Antichrist's sitting in, or ruling over the Church, being in order to its ruin. Thus Mestrezat renders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against the Temple of God. i.e. Antichrist shall by his Empire ruin the Church Spiritually, as the King of Babylon did it corporally: for it is a sitting or Domination for ruin, as it arrives from a cancer on the body. (3) August. de Civ. l. 2. c. 19 gives this gloss hereon: We need no way doubt, but that in this place, 2 Thes. 2.4, 11. The Apostle speaks of Antichrist, v. 4. he says 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 common version is most authentic, which also comprehends both the former: For Antichrist sits in the Temple, or Church of God, as an absolute Monarch, or counter-Christ, for the Church's ruin, 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 all his Pretensions of sitting as Christ's Vicar in his Church, are but Politic expedients, by which he does more effectually ruin the Church, etc. That the Temple of God here, and else where in the Epistles, is used as an expression of the Christian Churches, which are the Body 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, etc.) 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, adds Mestrezat, who ever attributes unto himself Domination over men's 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 styles St. Peter's) in Christ's room? And has he not his Pontific Sceptre or staff, i.e. his Canon Law, which he sets up in the room of Christ's Sceptre or Law? has he not usurped the Keys of Christ, Revel. 1.18. to bind whom Christ absolves, and to absolve whom Christ binds? Doth he not condemn what God commands, and command what God condemns? Is not that evil by his Law, which is good by Gods; and that good by God's Law, which is evil by his? Do not all his Ecclesiastic Canons bespeak him an Idol-God or Demon? So it follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, showing himself that he is God; i.e. exhibiting himself as one of those great Daemon Idols, which the Pagans erected in their Temples, and worshipped as Gods; attracting to himself the eyes, hearts, and Consciences of all his Adorers. Or, as the Roman Emperors, by assuming to themselves the Title and Authority of Pontifex Maximus, did thereby virtually, if not formally, show 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 shows 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 Keys, etc.  
§. 3. Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Traditions, 
All Popish Traditions Doctrines of Demons. 1 Tim. 4.1.  with which his Canonic Theology or Law is so greatly stuffed, are all 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 Form of his Canon-Law; we shall now treat a little of them as they are the chief Materials of his Canonic Theology. And indeed the main body of Antichrist's Pontific Canon-Law is made up of certain Ecclesiastic Traditions, which he pretends to have received down from the Apostles, by the hands of the Church; but to give them their true Genealogy, they are in truth no other than corrupt Imitamen 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 always received Pythagoras' Institutes as Divine Traditions, delivered to him their Master by the Divine Oracle. For all those great Founders of Demon-worship never presumed so much on their own Authority, as to deliver any Institute or Canon, touching the worship of their Demons, without some pretention of Divine Tradition. So Numa Pompilius, Lycurgus, Solon, and all those great Legislators pretended unto a Divine Tradition, for all those Institutes or Canons they delivered touching the worship of the Gods. Plato abounds in expressions to this purpose, showing, How all their Traditions touching the worship of their Demons, were received from the Oracle, as Repub. 5. and elsewhere. And the Pythagoreans had so particular a veneration for their Master Pythagoras, as that they looked upon all his Institutes to be Divine Inspirations: whence they styled him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Divine; and judged his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Divine Tradition, specially as to such things as related to their Demon-worship. Now that all Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Traditions, with which his Canonic Theology abounds, are but corrupt Derivations from this Pythagorean fountain, we shall endeavour to evince from 1 Tim. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
1 Tim. 4.1.  That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as well a Tradition or Canon, as Doctrine, we have already proved, 
Mat, 15.2, 6, 9  S. 2. §. 3. And this is very evident from Mat. 15.2, 6, 9 the consideration of which Scripture will give us much light as to our present design. The Pharisees v. 2. complain, that Christ's Disciples transgress the Tradition of the Elders. They call them the Traditions of the Elders, because they pretended, these Traditions were delivered by God to Moses when on the Mount, and so delivered by him to Joshua, and from Joshua handed down by the Elders succeeding in the great Sanedrim. But Christ tells them, that these Traditions were not, as they pretended, of Divine Origine; which he proves, because they make void the Commandment of God, as v. 3, 6. And our Saviour ver. 9 gives the true Genealogy of all those Pharisaic Traditions: Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. These your Ecclesiastic Traditions, which you make to be so Canonic and Divine, are indeed but the Commandments of men, i.e. Pythagorean Dogmes and Institutes: for such these Pharisaic Washings and Purifications were, with all the rest of their Extern Abstinences and Severities, as it appears by Col. 2.20, 21, 22, 23. as before, S. 3. §. 10. see the like Mark 7.2, 3, 4, etc. Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 5. Under this description of the Pharisaic Traditions our blessed Lord lays open to us all those Canonic Traditions of Antichrist, and their origination. (1) It's true, the Sons of Antichrist pretend these their Traditions to be dropped from the mouth of Christ, and so handed down by the Churches Oral Tradition in all Ages: and did not the Pharisees pretend the same for their Oral Law, as they call it, or the Traditions of the Elders? Would they not fain persuade us, that those Oral Traditions were at first delivered by God to Moses on the Mount, by Moses to Joshua, by Joshua to the LXX Elders, and by them in continued successions down to their days? Which yet Christ tells us were but the Commandments or Institutes of men, as Mar. 7.8. i.e. as Paul explaineth Christ's words, 
Mark 7.8.  Col. 2.8, 20, 21. of vain Philosophers; or according to 1 Tim. 4.1. Demon-Dogmes, Canons and Traditions. (2) The Sons of Antichrist adorn and dignify their Canonic Traditions with all manner of illustrious Titles of honour: and did not the Pharisees, and their successors the Talmudistes, dignify their Oral Traditions with as splendid Titles of honour? Do not both one and t'other estime it a far greater sin to break a Tradition of the Church, than to violate the Law of God? (3) Antichrist commands that all his Canonic Traditions be swallowed down with an implicit faith, albeit never so contradictory to commun sense, reason, and Divine saith: and did not the Pharisees and their Sectators the Rabbins enjoin the same? So R. Sal. Jarchi, on Deut. 17.11. Thou shalt not, saith he, recede from the words of the Elders, albeit they should say unto thee, that thy right hand is the left, and thy left the right. (4) The Pope doth anathematise all those that violate his Traditions: and did not the Pharisees of old, as the Rabbins do the very same? O! what an exact parallel is there between Pharisaic and Antichristian Traditions! Thus we see how these Demon-Doctrines or Traditions, which Antichrist's Canonic Theology is full of, own their origine to the Pythagorean Demon Theologie, Canons, or Traditions.  
§. 4. 
An 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this Chapter.  To conclude this Argument touching Antichrist's Demon-Dogmes, Traditions, and Canons, we have sufficiently proved, that the whole of Antichrist's Canonic Theology is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imitation of Pagan Demon-Doctrines and Canons: We have also proved, that these Demon-Dogmes and Institutes were form and shaped into a Natural Theology by the Philosophers, and principally by the Pythagoreans and Pythagorising Platonistes. It's true Orpheus, Homer and Hesiod were the first that brought in Demons, and Demon-worship into Grece; but yet we must know, 'twas the Philosopher's that form and shaped these Doctrines of Demons into a complete body of Natural Theology, constituting these Demons as Mediators with the supreme God, etc. For the Poets, Homer, etc. confound their Demons with the supreme Gods: so Homer calls Jupiter a Daemon; as Iliad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he says, Jupiter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Plutarch, de cessat Oracul. tells us, that Homer made no difference between the Gods and Demons. It was indeed the Philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, etc. those Founders of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Natural Theologie, who formalised and shaped this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demonology, into its proper Form and Figure; which afterwards the Pythagorising Platonistes of the Alexandrine School, Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyry, Jamblichus, Proclus, etc. reform and refined; so that it became a fit Idea or image for Origen, and his adherents the Monks of Alexandria, to form and fashion the first lineaments of Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by: out of which Antichrist himself, when he came to the stature of a perfect Man of sin, extracted all his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with all the other parts of his Demonology or Canonic Theology, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. compared with Rev. 9.20. 
Rev. 9.20.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demons, i.e. says Mede, Deasters; consecrated both of Angels and dead men, to be Mediators betwixt God and Men, which the Scripture calls Baalim, the like Act. 17.22. 
Act. 17.22. 1 Cor. 10.21.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. Devoted to Demon-fear, or worship: so 1 Cor. 10.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. the Demons libamen or drink offering, as before, S. 3. §. 4. By all which laid together it is most evident, that all Antichrist's Canonic Theology is but a reviving of the old Philosophic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Demonology, or Demon-Dogmes, Canons, and Traditions, form into a Systeme of Natural Theology, by Pythagoras and Plato, and since reform by the Pythagorising Platonistes of Alexandria, Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyry, Origen, and the rest. Yea we have demonstrated, that the whole body and spirit of Antichristianisme had its conception and formation in the womb of Pagan Philosophy, and was brought forth in this School of Alexandria; which proved the Nursery of Antichrist, and all his Mystic, Scholastic, and Canonic Theology; specially (1) of Monastic Life and Institutes. (2) Of all Pelagianism. (3) Of all Demonology and Demonolatrie. (4) Of all Abstinences, Satisfactions, and Merits. (5) Of Purgatory. (6) Of Papal primaty, etc. By which we see how much Antichrist has been obliged to Pagan Philosophy, and principally to the School of Alexandria, for his Nativity and Nursery. All which being superadded to our former Demonstrations from the Causes, Parts, Properties and Effects of Vain Philosophy, sufficiently prove our Conclusion touching the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy.     
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  

PAge 1. in Contents l. 3. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Item, l. 5. for 32. l. 34.  
P. 2. l. 2 l. contentions.  
Item, l. 6. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 3. l. 27. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 4. l. 1. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 7. l. 18. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 12. l. 21. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 15. l. 35. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 26. Contents, l. 5. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 27. l. 35. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 30. l. 37. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 31. l. 1. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 55. l. 33. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 58. l. 26. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 67. l. 32. Scripture.  
P. 71. l. 7. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 76. l. 24. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 81. l. 9 l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 86. l. 37. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 88 l. 13. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 90. l. 32. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 98. l. 35. l. right hand.  
P. 102. Marg. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 104. l. 35, 36. l. We shall serve and worship their Sepulchers, or Shrines, as of Demons.  
P. 108. l. ult. l. solve.  
P. 121. l. 21. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 132. l. 18. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 163. l. 12. l. §. 1. Another.  
P. 165. l. 19 l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Item, l. 22. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Item, l. 26. l. of which also S. 4. §. 3.  
P. 172. l. 22. l. Prophecies.  
P. 182. l. 16. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 187. l. 6. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Item. l. 8. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
P. 214. l. 25. l. Macarius.  
P. 216. Marg. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  
P. 224. l. 35. l. l. 2. c. 15.