Works

CHAP. IX.

• 1. BEcause impossible so many things, and of such quality as are to be peformed in this time, should be done in Three single years and an half. As 1. Ten Kingdoms founded at the same hour with the Beast, (ch. 17.) 2. Peoples and multitudes of Nations and tongues to serve and obey him, (ch. 13.) 3. To make war with the Saints and overcome them, ibid. 4. To cause all that dwell upon the earth to worship him, ibid. 5. Babylon to ride the Beast so long, that all Nations shall drink the wine of her fornication, all Kings of the Earth commit fornication with her, (ch. 17, & 18.) 6. The Merchants, and all those that had ships in the Sea, to grow rich by trading with her, (ch. 18.) These things should ask more than three years work or four either.
• 2. Because that King, State of Government, Sovereignty, Seigniory (or what you will) of the Beast, under which the Whore should ride him, followeth immediately upon a former which in comparison is said to continue but a short space, Rev. 17. 10. But if the Antichristian state shall continue but three years and an half literally taken; how short must the time of that foregoing King or Sovereignty be, which should occasion the Holy Ghost to insert so singular a note of the difference thereof from that which followed, That is should continue but a short space? Doth not this imply that the next State (wherein the Whore should ride the Beast) was to continue a long space?
• 3. Because if the 1260. days of the Witnesses (which begin and end with the Time of Antichrist ) be literally to be taken, then must their three days and an half, wherein they lie slain by the Beast (Chap. 11. 9.) be so taken also: But how is it possible the nations and people of the earth should make feasts, send gifts and presents one unto another in three days and an half? how should the Half day be a competent time to distinguish or limit any of the Actions there mentioned? If the Holy Ghost had meant nothing but days, would he have been so precise for half a day?
• 4. Because Six of the Trumpets and the things which they bring to pass, by necessity of contemporation are included in the compass of the Antichristian time; Two whereof by the express times mentioned in them (in the Fifth, of five months; in the Sixth, of 13.) take up a year and a half, that is near half the time: Which though far too little (if literally taken) for the great things prophesied in them, yet what time will they leave for the Four other Trumpets, and for the Seven Viols, which all are poured out upon the Beast, and afore his times are finished? What time alone will the Sixth Vial require for preparing the way of the Kings of the East, for the frogs to go forth unto the Kings of the earth, and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty, &c?
• 5. Lastly, from the Event. If Antichrist's times last no longer than is supposed, then either are they past long ago, or that Sixth Roman Head, which in S. John's time was, is yet still in being. But that cannot be, when neither Greek nor Latin Caesar are now remaining. If any say, the Latin Caesar yet remains in the Germane Empire, as that which succeeded unto it; I demand, What succession can that be where was near 350 years interruption, a longer time than some famous Monarchies have had for their whole continuance? If the Caesarean State may revive and continue the same after so many years interregnum, how shall we ever know when it is dead for ado, and the time come that Antichrist should be looked for? Besides, if the Times of Antichrist be so short, and therefore yet to come, (as they must be, unless they be longer,) then are we yet under the Times of the Red Dragon, and all the Trumpets yet to come. Let it be shewn how this can be. If it appear we are not under those times of the Dragon, then none of the Revelation is yet fulfilled.

Object. But what example elsewhere in Scripture of Daies signifying Years?

Answ. Daniel's seventy weeks. But you will say, the Etymology of the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as appliable to Sevens of Years as Sevens of Daies; and therefore this instance proves not. I answer, The question lies not in the Etymology, but the use, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always signifies Sevens of Daies, and never Sevens of Years; wheresoever it is absolutely put, it means of Daies, is nowhere used of Years:

Object. But in the tenth of Daniel we find, as it were for distinction sake, Weeks of Daies; which intimates there are Weeks of Years, which the use of the word might indifferently signify.

Answ. It is ill translated; the Vulgar is better, which hath Daies of Weeks, Lugebam trium hebdomadarum diebus; meaning, that Daniel fasted and did eat no meat in the daytime for three weeks together, or some such like sense. Gen. 29. 27. The Week which Laban would have Jacob fulfil before he gave him Rachel, was not the Seven years service, but the Seven days of Leah's wedding-feast, as the Targum translates, and the Vulgar, Imple hebdomadam dierum hujus copulae; nor can it be otherwise by the age of Rachel's children.

Secondly, Let it be shewn in all the Prophecy of Daniel, (or, for ought I know, in any other of the Prophets) where times of things prophesied expressed by days are not to be understood of years: For when the Angel means days in Daniel, he expresseth it therefore not by days (for so it were doubtful) but by evenings and mornings, chap. 8. 14. where he speaks of the time of the persecution of Antiochus.

A brief Demonstration and (as I conceive) unanswerable of the Contemporation of the four Timed Prophecies in the Apocalypse: viz. Of the Gentiles treading down the Court and Holy City 42 months; Of the Witnesses preaching in Sackcloth 1260 days; Of the Beast's power of doing 42 months; Of the Apostolical Woman's continuance in the Wilderness a Time, Times and half a Time, expressed also by 1260 days.

• 1. The Times of the Beast and of the Witnesses come out together, viz. at the end of the Sixth Trumpet (Chap. 11.) Ergo, being equal times they must needs begin together, and so contemporate throughout.
• 2. The Times of the Beast and of the Woman's being in the Wilderness have the same Epocha and beginning, namely the dethroning and vanquishing of the Red Dragon (Ch. 12.) Ergo, being equal times they must also have the same ending.
• 3. The Times of the treading down the Court and Holy City by the Gentiles and of the Sackcloth-prophecy of the Witnesses are concurrent by the plain construction of the Text, which gives them to prophesy all that heavy time. Besides, when the Witnesses have finished, we find the Gentiles angry, as being driven from their possession in the Temple, Ch. 11. verse. 18.

I. M.

CHAP. X.

CHAP. XI.

TOuching the Question of the Thousand years, you may see I have demonstrated them to follow the Times of the Beast and of the false-Prophet, and consequently the Times of Antichrist. And if the Apocalypse be Canonical Scripture, it must needs be granted there is such a time to come; or we must deny either Rome, which now is, to be Babylon • or the Beast to be Antichrist or Antichristendom: which those who opposed the ancient Chiliasts found so necessary, as forced them (having no other way to avoid their Adversaries) directly to deny the Apocalypse to be Scripture; nor was it re-admitted till they thought they had found some commodious interpretation of the 1000 years. And yet the Apocalypse hath more Human (not to speak of Divine ) authority than any other Book of the New Testament besides, even from the time it was first delivered. But we see what the zeal of opposition can do.

This Dogma of the 1000 years Regnum was the General opinion of all Orthodox Christians in the Age immediately following the Apostles, if Justin Martyr say true; and none known to deny it then but Heretics, which denied the Resurrection, and held that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the reason why Irenaeus maintained it in his book Contra omnes Heresies, and Tertullian against the Marcionites.

Eusebius, who found out one Gaius to father it upon Cerinthus, deserves no credit; he was a party, and one of those which did his best to undermine the authority of the Apocalypse. Nor did any know of any such Gaius but from his relation: And if there were any such, he should seem to be one of the Heretics called Alogi, who denied both S. John's Gospel and Apocalypse, as is testified in Epiphanius; and their time jumps with the Age which Eusebius assigns to Gaius. Yet I deny not but some might maintain very carnal and intolerable conceits about this Regnum of a thousand years, as the Mohammedans do about their Paradise: But these are not to be imputed unto those Primitive Fathers and Orthodox Christians.

S. Jerome was a chief Champion to cry down this Opinion, and (according to his wont) a most unequal relator of the Opinion of his Adversaries. What credit he deserves in this may appear by some Fragments of those Authors still remaining, whom he charged with an Opinion directly contrary to that which they expressly affirmed: And yet when he had stated it so as it must needs be Heresy and Blasphemy whosoever should hold it, he is found to say he durst not damn it, because multi virorum Ecclesiasticorum & Martyrum ista dixerunt, (Comment. in Ierem. 19. 10.) many Eccle • astical persons and Martyrs affirmed the same.

In a word, I cannot choose but agree so far with them, That these 1000 years are yet to come: This I hold with Alstedius. But what shall be the modus and condition of that Kingdom, that is, what it means, it may be I have some singular conceit differing from them both; I am sure from Alstedius, Piscator, and others of that opinion. But I were better speak nothing thereof than too little; and to speak fully would require in a manner the Interpretation of the whole Apocalypse. In a word, I will reveal thus much, viz. That the Seventh Trumpet and the Thousand years contained therein is that Magnus dies Domini, and Magnus dies Iudicii, or Dies magni Iudicii, The Great Day of the Lord, The Great Day of Judgment, The Day of the Great Judgment, so much celebrated amongst the Jews in all their Writings, and from them taken up by our Savior and his Apostles. Not a Day of a few hours, as we commonly suppose, but continuatum multorum annorum intervallum, a continued space of many Years, wherein Christ shall destroy all his Enemies, and at length Death itself; beginning with Antichrist, by his revelation from heaven in flaming fire, and ending with the Universal Resurrection: during which space of time shall be the Kingdom of the Saints in the New Jerusalem. This I can affirm with the most, That Antichrist shall not be finally destroyed till the Day of Christ's appearing unto Judgment; and yet not fall into that which some charge the Chiliasts with, That this Reign should be after the Day of Judgment. For I give a third time, in or durante magno Die Iudicii, in or during the Great Day of Judgment.

I. M.

CHAP. XII.

• 1. THat the Reign of Christ here described is after the Times of Antichrist (if either the Beast or the False-prophet be he) is apparent without interpretation; both because all those Times the old Dragon Satan was not tied up, but at liberty to seduce the Nations; and because (verse 4.) one sort of those who should reign with Christ a thousand years are said to be such as had not worshipped the Beast, neither his Image, nor had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands: which necessarily presupposeth The Beast, His Image and Marking to have already been.
• 2. What the Quality of this Reign should be, which is so singularly differenced from the Reign of Christ hitherto, is neither easy nor safe to determine, farther then, That it should be the Reign of our Savior's Victory over his Enemies, wherein Satan being bound up from deceiving the Nations anymore, till the time of his Reign be fulfilled, the Church should consequently enjoy a most blissful peace and happy security from the heretical Apostasies and calamitous sufferings of former times. But here (if anywhere) the known shipwrecks of those who have been too venturous should make us most wary and careful, that we admit nothing into our imaginations which may cross or impeach any Catholic Tenet of the Christian Faith: as also to beware of gross and carnal conceits of an Epicurean happiness misbeseeming the Spiritual purity of Saints. If we conceit any Deliciae, let them be Spirituales, which S. Augustine confesseth to be Opinio tolerabilis, & se hoc opinatum fuisse aliquando, (Lib. 20. De Civit. Dei, cap. 7.) a tolerable Opinion, and that he also was sometime of the same judgment.
• 3. The Presence of Christ in this Kingdom shall no doubt be glorious and evident: yet I dare not so much as imagine (which some Ancients seem to have thought) that it should be a Visible Converse upon earth. For the Kingdom of Christ ever hath been and shall be Regnum Coelorum, A Kingdom whose Throne and Kingly Residence is in Heaven. There he was installed when he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Heb. 1. and there, as in his proper Temple, is continually to appear in the presence of his Father, to make intercession for us, Rom. 8. 34. with Heb. 9. 24. Yet may we grant he shall appear and be visibly revealed from Heaven, especially for the Calling and gathering of his ancient People, for whom in the days of old he did so many wonders. This S. John in this Book, as our Savior in the Gospel, • seems to intimate by joining those two Prophetical passages of Daniel and Zacharias in one expression, Behold he cometh in the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him. The first part (which our Savior expresses more fully by the Sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of Heaven, &c.) is Daniel 's in a Vision of this Kingdom we speak of. Behold (saith he) one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of Heaven—And there was given him Dominion, and Glory, and a Kingdom, that all People, Nations and Languages should serve him. The other part is out of Zacharias prophesying of the Re-calling of the Jews; And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced: Though these words of Zacharias are not in our Savior 's expression, but instead thereof that which immediately follows after them, That all the tribes of the Earth (or Land) should mourn. Now I cannot understand how these two Prophetical passages should not have the same meaning when our Savior and his Apostle allege them joined, which they have in their own Authors expressed apart? or being expressed together as one, should not be fulfilled at once? By such a miraculous apparition of Christ from Heaven was S. Paul converted: And I hope it is no Heresy to think, That the whole Nation of the Jews, those Zealots against Christ, may be converted by as strange a means as was that one Zealot of their Nation.
• 4. Those who shall be Partakers of this Kingdom are described to be of two sorts: 1. The deceased Martyrs, who (as far as I can yet understand it) shall resume their Bodies and reign in Heaven; 2. Such of the Living as have not worshipped the Beast, nor his Image, neither have received his mark, &c. these shall reign on Earth. For so I construe the words; I saw the Souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and (subaudi, I saw) those which had not worshipped the Beast, nor his Image, nor had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived (that is, the Martyrs,) and reigned (that is, both of them) with Christ a thousand years.
• 5. Under the Second sort of those Reigners, together with the Virgin-Christians of the Gentiles, (who are the Surrogate Israel ) I would in a particular respect understand the Nation of the Jews then converted to the Faith of Christ; who coming in toward the end of the day, may above all others be said to be Those who had not worshipped the Beast, neither his Image, nor had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; which most of the Christian Gentiles had done; and therefore at the time of their cleansing (Chap. 15. ver. 2.) are rather described, Those that had gotten the victory over the Beast, and over his Image, and over his mark, and over the number of his Name.
• 6. The Rising of the Martyrs is that which is called the First Resurrection, being, as it seems, a prerogative to their sufferings above the rest of the Dead; who as they suffered with Christ in the time of his patience, so should they be glorified with him in the Reign of his Victory before the Universal Resurrection of all. Blessed and Holy are they who have part in the First Resurrection, for, on them the Second death hath no power; namely, because they are not in Via, but in Patria; being a prerogative, as I understand it, of this First sort of Reigners only, and not of the Second. Thus I yet admit the First Resurrection to be Corporal as well as the Second, though I confess I have much striven against it; and if the Text would admit another sense less free of Paradox, I had yet rather listen unto it: but I find it not. Howsoever, to grant a Particular Resurrection before the General, is against no Article of Faith: For the Gospel tells us, Matth. 27. v. 52, 53. that at our Savior's Resurrection, The graves were opened, and many bodies of the Saints which slept arose, and went into the holy City and appeared unto many. Neither was the number of them a small number, if we may credit the Fathers or the most ancient Records of Christian Tradition: For of this was that famous saying, That Christ descended alone, but ascended with a multitude; which is found in the heads of the Sermon of Thaddeus, as they are reported by Eusebius out of the Syriac Records of the City of Edessa, (Lib. 1. cap. ult.) in Ignatius 's Epistle to the Trallians, and in the Disputation of Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the first General Council of Nice, also in Cyril 's Catechism. Nay this Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and others, suppose this Resurrection to have been common to all the Saints that died before our Savior. (See the Bishop of Meath, De Limbo Patrum. ) Howsoever it be, it holds no unfit proportion with this supposed of the Martyrs. And how it doth more impeach any Article of our Faith to think that may be of the Martyrs which we believe of the Patriarchs, I yet see not.
• 7. The Second Resurrection to be after the End of the 1000 years, Justin Martyr, by way of distinction, calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Eternal and Universal Resurrection of all together; namely, in respect of the former which was Particular, and but of some. And that it is common both to the Godly and to the Wicked, and not of the Wicked only, may appear, in that there are two Books opened for the Dead, (ver. 12.) whereof one is the Book of Life; which argues two sorts of Dead to be judged. Nor can I imagine how it can be otherwise, unless all the Just which live during the 1000 years be supposed to be immortal; which is a Paradox I dare not admit, understanding, not that all the Individuals, but that the Body of the Church here on Earth should successively Reign with Christ her Lord 1000 years. Besides, the attempt of the Nations after the Devil's loosing argues a State subject to mutability. As for those words of v. 14. which seem to intimate no other Dead then judged but the Wicked, because it's said, That Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire, which is the Second Death; I suppose nothing else is meant thereby, but that Death was now quite vanquished, and that there should be no more Death of Body or Separation of Soul, but only the Second Death: As if it had been said, Death and Hades are now confined only to the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death; but the former Death of Bodies in the Grave, and the State of separate Souls in Hades was no more.
• 8. For Gog and Magog, who after Satan's loosing and before the last Resurrection shall gather together against the Camp of the Saints and the Beloved City, it cannot be literally understood of the Nations so called in the Old Testament. For there Gog the Prince, with the People of Magog come out of the North-parts where the posterity of Magog was seated. But Gog and Magog here are said to be Nations which are in the four quarters of the Earth. As therefore the Apocalyptical Babylon is not Babylon in Chaldea, but a Counter-type thereof, most like for Universal Ambition and Metropolitanship of Spiritual Fornication: so this Apocalyptical Gog and Magog is not the Gog and Magog of the North, but a Counter-type of them, which should after the same manner attempt against the Beloved City then, which the Scythian Gog and Magog (I mean the Turk ) doth against the Church of the Gentiles now, and should before his last Ruin attempt against Israel at their return. And if there ever be an Antichrist, such as the Fathers describe, now will be the most likely time for him, when the Devil is loose but for a little season.

I. M.

How this Conflagration of the World whereof S. PETER speaks, and especially of the Heavens, is to be understood.

FOR resolution of this Question, I must premise some things, to make the way thereto the more easy.

• 1. That in the old Hebrew language, wherein the Scripture speaks, there is no one word to express that Compages of the superior and inferior bodies, which we call Mundus, but those two words, Heaven and Earth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 joined and put together, only: So that when S. Peter saith, The World which then was, perished by water; but the Heavens and the Earth which are now, are reserved to fire, he might as well have said, according to his meaning, The Heavens and the Earth which then were, perished by water; as the World that now is shall by fire. For the words [ Heaven and Earth ] joined imply no more in the one (according to the Scripture's notion) than the single word Mundus or World doth in the other, being applied to the history of the great Deluge: As also a New heaven and a New earth is the same notion with that in our expression, when we say, a New World, that is to say, Nova rerum facies, nova rerum conditio; which we otherwise apply to very small and even particular and domestical changes, when we say, Here is a new World; which the Hebrew would or might express, Here is a new Heaven and a new Earth.
• 2. That it is not like that any other World, or Heaven and Earth, shall perish by Fire, than such a one as heretofore perished by Water: For so the Antithesis imports, viz. The World, or Heaven and Earth, which then was, perished by water; the Heaven and Earth which now is, is reserved for a destruction by fire. Now the World which perished by water was no other than the sublunary World; the Heaven whereof is that which we call Air, but the Scriptures Heaven: which sublunary Heaven, together with the Earth, was marred by that general Deluge; and the creatures belonging to them both either wholly destroyed, or marvelously corrupted from that they were before. Such a World therefore, and no other Heaven and Earth, shall undergo this second deluge of Fire for restauration, which before suffered the deluge of Water for corruption.
• 3. Observe also, for the better understanding of S. Peter 's meaning, That the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we in this place are wont to turn Elements, is not like to be understood in the notion of the Greek Philosophy, whose terms and notions the Scripture useth not; but otherwise divideth the World. Nay further, in this place it cannot be so understood; for that the Hebrew division of the World into Heaven and Earth is here expressed, and these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 distinguished from them both. But when the whole World is divided into Heaven and Earth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by Earth is meant the Earthen Globe, which S. Peter saith is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so the Water and Earth are both included in the sole name of Earth: in Heaven the Air is included. Thus three of the Philosophical Elements are bestowed. The fourth is the Fire: but this is that which is to burn the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so none of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be burnt. And if any of these Elements could be exempted from this division into Heaven and Earth, besides the Fire, as namely the Air; yet could not that, nor any one of them alone, be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in S. Peter; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes more than one.

It must needs therefore be that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here meaneth something else. Let us see if we can find out what it is. Mark then S. Peter 's order, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . By which correspondence it should seem that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be some furniture belonging to Coelum, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the buildings and whole furniture of Creatures belonging to Terra; which furniture of both, but especially that of the Heaven, the Scripture calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the host of them, Gen. 2. 1. The heavens and the earth were finished, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and all the host of them; LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vulg. Ornatus eorum. Nay, seeing the whole World is nothing else but the Heaven and the Earth, and what is contained in them, ( i. e.) exercitus eorum; and seeing Heaven and Earth are both here distinctly named, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 put for the host of the Earth; it must needs be that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , named as a distinct thing from all three, should note the host of heaven: and so the meaning of S. Peter should be, when he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as if he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Heavens and the host thereof; or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Earth and the works therein.

But how, will some man say, should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come to have this notion? I answer thus, The Hebrew verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, in ordine militari sto, incedo, and so answers to the Greek verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is expounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. in ordine militari incedo: Vide Scap. ex Etymolog. Accordingly the LXX render the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. in procinctu sto, instructâ acie sto. Now if the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify the same with the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , why may not the Hebrew Noun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which we turn exercitus ) be rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; the Hellenists, or Greekish Jews, as in other words, so here, following the Etymology from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and having an eye more to their own native language than to the use of Greece? It would be long to show in how many words they, and the Greek Scriptures written according to their Dialect, use notions which the Greeks used not; namely, respecting some conformity or other in their own tongue. The works of the learned in sacred Criticism are of late full of such observations, whereby many difficulties and obscurities in Scripture become clear and easy. Nevertheless the Gentile Greeks themselves use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which come of the same verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) in the same sense we plead for, viz. for ordo militaris, Military array: Why may not then the Hellenists (so the Greek Jews are called) do the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being for the Etymology every way as fit? seeing also they are otherwise wont to permute significations from vicinity of sound?

For a further confirmation of this notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I contend for, I will add what I have met with to that purpose. Schickardus, a learned professor of the Oriental tongues at Tubing, in his Bechinath happeruschim, pag. 44. hath discovered out of Ramban's, or R. Moses ben Nachman 's Preface in Perusche hattorah, two passages taken out of the Chaldee copy of the Wisdom of Solomon, which that Rabbi had seen; whereby the said Schickardus proveth against S. Jerome, that the Greek is not the Original, but was translated out of Chaldee. The passages which this Ramban quoteth thence are chap. 7. v. 5, 6, 7, and part of the 8. and again, v. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. In the last of which quotations, because there is in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I greedily looked what word in the Chaldee answered here to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which I found to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which those who have skill know to signify the Planets, 12 Signs or Constellations of Heaven, as being the same with the Hebrew . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore here are Stars and Planets; which I shall not need prove to be the host of the Ethereal heaven: yea and perhaps too 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are derived of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ire, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Now we know the Scriptures make three heavens: 1. The Air, or Sublunary heaven; 2. The Ethereal, or Starry heaven; 3. The heaven of Glory, or Empyreal heaven. Every of these heavens have their host or army. The host of the heaven of Glory or the third heaven are the Angels and blessed Spirits: The host of the Ethereal heaven are the Stars and Planets: The host of the Aereal or Sublunary heaven are either visible, as the Clouds of Heaven ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and other Meteors, as also the rest of the creatures mansioning therein, as the Fowls of heaven ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) or invisible, viz. the wicked Spirits and Devils, whose Prince, Satan, is called the Prince of the power of the Air, Eph. 2. 2. and his host 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rulers of the world, that is, of the Sublunary world; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wicked spirits in heavenly places, namely in the lowest or sublunary heavens, Eph. 6. 12. And whether S. Paul. Gal. 4. 8, 9. and Gol. 2. 8, &c. includes not some of those under his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I cannot affirm: let the Learned further consider it, when namely he speaks to and of Gentiles, and not Jews.

HAVING hitherto prepared the way, let us now come closer home to S. Peter, whose words evidently import that some of these Heavens, or all of them, shall suffer a Conflagration at the Day of Christ. Not all of them; for whoever put the Empyreal heaven in that reckoning? And for the Ethereal heaven, he that considereth both the supereminent nature and immensity thereof, and of those innumerable bodies therein, in regard of which the whole Sublunary world is but a point or center; and that it no way can be proved that ever those bodies received any curse for man's sin, or contagion by the world's deluge, or that any enemies of God dwell in them to pollute them; he that considereth this, will not easily be induced to believe that the Fire of the day of Judgment should burn them. It remaineth therefore that the Sublunary heavens only with their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are to be the subject of this Conflagration.

These Heavens, saith S. Peter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. solventur, shall be dissolved, and their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall melt with fervent heat. 'It is a Metaphor taken from the refining of metals, quae igne solvuntur ut purificentur, which are melted in order to their purifying and refining. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as Coeli igne adhibito constabuntur. This to be the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appears, because S. Peter himself interprets solvi to be liquefieri. For having in the tenth verse said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. shall be dissolved, he in the twelfth verse repeating it says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. shall melt: Now melting is for refining and purifying. Nor is the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 averse from this notion, the LXX using 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as in the Psalms more than once: The words of the Lord are as refined or tried silver, LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Psal. 12. and so elsewhere. But when the Sublunary heaven shall be thus refined, even the Ethereal lights of the Stars, of the Sun and Moon, &c. will appear to those on earth much more glorious than now they do, as sending their rays through a purer Medium; so that all the world to us-ward shall be as it were renewed.

As for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or passing away ) verse 10. it is an Hebraism, signifying any change or going of a thing from the state wherein it was, and answers to the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth both transire and mutari, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also in Chaldaism doth. And Schindler notes, that Psal. 102. the Arabic for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , mutabuntur, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , transibunt. In the twelfth verse it is expounded by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I have already shown, is commuted with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They therefore all three of them signify one and the same thing: and I see no reason why we should imagine a greater emphasis in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for an utter abolition in the destruction by fire, than was before implied in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he spake of the destruction by water: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , verse. 6.

But what shall become of the invisible host, which I named as part of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of this Sublunary heaven, viz. those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the army of wicked and unclean spirits? shall the Fire of the last Judgment touch these? I answer; Though the operation of the Fire shall not be upon them to burn them, yet shall they also suffer by this fiery judgment, being thereby to be exiled and dejected from those high mansions, and bestowed in some lower place. For so that of Jude seems to imply; The Angels (saith he) which kept not their first estate, but left their own (or proper) habitation, he hath reserved to [be bound with] everlasting chains of darkness, at the Judgment of the great Day. Vide Piscat. in hunc locum.

And this seems to me to be the most literal and unforced exposition of this description of S. Peter, of the Heaven and Earth's conflagration at the Day of Christ, and so to be preferred before any other.

BUT if a Prophetical strain or Scheme may be here admitted, there is another way of explication, which yet in the conclusion will come to the same purpose the former did, although the way thereto be not the same. And certainly our Savior in the Gospel describing the coming of this Day, useth a Prophetical expression: The Sun (saith he) shall be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light, and the Stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken. For if this be taken literally, whither shall the Stars fall from heaven, which are either as big, or many times bigger than the globe of the earth? where shall there be room for them? If such a Scheme then be supposed in S. Peter 's description, the explication may be after this manner.

Mundus or the World (to omit other particular acceptions) is, according to the Scripture's use, either Mundus continens, or Mundus contentus; (give me leave to use these terms for distinction sake.) By Mundus continens I mean the Compages and frame of the Physical heaven and earth, wherein the rest of the creatures are contained: by Mundus contentus, the state or body of the inhabitants and Kingdoms of the earth. Now to whatsoever the notion of Mundus is appliable, there is also supposed to be an Heaven and Earth, as being the names and parts whereby the Scriptures express the World. The Heaven then of this Political world is the Sovereignty or Sovereign part thereof; whose Host and Stars are the powers ruling that world: In the highest place God's and Idols; next, Kings, Princes, Peers, Counselors, Magistrates, and other such Lights shining in that Firmament. And at such a meaning and no other (it being an Oriental notion) may aim (for ought I can see) that supposed fastuous style of Sapores King of Persia to Constantius the Emperor, Rex Regum Sapores, frater Solis & Lunae, partiçeps. (i.e. socius) Siderum, Constantio fratri salutem. But to go on: The Earth is the Peasantry or vulgus hominum, together with the terrestrial creatures serving the use of man.

Of such a Heaven and Earth as this is, the Lord speaks in the Prophecy of Haggai, Ch. 2. v. 6, 7. Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, both the sea and the dry land; And I will shake all Nations, and the desire of all Nations shall come. And again v. 21, 22. I will shake the heavens and the earth; And I will overthrow the Throne of Kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the Kingdoms of the Heathen, &c. Of such a Heaven and Earth speaks Jeremiah, Chap. 4. 23. I beheld the earth, and it was without form and void ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) and the heavens, and they had no light: viz. as if the World were turned into the old Chaos again, Gen. I. See the rest which follows. Of such Heavens and an Earth speaks the Lord in Isaiah ch. 51. 15, 16. namely of the Heavens and Earth of the World or State of Israel: I am (saith he) the Lord thy God, who divided the sea, (to wit, the Red sea) when the waters thereof roared; the Lord of Hosts is his name: And put my Words (i.e. my Law) in thy mouth, and covered thee in the shadow of my hand, (i.e. protected thee in thy march to Canaan, &c.) that I might plant the Heavens, and lay the foundations of the Earth, (i.e. make thee a State, and build thee into a Political World) and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. Of such a kind of Heaven speaks the same Prophet, ch. 34. 2, 4, 5. The indignation of the Lord is upon all Nations, and his fury upon all their Armies, &c. And all the host of Heaven shall be dissolved, and the Heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll; and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the Vine, and as a falling fig from 〈◊〉 sig-tree. For my sword shall be bathed in Heaven: behold it shall come down upon •• maea, &c. See the rest, and know that this destruction of Edom is prophesied of in no less Hyperbolical a strain by Obadiah, and Jeremiah c. 49. from v. 7, to 22. Ezek. 35. tot & 25. 12. which I note, lest any man wondering at the Hyperbole of this of Isaiah, should think it appliable only to the Day of Judgment. And that such Schemes as these were usual to the Nations of the Orient, may appear not only by the Chemical Philosophy derived thence, (which makes Heaven and Earth and Stars in everything) but from the testimony of Moses Maimonides, who ( More Nebechim par. 2. c. 29. ) affirms that the Arabians in his time in their vulgar speech, when they would express that a man was fallen into some great calamity or adversity, used to say, Coelum ejus super terram ejus cecidit. No question these Schemes were as familiar to them as our Poets strains and expressions are to us, though of another genius: ours are borrowed from fables, stories, persons, places; theirs were from the frame of the World, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Elements, &c.

If such a notion of Coelum and Terra may have place in this place of Peter, (and why may he not, uttering a Prophecy, borrow a Prophetical strain?) it may easily appear what Heaven and Earth the Fire at Christ's second coming shall burn up and consume, viz. the Heaven and Earth of the contained world, such as those which the former judgment by water overwhelmed and destroyed; the world of wicked States and men, high ones and low ones, Princes and Peasants, man and beast; according to that twice-repeated passage, Isa. 2. 11, 17. (which the ancient Jews interpreted of the Day of Judgment,) The loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day: And the Idols (these are part of the host of the Heaven we speak of) he shall utterly abolish. And of such Heavens and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as these, it mattereth not though we understand an absolute destruction, (namely, of so much as shall be burned) as was in the Deluge of Noah: and so likewise of the Earth and works thereof. But whereas by the universal Deluge, though only the Mundus contentus perished, yet nevertheless the Mundus continens was therewith corrupted and depraved; in the destruction by Fire it shall be otherwise; for the world of wicked ones being destroyed, the Heaven and Earth w ^ch contained them shall be purged and refined for the righteous todwell therein.

This Exposition I put but in the second place, because where the proper sense of the letter may be kept, I prefer it before any other.

To conclude, If any there yet be whom neither of the former Expositions can satisfy, but will needs have the fire and burning here spoken of to be that whereby the World is to be utterly annihilated; I could answer, That the Day of Judgment is a thousand years, and this Fire, though it be to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in that day, yet shall it not be in the beginning, but end thereof: The beginning being but a destruction of the enemies of Christ and the Kingdom of Satan, and then a restauration; the end, a destruction of the whole creature itself by utter annihilation: and then S. Peter 's words, ver. 13. to be construed after this manner, That howsoever the Heavens and the Earth shall at length be dissolved by fire; nevertheless before that shall be, we look for a New heaven and a New earth (i.e. a new world or restauration) to precede this abolition; according to his promise, Isa. 65. 17. & 66. 22.

But such an exposition, methinks, would not suit so well with that which I take to be S. Peter 's chiefest scope in this passage, nor with the words of the holy Prophets he pointeth at, which seem to speak only of a Fire which should precede a restauration, and not of that which should cause an utter abolition of the world.

And as concerning such an utter abolition of the whole frame of Heaven and Earth after the Economy of the redemption and victory of Christ shall be finished, it seemeth to me a mystery which hath no bottom. Howsoever I am not persuaded this place of S. Peter should mean any such thing. Those passages, Job 14. 12. and Apoc. 20. 11. may seem to be of more moment. And if any such annihilation shall be, it stands more with reason it should be by the immediate power of God, without the instrument of any creature, than by Fire; and that he who at first brought it out of nothing without any creature's help, should reduce it again to nothing without the help of any creature.

A Collection of some passages in the ancient Fathers, showing that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are meant the Host and Furniture of Heaven, &c.

IUSTINUS M. Apol. 1. pro Christianis, statim ab initio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [Sic leg. non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Interpres non intellexit.

Ità accipit THEODORETUS 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad Galat. cap. 4.

Apud THEOPHILUM Antiochenum Luminaria & Astra veniunt nomine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Lib. 1.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .—Et Paulo post— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Ideo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ibid.—Nec solùm idolorum cultum Lex Divina inhibet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vide & quae sequuntur.

In Epistola POLYCRATIS (Episcopy Ephesini) apud Eusebium lib. 3. cap. 25. de obitu Philippi & Ioannis. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Verte jam Magna Luminaria.

AUTHOR Quaestionum ad Antiochum inter opera Athanasii, Quaest. 37. (vel 16.) Solem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nuncupat.— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( Solem intelligit) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

De voice Elementi, vide CYPRIANUM in Exhort. ad Martyr. cap. 1.

I. M.

Of the FIRE at Christ's Second Coming. An Extract of Mr. Mede's Letter to Mr. N. E. relating to some Passages in this Treatise upon 2 Pet. 3.

CHrist our Lord shall come, when the Beatum Milleunium is to begin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in flaming fire; by the Divine and miraculous efficacy whereof the World that now is shall be refined, and delivered from the bondage of corruption which came upon it for the sin of Man.

This Fire of Christ's coming, and no other, was that Ignis Purgatorius which some of those first Fathers harped on: namely, they supposed this Divine Fire should stretch even to the Souls of the dead; and that such as had departed out of this life not fully purged of sin by Repentance here, should not be found Fire-proof at that day, but be refined cum mora & dolore before their resurrection. See that of Cyprian Epist. 52. Aliud est ad veniam stare, aliud ad gloriam pervenire; aliud mi •• um in carcerem non exire inde donec solvat novissimum quadrantem, aliud scatim fi •• & virtutis accipere mercedem; aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emundari & purgari diu igne, aliud pendere in Die Iudicii ad sententiam Domini, aliud statim à Domino coronari. Compare that of Irenaeus lib 1. c. 2.— Christum in suo de coelis adventu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —This conceit sure had its ground from that of Paul, 1 Cor. 3. 13. The day (viz. of Judgment) shall declare, [what is combustible in our works] because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is: and upon that exhortation of Peter, 2 Pet. 3. 14. Yet did they, at least some of them, expect another fire at the end of the thousand years for the destruction of Gog and Magog, &c.—

I. M.

Some Excerpta out of the Fathers concerning the Renovation of the World. Tertullianus lib. 3. adversus Marcionem, cap. 24.

NAm & confitemur in terra nobis Regnum repromissum; sed ante coelum sed alio statu: utpote post Resurrectionem in Mille annos, in civitate divini operis Jerusalem coelo delatâ, quam & Apostolus Matrem nostram sursum designat, & politeuma nostrum, id est, municipatum, in coelis esse pronuncians, alicui utique coelesti civitati eam deputat. Hanc & Ezekiel novit, & Apostolus Johannes vidit. Hanc dicimus excipiendis resurrection sanctis, & refovendis omnium bonorum utique Spiritualium copiâ in compensationem corum quae in seculo vel despeximus vel amisimus, à Deo prospectam. Siquidem & justum & Deo dignum illic quoque exsultare famulos ejus, ubi sunt & afflicti in nomine ipsius. Haec ratio Regni coelestis. [ N. B. Sic vocat quod in terris futurum asserit, utpote de coelo sive coelitus; vel in quo coelestis & Angelica vivetur vita. ]

Post cujus Mille annos, intra quam aetatem concluditur sanctorum Resurrectio, pro meritis maturiùs vel tardiùs resurgentium, tunc & mundi destructione & Iudicii conflagratione commissâ, demutati in atomo in Angelicam substantiam, (scilieet per illud incorruptelae superindumentum) transferemur in coeleste Regnum.—

In the Former of these testimonies we have Tertullian 's authority for the applying of Ezekiel 's Temple to the New Jerusalem: In the latter, for the time of the world's conflagration and its destruction, Tertullian differs from the rest, I am sure from Irenaeus. Unless by judicii conflagratio ( Vide enim de Spectaculis c. 30.) he meaneth that of Gog and Magog, Apocal. 20. 9. But I think he doth not.

Idem, de Resurrectione Carnis, cap. 25.

Eliam in Apocalypsi Ioannis ordo temporum sternitur, quem Martyrum quoque animae sub altari ultionem & judicium flagitantes sustinere didicerunt; ut priùs & orbis de pateris Angelorum plagas suas ebibat, & prostituta illa Civitas à decem Regibus dignos exitus referat, & Bestia Antichristus cum suo Pseudopropheta certamen Ecclesiae Dei inferat, atque ita Diabolo in abyssum interim relegato, Primae Resurrectionis praerogativa de soliis ordinetur; dehinc & igni dato, universalis Resurrectionis censura de libris judicetur.

Idem, adversus Hermogenem, cap. 11.

—Imo & judicium frustrà constituit Deus, in justitia utique puniturus, quibus contra malum finis, cùm praeses ejus Diabolus abierit in ignem quem praeparavit illi Deus & Angels ejus, priùs inputeum abyssi relegatus; cùm • Revelatio filiorum Dei redemerit conditionem ( id est, creaturam ) à malo, utique vanitati subjectam; cùm restitutâ innocentiâ & integritate conditionis pecora condixerint bestiis, & parvuli de serpentibus luserint; cùm Pater filio posuerit inimicos sub pedes, utique operarios mali.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Interpres hîc non bonâ fide egit.

Idem in Ierem. Hom. 13. Siquis servaverit lavacrum Spiritûs Sancti, (i.e. ut paulo ante innuerat, qui sanctus est, neque post fidem & magisterium Dei rursum ad scelera conversus est, qui mortal peccaetum non commiserit) iste in Resurrectionis Primae parte communicate. Siquis vero in secunda Resurrectione servatur, iste peccator est, qui ignis indiget baptismo, &c. [alludit ad illud Mat. 3. 11.] Quamobrem cùm talia post mortem nobis residere videamus, Scripturas diligenter simul recitantes reponamus ease in cordibus nostris, & juxta earum vivere praecepta nitamur; ut ante excessionis diem (si sieri potest) peccatorum sordibus [ sic vocat leviora peccata, seu passions animae, ut paulo ante ] emundati, cum sanctis valeamus assumi in Christo Jesus, [ annon respicit, 1 Thes. 4. 16, 17?] cui est gloria & imperium in secula seculorum. Amen.

Quamvis non dubito quin Hieronymus (qui in Prol. ad Orig. homil. in Ezech. fatetur se vertisse 14 Origenis homilias in Ierem. ) hîc Origenis sententiam nonnihil immutando emolliverit; tamen satìs adhuc remanet quo Origen's cum Millenariis sensisse arguatur.

Methodius Olympi Lyciae, deinde Tyri, Episcopus in Libro de Resurrectione contra Originem apud Epiphanium ( Haeres. 74.) interloquente Procl.

Et vero 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

I. M.

CHAP. I.

THE WORDS I have read are a Prophecy of a Revolt of Christians from the Great Mystery of Christian Worship, described in the last verse of the former Chapter, which according to the division of the Ancients should be the first of this: For that last Verse, together with the first six Verses of this and half the seventh verse, make the seventh Title or main Section of this Epistle, expressed in the Edition of Robert Stephen; and so are supposed, from the grounds of that division, to belong all to one argument. The Words therefore of my Text depend upon the last of the former Chapter, as the second part of a Discrete proposition: That howsoever the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Mystery of Christian Religion, which is, God manifested in the Flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, and assumed into Glory; though this Mystery was a great one, and at that time preached and believed in the world: Nevertheless the Spirit [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .] speaketh expressly, That in the latter times there shall be a revolt or departing from this Faith; though not in all parts of it, yet from a main and fundamental part thereof, namely, The assumption of this God and Man to the Throne of Glory and incommunicable Majesty in Heaven, whereby he hath a Name given him above every Name, and whereof no creature in Heaven or in Earth can be capable. Which connection is the reason why the Apostle putteth this Assumption into Glory in the last place of his description, which should else in the true order have followed the words [ justified in the Spirit, ] and been before [ preached unto the Gentiles and believed on in the world. ] But it is the method of the Scripture sometimes to translate the proper order, and to mention that in the last place whereunto it is to join, and from whence it is to infer the next words that follow after. And unless this reason be allowed here, there will hardly be found any other reason of this misplacing. But more of this shall be both spoken and made better to appear hereafter.

I come now more near to my Text; the words whereof I divide into two parts: First, A Description of this solemn Apostasy, in the first verse; Secondly, The Manner or Means whereby it was to come to pass, in the following verses, viz. Through the hypocrisy of Liars, who had seared consciences, forbade to marry, and (bade) to abstain from meats.

[unspec 1] For the Description of the Apostasy itself, we shall find it first Generally and Indefinitely expressed both in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they shall Apostatize or revolt, and in the next 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall attend to erroneous Doctrines, or Doctrines of error. Then Particularly, 1. What these erroneous Doctrines should be for the kind or quality; namely, new Doctrines of Daemons, or a new Idolatry. 2. The Persons who should thus apostatize; not all, but TINE 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 SOME. 3. The Time when it should be; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the latter times. 4. The Proof or warrant of this Prophesy; it is that which the Spirit hath else-where long ago foretold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the written word, verbatim, totidem verbis, or in express words.

[unspec 2] For the second part, viz. The Means; Consider 1. The Manner or Method used, viz. By lying hypocrisy or hypocritical lying. 2. The quality and description of the Authors and furtherers thereof, they should be such as had their consciences seared, who forbad marriage and meats.

Where, before I go any further, I must give an account of thus translating these latter words which I make the second part, because they are commonly translated otherwise, viz. intransitively, as referring the words of the two latter verses to the persons mentioned in the first, viz. those Some who should Apostatize and give heed to erroneous spirits and Doctrines of Devils, as they usually translate it: So that the words of the second and third verses should be the expression by particulars of that which was before generally comprised under erroneous spirits and doctrines of Devils, which should consist partly in forbidding lawful marriage, and partly in commanding abstinence from meats.

But this interpretation seems very unlikely. For first, since S. Paul intendeth here to describe that great Apostasy of the visible Christian Church, as is evident by the pointing out of the time, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the latter times; who can believe that he who aimeth at this, would instance only in the smaller and almost circumstantial Errors, omitting the main and fundamental, which the Scripture elsewhere telleth us should be Idolatry or Spiritual fornication? Secondly, As for Errors about Marriage and Meats, they were not proper to the last times, but found more or less in the Apostles own times; as may be gathered by some passages of their Epistles: Why should then our Apostle, here speaking of the Apostasy of the latter times, instance only in those things which the first times in some measure were never free from? Lastly, (which I take alone to be sufficient) The Syntax of the words will not bear it to have them so translated: For the persons in the first verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are expressed in casu recto, whereas the persons in the verses following, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are in the genitive: now by what Syntax can these be construed intransitively? how will 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. without breach of Grammar unsampled in our Apostle's Epistles? If any say, they may be referred then and agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that indeed would be a strange sense, and nothing to their purpose, to say that Devils lie, have seared consciences, and forbid marriage and meats. But to construe it transitively, and to make all these genitive cases to be governed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and take the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to signify Causam or Modum actionis, as is most usual in Scripture; this, as it keepeth the Syntax true, so I hope to make it appear hereafter to be the very meaning, and the Event most answerable thereunto, when you shall hear proved out of story, That the Apostasy of the visible Church came in by lying wonders and all deceiveableness of unrighteousness, managed by those who either professed or doted upon Monastical hypocrisy; the affectation and errors whereof at length surprising the body of the Church, is that which S. Paul, 2 Thess. 2. 10. calls not the Apostasy itself, but A • not-love of the Truth, for which God gave them over to strong delusions, that they might believe a lie. But this is out of its place; only I have anticipated thus much, lest you should be too long in suspense of the grounds of this novelty in translating. And yet this difficulty concerning the Syntax hath stumbled many of our latter Interpreters, as amongst others Beza, who solves it only by saying, That the Apostle more regarded the matter than the construction; which for my part I cannot believe.

CHAP. II.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scripture imports Revolt or Rebellion. That Idolatry is such, proved from several passages in Scriplute. By Spirits in the Text are meant Doctrines. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are to be taken Passively, viz. for Doctrines concerning Daemons. Several instances of the like form of speech in Scripture.

I Return now unto the First part of my Text, The Description of that solemn Apostasy; where I will consider the five parts or points thereof as I have propounded them, though it be not according to the order of the words. And first in the more general expression, as I called it, in the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as to say, They shall make an Apostasy: Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scripture's use, when it looks towards a person, signifies a Revolt, or Rebellion; when towards God, a spiritual Revolt from God or Rebellion against Divine Majesty, whether Total, or by Idolatry and serving other God's. For the Seventy, whence the New Testament borrows the use of speech, usually translates by this word the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to rebel, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rebellion; both which when they have reference to a spiritual Sovereignty, mean naught else but Idolatry and serving of other God's: as may appear, Joshua 22. 19. where the Israelites supposing their brethren the Reubenites and Gadites, in building another Altar upon the banks of Jordan, had meant to have forsaken the Lord and served other God's, they said unto them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you have rebelled against the Lord, and presently, Rebell not against the Lord, nor rebel against us; where the Seventy hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in verse. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rebellion is translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the words, the Lord God of gods he knoweth if it be in rebellion or in transgression against the Lord. Also Numb. 14. verse. 9. when the people would have renounced the Lord upon the report of the Spies, Joshua and Caleb spake unto them, saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rebel ye not; where the Seventy hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Be not Apostates from the Lord. So Nehem. 9. 26. in that repentant confession which the Levites make of the Idolatry of their Nation, they were disobedient, say they, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and rebelled against thee: where the Seventy hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Daniel in the like confession, Chap. 9. verse. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Seventy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we have rebelled against him. So the Idolatry of Ahaz, 2 Chron. 28. and Chap. 29. is by the same Interpreters called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 revolted greatly from the Lord.

I will not trouble you with the places where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for Treason and Rebellion against earthly Princes, which are many. It is sufficient to gather from what we have quoted, That Apostasy having reference to a Sovereignty and Lordship, betokens a withdrawing of service and subjection there-from; which, if the Sovereignty and Majesty be Divine, is done by Idolatry and service of other God's, as well as if the Majesty of the true God were renounced altogether. The use of the New Testament is answerable. Hebr. 3. 12. Take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in departing from the living God. And, which is more near to our purpose, S. Paul in his 2 Thess. 2. 3. means no other thing in his Prophecy of the man of sin by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 than Christian Idolatry; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Unless that Apostasy come first, that is, Unless there be a breach of Allegiance and Faith given unto Christ, by Idolatry under Antichrist. The like therefore I conclude to be intended in my Text by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , namely, That in the latter times men should break their Oath of fidelity to Christ that in and through him alone they should approach and worship the Divine Majesty. And so hath the use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 taught us something, or at least it hath wrought an indefinite suspicion of what should befall Christians in the latter times. Howsoever we are yet in suspense whether this departing from Christ and the Mystery of Godliness should be Total, in not acknowledging him at all, or whether Heretical, in serving others besides him. For the Jews we know, when they forsook the Lord most, yet did not forsake him altogether; but their Apostasy was in not serving him only and alone, but others besides him, as Calves, the Host of Heaven, and Baalim.

LET us therefore see if the next general words will afford us yet further information, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 attending to erroneous spirits, or, as some read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spirits of error. It would be unprofitable and tedious to tell here of the diverse use of this word Spirit in Scripture. Some take in this place for Doctors of spiritual things, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or, as some read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , should be Doctors of Errors.

But I had rather take Spirits in this place for Doctrines themselves; For so Divines observe it to be used, I John 4. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Believe not every spirit, i.e. every doctrine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but try the spirits, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if they be of God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because many false Prophets are gone out into the world: and so onward in that Chapter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the spirit of Antichrist signifies the false doctrine of Antichrist. So if this sense be admitted, we are something less in suspense than we were, and may guess that this Revolt should not be Total, but Heretical: For we shall not easily find the word Spirit to be otherwise used but either for the Doctrines or Doctors of Christianity, or for Heresies under the same. It seems therefore to be some revolt from Christ by Idolatry, even in those who would seem to worship him.

But suppose it be so, yet still are we in suspense what these Erroneous and Idolatrous Doctrines might be: For Idolatry, as we may see in the Jewish Apostasies, was of diverse kinds, as worshipping the Host of Heaven, Baalims, and the Gentiles other things besides them. But we shall not be long in doubt, the next words will clear the case, and tell us they shall be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Doctrines of Daemons: not which Daemons or Devils are authors of (though that be true) as if the Genitive case were active; but Doctrines concerning Daemons, the Gen • tive case 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being here to be taken passively for the object of these doctrines; as in Hebr. 6. 2. we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doctrines of Baptisms, and doctrines of laying on of hands, of the Resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment, that is, doctrines about and concerning all these. And the same use may elsewhere be found even with the word Doctrine: as Acts 13. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the doctrine of the Lord, that is, concerning him. So Titus 2. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the doctrine of God our Savior. And Gal. 2. 20. we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the faith of the Son of God, that is, concerning him. Semblably in my Text, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Doctrines of Daemons or Doctrinae Deastrorum; that is, The Gent • es idolatrous Theology of Daemons should be revived among Christians. For I take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for all is one) not in that worst sense (which no Author but the Scripture useth) but in the better or more indifferent sense, as it was supposed and taken among the Theologists and Philosophers of the Gentiles, and as it is also sometimes taken in Scripture, as I shall show in due time.

CHAP. III.

MEAN-while let us first see what the Gentiles and their Theologists understood by Daemons: which when you have heard, I doubt not but you will confess the Deifying and worshipping of Saints and Angels, with other parts of their Idolatry which do this, to be as lively an image of the Doctrine of Daemons as could possibly be expressed; and such an one as whereby the Apostasy of the latter times is as by a character distinguished from the Heresies, false doctrines and corruptions of all other times whatsoever.

Daemons in the Gentiles Theology were Deastri or an inferior sort of Deisied Powers, as a middle between the Sovereign God's and mortal men. So says Plato in Symposio, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So say all the Platonists, and well-nigh all other Sects of Philosophers; I am sure the most do; for it is a very ancient doctrine, insomuch that Plutarch (De defectu Oraculorum) fetcheth this distinction between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. Sovereign God's, and Daemons, as far as the antiquity of Zoroafter: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. They seem to me (saith he) to have solved great and difficult doubts, who have placed the Daemons between the God's and Men, and found out what in some sort uniteth and joineth us with them: whether this be the doctrine of the Magi and Zoroafter, or the Thracian doctrine derived from Orpheus, or the Egyptian, or Phrygian, &c. The Sovereign or Highest God's, which amongst them were properly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , were those whom they supposed to be in the Heavens, yea in the Sun, Moon and Stars; whence they called them Dii Superi, Dii Coelestes, whom they affirmed to have neither beginning nor ending: as Apuleius speaks de Daemonio Socratis, Immortales, sine ullo vel fine vel exordio, sed prorsus à retro aeviterni. And because they dwelt in the heavenly Lights, as it were Souls in Bodies, Plato thinks the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 first came quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the everlasting running and uncessant motion of the heavenly bodies: Plat. in Cratylo.

Now these Sovereign and Celestial God's they supposed so sublime and pure, as might not be profaned with approach of earthly things, or with the care and managing of mortal men's businesses; and therefore they bring in that Middle sort of Divine Powers which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Daemons, to be as Mediators and Agents between the Sovereign God's and mortal men. Thus saith Plato in his Symposium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . God is not approached by men, but all the commerce and intercourse between God's and men is performed by the Mediations of Daemons. Will you see the particulars? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Daemons are reporters and carriers from men to the God's, and again from the God's to men; of the supplications and prayers of the one, and of the injunctions and rewards of devotion from the other. And Apuleius in the place forequoted describes them, Mediae potestates, per quas & desideria nostra & merita ad Deos commeant; inter terricolas coelicolásque vectores, hinc precum, inde donorum; qui ultro citróque portant, hinc petitions, inde suppetias, seu quidem utrinque interpretes & salutigeri; Daemons are middle Powers, by whom both our desires and merits pass unto the God's; they are carriers between men on earth and the God's in heaven, hence of prayers, thence of gifts; they bring to and fro, hence petitions, thence supplies: or they are certain interpreters on both sides and conveyers of recommendations. For, saith he, Neque enim pro majestate Deûm Coelestium fuerit haec curare, It beseems not the majesty of the Sovereign God's to manage these things of themselves. Whence it is that Celsus in Origen terms his Daemons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. l. 8. contra Celsum, pag. 940. The Peers, Presidents, Lieutenants and Officers of the most high God; who being neglected can do as much hurt as the Peers and Officers of the Persian or Roman Kings. Where note by the way, that Celsus, as some others did, acknowledges but one Sovereign God.

By reason of this Office of mediation, Plutarch (in his De desect. Orac. ) calls the Order of Daemons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. agreeable to the doctrine of Plato, the Order of Agents and Ministers, &c. To stay no longer here, take the Sum of all in the words of Apuleius in the Book forenamed: Cuncta Coelestium voluntate, numine & authoritate fiunt, sed Daemonum obsequio, operà & ministerio; All things are done by the will, power and authority of the Celestial God's; but withal by the service and ministry of the Daemons. And if I should bring all which I might to this purpose, I should be too tedious. Porphyrius in Eusebius, and Plutarch, skillful men in this kind of Philosophy, will satisfy them fully to whom this is not sufficient.

This was the Oecumenical Philosophy of the Apostles times and of the times long before them. Thales, Pythagoras, all the Academics and Stoics, and not many to be excepted, unless the Epicures, taught this Divinity. He that had rather read a Father of the Church, let him but turn over the eighth and ninth Books of S. Austin de Civ. Dei: the eighteenth Chapter of the former Book having this Title, Qualis sit Religio in qua docetur quod homines, ut commendentur Diis, bonis Daemonibus uli debeant Advocatis; What a Religion is it that teacheth men to use good Daemons for their Advocates to commend them to the God's? the one and twentieth Chapter this, An Daemonibus nuntiis & interpretibus Dii utantur; Whether the God's do use Daemons for their messengers and Interpreters. And of the ninth Chapter of the ninth Book the Title is this, An amicitia Coelestium Deorum per intercessionem Daemonum possit homini provideri; Whether the friendship and favor of the Celestial God's may be procured men by the intercession of Daemons: and of the seventeenth Chapter this, Ad consequendam vitam beatam non tali mediatore indigere hominem qualis est Daemon, sed tali qualis est unus Christus; To the attaining of blessedness, man hath no need of a Daemon for his mediator, but of Christ alone. The reading of which Titles alone were sufficient to show what was the supposed Office of the Daemons among the Gentiles.

This Philosophy therefore so general was that, without doubt, whereof S. Paul admonisheth the Colossians to take heed lest they were spoiled with the vain deceit thereof, as being after the traditions of men, and rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For some Christians even then under a pretence of humility, of not approaching too nearly and too boldly to God, would have brought in the worshipping of Angels instead of this of Daemons: but S. Paul tells them, That as in Christ dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily, so that he needed no colleagues of mediation; so also were they complete in him, and needed therefore no Agents besides him. Let no man therefore (saith he) beguile you of your reward through humility, and worshipping of Angels; intruding into those things which he hath not seen, and not holding the head, &c.

Neither is the Holy Scripture ignorant of this distinction of Sovereign God's and Daemons: The first whereof, the Celestial and Sovereign God's, whether visible or invisible, it calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Host of heaven; the other sort it styleth by the name of Baalim, that is, Domini or Lord's. And Manasseh that King of Idolaters was complete for both of them: So we read 2 Chron. 33. 3. that he reared up Altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshipped all the Host of heaven, and served them. And 2 Kings 23. 5. that good Josiah is said to have put down the Idolatrous Priests which burnt incense to Baal, to the Sun, and to the Moon, and to the Planets, and to all the Host of Heaven. And 2 Kings 17. 16. the Israelites are said to have worshipped all the Host of heaven, and to have served Baal. Now that these Baalims were no other than Daemon-gods appears by their cutting and lancing themselves, who worshipped them, 1 Kings 18. 28. For these Tragic ceremonies are counted by those who treat about these mysteries as certain characters of Daemons. But this you shall have further confirmed in due place, where the arguments may be better understood.

This distinction also of Sovereign God's and Daemons I suppose our Apostle alludes to 1 Cor. 8. 5, 6. where he saith, Though there be that are called God's, whether in heaven or in earth; as there be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God's many, (that is, Dii Coelestes, Sovereign Deities) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Lord's many, (that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Daemons Presidents of earthly things:) Yet to us Christians there is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one Sovereign God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we to him, (that is, to whom, as Supreme, we are to direct all our services;) and but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one Lord Jesus Christ, (instead of their many Mediators and Daemons,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by whom are all things which come from the Father to us, and through whom alone we find access unto him. The allusion, methinks, is passing elegant, and such as I think cannot be well understood without this distinction of Superior and Inferior Deities in the Theology of the Gentiles; they having a plurality in both sorts, and we Christians but one in each, as our Apostle affirmeth. There wants but only the name of Daemons, instead of which the Apostle puts Lord's, and that for the honor of Christ, of whom he was to infer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one Lord; the Name of Christ being not to be polluted with the appellation of an Idol: for his Apodosis must have been otherwise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one Daemon. Or it may be he alludes unto the Hebrew name Baalim, which signifies Lord's; and those Lord's, as I told you, were nothing else but Daemons: For thus would S. Paul speak in the Hebrew tongue, There are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , many God's and many Lord's.

CHAP. IV.

AND thus have I shown you (though but briefly, in regard of the abundance the argument would afford) the Nature and Office of these Daemons according to the Doctrine of the Gentiles. I come now unto another part of this Doctrine, which concerns the Original of Daemons, whom you shall find to be the Deified Souls of men after death. For the Canonizing of the Souls of deceased Worthies is not now first devised among Christians, but was an Idolatrous trick even from the days of the elder world; so that the Devil, when he brought in this Apostatical doctrine amongst Christians, swerved but little from his ancient method of seducing mankind.

Let Hesiod speak in the first place, as being of the most known the most ancient. He tells us that when those happy men of the First and Golden age of the world were departed this life, great Jupiter promoted them to be Daemons, that is, Keepers and Protectors or Patrons of earthly mortals, and Overseers of their good and evil works, Givers of riches, &c. and this, saith he, is the Kingly Royalty given them. But hear his own words;

And hence it is that Oenomaus, quoted by Eusebius, calleth these Daemon-gods 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hesiod's gods.

The next shall be Plato, who in his Cratylus says, That Hesiod and a great number of the rest of the Poets speak excellently, when they affirm that good men when they die attain great honor and dignity, and become 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is (saith he) as much to say as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Wise ones; for Wise ones (saith he) are only Good ones, and all Good ones are of Hesiod's Golden generation.

The same Plato Lib. 5. de Repub. would have all those who die valiantly in the field to be accounted of the Golden kind, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; effici, to be made Daemons, and the Oracle to be consulted how they should be buried and honored, and accordingly ever afterwards 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. their Sepulchers to be served and adored as the Sepulchers of Daemons. In like manner should be done unto all who in their life-time excelled in virtue, whether they died through age or otherwise. This place Eusebius quotes (Lib. 13. Praep. Evang.) to parallel with it the then harmless practice of Christians, in honoring the memory of Martyrs, by holding their assemblies at their Sepulchers; to the end that he might show the Gentiles, that Christians also honored their Worthies in the worthiest fashion. But it had been well if in the next Ages after, this custom of Christians (then but resembling) had not proved the very same Doctrine of Daemons which the Gentiles practiced.

But I go on, and my next Author shall be Hermes Trismegistus, whose antiquity is said to be very near the time of Moses. I will translate you his words out of his Asclepius which Apuleius made Latin. There, having named AEsculapius, Osiris, and his Grandfather Hermes, who were (as he saith) worshipped for Daemons in his own time, he adds further, That the Egyptians call them (namely the Daemons) Sancta animalia, and that amongst them (namely the Egyptians) per singulas Civitates coli eorum animas, quorum sunt consecratae virtutes, Through every city their Souls are worshipped, whose Virtues are deified. And here note by the way, that some are of opinion that the Egyptian Serapis, whose Idol had a bushel upon his head, was Joseph, whose Soul the Egyptians had canonized for a Daemon after his death.

Philo Byblius, the translator of Sanchuniathon that ancient Phoenician Historian, who lived before the times of Troy, and wrote the Acts of Moses and the Jews (saith Eusebius ) very agreeably to the Scripture, and (saith he) learned his Story of Jerome-baal a Priest of the God IEVO; Philo Byblius (I say) in a Preface to his Translation of this Author, setteth down what he had observed and learned out of the same Story, and might serve to help their understanding who should read it: namely, That all the Barbarians, chiefly the Phoenicians and Egyptians, of whom the rest had it, accounted of those for Dii Maximi, who had found out anything profitable for the life of men, or had deserved well of any Nation; and that they worshipped these as God's, erecting Statues, Images and Temples unto them. And more especially they gave the Names of their Kings (as to the Elements of the world, so also) to these their reputed God's: for they esteemed the natural Deities of the Sun, Moon and Planets, and those which are in these, to be only and properly God's: so that they had two sorts of God's; some were Immortals, and others were (as we may term them) Mortallists.

Thus saith Philo Byblius out of the Phoenician History. From which Testimony we may borrow some more light concerning those Baalims in Scripture. For Baal or Belus, whose worship Jezebel, the daughter of Ithobaal King of Tyre, brought into Israel, was a deified Phoenician King of that name, as Virgil will tell us in that verse concerning the Phoenician Queen Dido,

Nay Baal, or in the Chaldee Dialect Bel, (for all is one) was the first King of Babel after Nimrod; and the first (as is written) that ever was deified and reputed a God after death; whence afterward they called all other Daemons Baalim: even as because the first Roman Emperor was called Caesar, thence were all the Emperors after him styled Caesar's. And it may be this is part of that which Philo Byblius out of Sanchuniathon would tell us; That the Barbarians, especially the Phoenicians, &c. gave names from their Kings to such as were canonized after death: For so we see here that the Babylonians, and the neighbouring Countries, which spake the Hebrew tongue or some Dialect thereof, called all Daemons Baalim, of the first Daemon or deified King in the world, Baal or Belus. For at that time when Belus reigned in Babel, was Phoenicia with the neighbor people under the Kingdom of Babel: Whence may seem also to have come their community of language and ceremonies. And here note a wonderful mystery, That old Babel, the first Pattern in the world of ambitious Dominion, was also the Foundress of Idols , and the Mother of the fornication and abominations of the earth.

And because we have fallen upon the naming of Daemons, let us observe another mystery of names, out of Plutarch (De defect. Orac.) which may help us out of, or prevent some difficulties, namely, That Daemons are sometimes called by the names of those Celestial God's whose Ministers and Proctors they are, and from whom they receive their power and Divinity: as Apollo's Daemon, Apollo; Jupiter 's Daemon, Jupiter; and so the rest: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • Like as here among us men, one is called Iovius from Jupiter, another Athenaeus from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. Minerva, another Dionysius from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. Bacchus, &c. Thus Plutarch; which Cleombrotus there saith he learned of a wonderful and profound Egyptian Eremite, who lived about the red Sea, &c. To which is agreeable what Eusebius, Praepar. Evang. lib. 3. cap. 3. quotes out of Diodorus, viz. That the Egyptians affirmed such as had been great Benefactors where they lived, to be Deified after their death, and some of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be called by the very names of the Celestial God's.

The same Plutarch in the same place doth acquaint us with this pretty conceit, which being to the purpose I will not omit; namely, That the Souls of men took degrees after death: First they commenced Heroes, who were as Probationers to a Daemonship; then after a time sufficient, Daemons; and after that, if they deserved well, to a more sublime degree. Howsoever it be, Daemons and Heroes differed but in more and less antiquity; the more ancient Heroes being called Daemons, and the younger Daemons Heroes.

But that we may return again more close to the matter in hand, This order of Daemons, or Soul-gods, as I may call them, found place in the Religion of the elder Romans, who called them Penates, Lares, and Manti Dii; and when once they began to Canonize their deceased Emperors, (which was from the time of Augustus ) they called them Divi, which word before that time was more general. Tully in his second Book De Legibus shall be my witness, that his country-men acknowledged this distinction of Sovereign God's and Soul-deified powers; for there you shall find this Law, Divos, & eos qui Coelestes semper habiti, colunto: & ollos quos in coelum merita vocaverint; Let them worship the God's; both those who were ever accounted Celestial, and those whom their own merits have advanced to heaven. And again, Deorum Manium jura sancta sunto. Hos letho datos Divos habento; Let the Rights of separate Souls be kept unviolable, and let them account the deceased Worthies as God's. Would God the present Christian Romans had not renewed this Law.

Yea so strongly was this Doctrine embraced amongst the Gentiles, that some of their latter Theologists thought, That even the Souls of wicked men and Tyrants had a power after death, and that of these came mali Daemones, which hurt men; and yet to these they ordained Temples, and Sacrifices to keep them from hurting them, as well as to the good Daemons for helping them. But the Ancients gave this honor to the Souls of virtuous men only.

Thus have you heard the Original of Daemons according to the ancient and general opinion of the Gentiles. But besides these Daemons, whose Original you have heard, (I mean besides Soul-Daemons and Canonized mortals ) their Theologists bring in another kind of Daemons more high and sublime, which never had been the Souls of men, nor ever were linked to a mortal body, but were from the beginning, or without beginning, always the same. So Apuleius tells us in his De Deo Socratis; Est & superius aliud augustiúsque Daemonum genus, qui semper à corporis compedibus & nexibus liberi, certis potestatibus procurentur. Ex hac sublimiori Daemonum copia autumat Plato singulis hominibus in vita agenda testes & custodes singulos additos. This sort of Daemons doth fitly answer and parallel that sort of spiritual Powers which we call Angels, as the former of Soul-Daemons doth those which with us are called Saints.

CHAP. V.

BUT lest I might seem to have no measure in raking up this Ethnical dunghill, I will now leave the Theology of the Original of Daemons, and show you yet another piece of that Doctrine, namely, Concerning the manner how Daemons were to be worshipped, and as it were brought to the lure of men, when they had occasion of devotion with them: And this was done by sacring of Images. This you shall hear from an ancient Author and passing skillful in the mysteries, even Hermes Trismegistus, who in his Asclepius speaketh, in English thus; It is a wonder ( saith he ) beyond all wonders, ( and he saith truly ) that man should find out a way to make God's: Yet because ( saith he ) our Forefathers erred much through unbelief concerning Deities, and had small regard of Religion and Divine worship; therefore they devised an art to make God's, ( he meaneth Images:) And because they could not make Souls, ( he means to these senseless bodies ) therefore they called the Souls of Daemons and Angels, and put them into their Images and holy Mysteries; by which means alone these Images have power of helping and hurting; which thus incorporated ( he saith ) are called by the Egyptians Animalia sancta. And in another place, That kind of God's ( saith he ) which men make, is composed of two natures, of a Divine, (which is first and more sacred) and of that which is amongst men, namely, the matter whereof they are made. The sum of all this Mystery is, That Images were made as Bodies, to be informed with Daemons as with Souls: For an Image was as a Trap to catch Daemons, and a device to tie them to a place, and to keep them from flitting.

The like hath Eusebius out of Porphyry, That the God's did exceedingly delight in consecrated Images, and were circumscribed and enclosed therein as in a sacred place; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Image being taken away, that is dissolved which detained the Deity upon earth. This is that which Psellus calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Approachings or Presencings of Daemons. And Iamblichus termeth these consecrated Idols 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Images filled with divine fellowship or with divine society. And our forementioned Hermes calleth them Statuos animatas, sensu & spiritu plenas, animated Statues, full of sense and spirit.

Hence came that answer or defense of the Gentiles, as Arnobius (Lib. 6. adverse. Gent.) makes them speak, Neque nos aera, neque auri argentique materias, neque alias quibus signa confiunt, ease esseper se Deos & religiosa decernimus numina; sed eos in his colimus, cósque veneramur quos dedicatio infert sacra, & fabrilibus efficit habitare simulachris: We do not think brass and gold and silver and other materials of Images to be of themselves God's and holy Powers; but in these we worship and reverence the God's brought into these Images by sacred dedication, and keeping their residence there. And in another place he makes this Objection for their behalf; An numquid dicitis forte praesentiam vobis quandam sub his numinum exhiberi simulachris; & quia Deos videri non datum est, eos ità coli, & iis munia officiosa praestari? But you say, perhaps, the Deities present themselves unto you in some sort under these Images; and because the God's cannot be seen, they are thus worshipped, and have religious service done unto them.

And thus have we seen the ground of the Idolatrous use of Images, and found that the Worship of them also is a Doctrine of Daemons: For as at first they were ordained for Daemons; so whatsoever Deity is worshipped in this manner, though it were the true and Sovereign God, is thereby made a Daemon.

What I say of Images, must be understood also of Pillars or Columns, whereof we read Levite. 26. 1. Ye shall make no Idols, nor graven Images, nor rear you up a Pillar to bow down unto it. For howsoever Pillars and Images, through some confusion at length surprising the Gentiles superstition, may afterwards seem to be ascribed to other Deities besides Daemons; yet by original institution they were proper unto Daemons, & no other. The Sovereign and Celestial God's, they were worshipped in the Sun, Moon and Stars, where they were supposed to dwell: But Images and Columns were for Daemons; and if they seemed to be made for any other, Plutarch 's Eremite would resolve us, that they were but Daemons called by the name of some Sovereign God's whose Agents they were. The truth of this the History of the beginning of Idolatry by Images makes evident. For that Images and Pillars were at first devised and erected to the Honor and Memory of dead men , this the fourteenth Chapter of the Book of Wisdom will tell us, and that by the vain-glory of men they first entered into the world: no less will the long-continuing custom of the world, using thus to honor not only their dead, but since also the living, be sufficient to persuade the truth. Minutius Felix in his Octavius will put us forth of doubt. Majores nostri (saith he) dum Reges suos colunt religiose, dum defunctos eos desiderant in Imaginibus videre, dum gestiunt eorum memorias in Statuis detinere; sacra facta sunt, quae fuerant assumpta solatia: Our Ancestors while they religiously honor their Kings, while they desire after their departure to behold them in their Images, and delight to preserve their memory in Statues; what was at first taken up for their own solace, was at length made a matter of Religion. When therefore those whom they thus honored and remembered were canonized for Daemons, then were these Memorials also worshipped for some supposed presence or divine respect of such Daemons in or to them. The worshipping therefore of Images and Columns is by its original and institution a piece of the Doctrine of Daemons ; so that whatsoever is thus worshipped, yea the glory of the incorruptible God himself, is thereby changed into a Daemon.

THUS much of Images and Idol-Pillars, of the reason of their supposed Divinity, and of the original and first occasion of worshipping them. But yet we have not done, there is another piece of Daemon-devotion yet behind, namely, The worshipping of Daemons in their Relics, Shrines and Sepulchers ; for this was also a part of the Doctrine and Theology of Daemons. Plato, whom before we quoted for the Canonizing for Daemons, of the Ghosts of such as died valiantly in the field, would have their Shrines and Coffins to be worshipped, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the coffins of Daemons. Hear also what Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of this Daemon -doctrine, Sotrm. lib. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. They (that is, the Greeks) are of opinion that it matters not whether we call those Souls (viz. the Daemons whom they invocate) God's or Angels. But the more skillful Theologists place the coffins of the deceased in many of their Temples as so many Statues of the God's, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. calling their Souls Daemons, and withal teaching that they ought to be worshipped by men, as being for the holiness of their lives entrusted by Divine Providence to be employed about this earth for the service of men: For they well knew that some Souls were naturally tied to the Body. Out of which words observe, That they supposed the like presence and power of Daemons at their Coffins and Sepulchers which before we observed and heard of in their Images; as though there always remained some natural tie between the Souls deceased and their Relics; and therefore they there built Temples unto them where their bodies and ashes were entombed. And hence it is that the Primitive Fathers which write against the Gentiles do so often upbraid them, That their Temples were nothing else but the Sepulchers of dead men; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (saith Clem. in his Protreptie. ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; They were indeed called by the specious and plausible name of Temples, but were in truth nothing but Sepulchers; that is, the very Sepulchers of dead men were called Temples. He goeth on speaking to the Gentiles; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be ye therefore at length persuaded to forget and relinquish your Daemon-worship, and be ashamed to worship the Sepulchers of dead men. To the like purpose Arnobius l. 6. adverse. Gent. Quid quod multa ex his Templa quae tholis sunt aureis & sublimibus elata fastigiis, autorum conscriptionibus comprobatur contegere cineres at que ossa, & functorum esse corporum sepulturas? Nonne patet & promptum est aut pro Diis immortalibus mortuos vos colere, aut inexpiabilem fieri Numinibus contumeliam, quorum Delubra & Templa mortuorum superlata sunt bustis? Where he tells them, that many of their Temples, famous for their high and golden roofs, were nothing but the Sepulchers of the deceased, covering dead bones and ashes; and that it was very evident that for the immortal God's they worshipped men that were dead, or that they were guilty of doing an horrible dishonor to the God's, whose Temples were built over the burying-places of dead men.

I might further add to these Oecumenical doctrines of Daemons that monstrous one of the Egyptians, for which their fellow-Gentiles derided them, who worshipped living brute Beasts, yea Onions and Garlic, and Water itself, with Divine worship, as supposing some Daemon or other to dwell in them. Such were their Cow-god Apis, and their Bull-god Mnevis, and their Water-god Nile, which it shall be enough to have only named, to make the former complete; and that from it and the rest of that kind of abominations we may gather this Conclusion once for all, That since the Sovereign and Celestial God's (as you heard before) might not be approached nor polluted by these earthly and material things, but kept always immovably, without change of place or presence, their heavenly stations; therefore the adoring or worshipping of any visible or material thing for any supposed presence or other relation of a divine power therewith, is to be accounted amongst the Doctrines of Daemons.

CHAP. VI.

AND thus have you seen the Theology of Daemons; 1. For their Nature and degree, to have been supposed by the Gentiles an inferior and middle sort of Divine Powers between the Sovereign and Heavenly God's and mortal men: 2. Their Office, to be as Mediators and Agents between these Sovereign God's and men: 3. Their Original, to be the Deified Souls of worthy men after death; and some of an higher degree, which had no beginning, nor ever were imprisoned in mortal bodies: 4. The way to worship them, to find and receive benefits from them, namely, by consecrated Images and Pillars, wherein to have and retain their presence at devotions to be given them: 5. To adore their Relics, and to Temple them.

Now therefore judge impartially whether S. Paul 's Prophecy be not fulfilled already amongst Christians, who foretold that the time should come that they should Apostatize and revive again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Doctrines of Daemons; whether the deifying and worshipping of Saints and Angles, whether the bowing down to Images, whether of men or other things visible, breaden Idols, and Crosses like new Daemon-Pillars, whether the adoring or templing of Relics, whether these make not as lively an image of the Gentiles Theology of Daemons [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] as possibly could be expressed; and whether these two words comprehend not the whole pith and marrow of Christian Apostasy, which was to consist in Spiritual fornication or Idolatry, as appears by that name and denomination thereof given by S. John in his Revelation, The Whore of Babylon. Is not she rightly termed the Babylonish whore, which hath revived and replanted the Doctrines of Daemons first founded in the ancient Babel? And is not this now fulfilled which S. John foretells us, Apoc. 11. That the second and outmost Court of the Temple (which is the second state of the Christian Church) together with the holy City should be trodden down and overtrampled by the Gentiles (that is, overwhelmed with the Gentiles Idolatry) forty two months?

But perhaps I am yet too forward in my Application; some things in our way must first be cleared: For howsoever the resemblance indeed be evident, yet First the Text seems not to intend or mean it, because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in the Scripture never taken in the better or indifferent sense, howsoever profane Authors do so use it, but always in an evil sense, for the Devil or an Evil Spirit. Now the signification of words in Scripture is to be esteemed and taken only according to the Scripture's use, though other Writers use them otherwise. Secondly, For the charge of Idolatry; though much of that wherein we have instanced may be granted to be justly suspected for such indeed, yet nevertheless that whereupon this Application mainly relieth, namely, The praying to Saints glorified, as Mediators and Agents for us with God, should not seem to deserve so foul a name. For suppose it were a needless, yea and a fruitless Ceremony, yet what reason can be given why this should be more tainted with Idolatry, than is the like honor given to Saints and holy men whilst they live on earth, whom then to desire to mediate and pray to God for us was never accounted so much as an unlawful matter? When these two Scruples are answered, I will return to continue my former Application.

To the First therefore, for the use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Scripture, I say, That because those which the Gentiles took for Daemons and for Deified Souls of their Worthies were indeed no other than Evil Spirits, counterfeiting the Souls of men deceased, and masking themselves under the names of such supposed Daemons, under that color to seduce mankind; therefore the Scripture useth the name Daemons for that they were indeed, and not for what they seemed to be. For no blessed Soul or good Angel would admit any honor which did derogate from the honor of the only true God who made them: neither do the glorified Saints in heaven, or the blessed Angels, though Apostate Christians now invocate and worship them, accept of this honor, hear their prayers, or condescend to their devotions, by any sign or act whatsoever; but whatsoever is made seem to be done by them, is done by the self-fame wicked Spirits which heretofore were masked under the names of Daemons; and therefore in this regard the one may as well bear the names of Daemons as the other, and be as likely to be intended by the use of that word.

Secondly, though the Scripture often useth this word in the worst sense, yet follows it not it always should do so. Because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 itself, which the Scripture hath appropriated to signify Satan the Prince of hell-hounds, following therein the Seventy, (who first gave it this notion nowhere else sampled in any Greek Author) yet is this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament itself, three several times used in the common sense for a Slanderer or False accuser, and that in three several Epistles, in both to Timothy, and that to Titus: And why should the like seem improbable for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Nay, most certain it is so, as I now come to make manifest.

And that first, Acts 17. 18. where S. Paul our Apostle, having at Athens preached Jesus risen from the dead, the Philosophers thus encountered him, saying, This fellow 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we translate, He seemeth to be a setterforth of strange gods, namely, Daemon-gods: For hearing of one Jesus after death to become a Lord and Savior, and to be adored with divine worship, they took him presently (according to their own principles in that kind) to be some new or foreign Daemon; for so it follows in the Text, that they said thus, Because he preached unto them Jesus and the Resurrection. Upon the same ground Celsus in Origen lib. 8. cont. Cels. calls the same Christ our Savior the Christians Daemon; for whereas the Christians said, that they without hurt and danger blasphemed and reproached the Gentiles God's, Celsus replies, Nonne vides, bone vir, quod etiam tuo Daemoni opponens se quispiam non solùm convitiatur, sed terrâ marique illum exigit? Do you not see (good Sir) that some opposing your Daemon, do not only reproach him, but proclaim him unworthy to be at all in the world? Where Origen answers Celsus, Qui nullos scit malos Daemones, nescio quomodo sui oblitus, Iesum vocârit Daemonem; He that acknowledges no evil Daemons, I know not how he came to forget himself, calling Jesus a Daemon. But S. Paul thus charged by the Philosophers, coming to make his Apology in the Areopagus, retorts their accusation; Ye men of Athens (saith he) I see you in all things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 too full of Daemons already. I shall not need bring anymore amongst you. (For thus the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by Etymology signifies a worshipper of Daemon-gods, and was anciently used in this sense; and so you shall find it often in Clemens Alexandrinus his Protrepticon , not to speak of others; though afterwards from signifying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Budaeus speaks, it came to be applied to those who were too precise and anxious in their devotions.) But I (saith our Apostle) preach no new Daemon unto you, but that Sovereign and Celestial God who made the world and all things therein; who being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not (as your Daemon -gods do) in Temples made with hands, neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, (as you conceive of your Daemons,) seeing he giveth to all life and breath, and all things: This God I preach unto you. And this place I take to be so unanswerable for the indifferent and common acception of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that I care not now though the rest should fail me: but let us see what they are.

In Revel. 9. 13, &c. the sixth Trumpet from Euphrates brings an huge army upon the Christian world, which destroyeth a third part of men; and yet those which remained repented not of those sins (verse 2.) for which these plagues came upon the earth, viz. That they should not worship 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Idols of gold, silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood, which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk. Is not this a Comment upon the Apostle's Prophecy in my Text? The time which it concerns must needs fall in the last times; for it is the last Trumpet save one. The place must be the Roman Empire, or Christian world; for that is the Stage of all the Seals and Trumpets: And how could it be otherwise, seeing S. John at Patmos saw them coming from the great River Euphrates? whatsoever comes from thence, must needs fall upon the Territory of the Roman Empire. To hold you no longer, the best Expounders make it the Ottoman or Turkish, invasion, which hath swallowed so great a part of Christendom. But what people are they who in the Roman Territory do in these latter times worship Idols of gold, silver, brass, and stone, and wood? Are they Ethnics? there is none such. Are they Jews? they cannot endure the sight of them. Are they Mohammedans? nay, they abhor it also. Then must they needs be Christians; and then must Christians too worship 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for both are spoken of the same men. But what Christians do, or ever did worship Devils formally? But Daemon-gods (alas!) they do and long have done. Here therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is again taken in the common and Philosophical sense, or at least, which is all one, for Evil Spirits worshipped under the names of Daemons and deceased Souls.

Besides my Text, there is but one place more in all the Epistles of S. Paul where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, namely 1 Cor. 10. 21. where if there be any allusion to the Gentiles conceit of Daemons, then all the places of S. Paul 's Epistles are bending that way. But some there are, saith Stephen in his Thesaurus, who think the Apostle in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Cup of Daemons, alludes unto that poculum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used amongst the Gentiles. And further to strengthen this conceit of the Apostle's Allusion to the Heathenish notion of Daemons, the words of the former verse make much; For the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, (saith he) to Daemons, and not to God. Now this was the very Tenet of the Gentiles, That the Sovereign and Celestial God's were to be worshipped only purâ mente, and with hymns and praises, and that Sacrifices were only for Daemons. Vid. Porphy. in Euseb. Praep. Evang. Herm. Trismeg. in Asclepio, Apuleium de Daemonio Socratis. He therefore who had given his faith to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One Lord, to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the only Potentate, to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the one and only Mediator Jesus Christ, must have no communion, have no part in the service of those many Mediators, Lord's or Daemon-gods of the Nations; for Christ's Monarchical Mediation excludes all other Mediators and Daemons: not that the wooden Idol was ought of itself, but that the Gentiles supposed there dwelt some Daemon therein, who received their sacrifices, and to whom they intended their services. Thus may this place be expounded, and so the use of the word Daemon in the worst sense or directly for a Devil, will be almost confined to the Gospel; where the subject spoken of being men vexed with Evil spirits, could admit no other sense or use: and yet S. Luke, the best-languaged of the Evangelists, knowing the word to be ambiguous, and therefore as it were to distinguish it once for all, doth the first time he useth it, do it with an explication, Chapter 4. verse 33. There was (saith he) a man in the Synagogue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , having the spirit of an unclean Daemon.

Thus much of the word Daemonium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Scripture; whereby I hope it appears, that this place of my Text is not the only place where the word is used according to the notion of the Gentiles and their Theologists.

But you will say, Did any of the Fathers or Ancients expound it thus in this place? If they had done so, the Mystery of iniquity could never have taken such footing; which because it was to come according to divine disposition, what wonder then if this were hidden from their eyes? Howsoever, it may seem that God left not his spirit without a witness: For, as I take it, Epiphanius, one of the most zealous of the Fathers of his time against Saint-worship then peeping, took 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in my Text for a Doctrine of worshipping dead men. You may read him in the seventy eighth Heresy towards the conclusion, where, upon occasion of some who made a Goddess of the blessed Virgin, and offered a cake unto her as the Queen of Heaven, he quotes this place of my Text concerning them, saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in English sounds thus, That also of the Apostle is fulfilled of these; Some shall apostatize from the sound Doctrine, giving heed to Fables and Doctrines of Daemons; for (saith he) they shall be worshippers of Dead men, as they were worshipped in Israel. Are not these last words for an Exposition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? But what (will you say) doth he mean by the Dead worshipped in Israel? I suppose he means their Baalim, who (as is already shown) were nothing else but Daemons or Deified Ghosts, of men deceased: yet he brings in two examples besides; one of the Shechemites in his time, who had a Goddess or Daemoness under the name of Iephtah's daughter; another of the Egyptians, who worshipped Thermutis, that daughter of Pharaoh which brought up Moses. Some, as Beza, would have these words of Epiphanius to be a part of the Text itself in some copy which he used. But how is that likely, when no other Father once mentions any such reading? Nay it appears moreover, that Epiphanius intended to explain the words as he quoteth them, as he doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Faith by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the sound Doctrine, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 erroneous spirits by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fables, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 giving heed to Doctrines of Daemons by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 worshipping Dead men. Otherwise we must say he used either a very corrupt copy, or quoted very carelessly. But grant that Epiphanius read so: Either this reading was true, and so I have enough; because then the Apostle with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. should expound himself by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to mean the Deifying of the dead: Or it was not the original reading, but added by some or other for explication sake; and so it will follow, that those who did it made no question but that the words there contained some such thing as worshipping of the dead. Therefore take it which way you will, it will follow, that some such matter as we speak of was in times past supposed to be in this Text and Prophecy.

CHAP. VII.

Why those words in the description of the Mystery of Godliness [Received into Glory ] are set last. That praying to Saints glorified, as Mediators and Agents for us with God, is Idolatry. For the proof of this several Grounds are laid down. To be prayed to in Heaven, and to present our Devotions to God, and to deal as an Agent and Mediator between us and him, is a Prerogative appropriate to Christ, a Flower of his Glory and Exaltation to sit at God's Right hand, a Royalty incommunicable to any other. That none but Christ our High Priest is to be an Agent for us with God in the Heavens, was figured under the Law, in that the High Priest alone had to do in the Most holy place, and there was to be Agent for the people. That though Christ in regard of his Person was capable of this God-like Glory and Royalty, yet it was the Will of God that he should purchase it by suffering an unimitable Death. This proved from several Testimonies of Scripture. Saint-worship is a denial of Christ's Prerogative. Bread-worship in the Eucharist to what kind of Idolatry it may be reduced. How Saint-worship crept into the Church.

NOW I come to the Second point, to maintain and prove That praying to Saints glorified, as Mediators and Agents for us with God, is justly charged with Idolatry. For this is the hinge whereupon not the Application only of my Text, but the Interpretation thereof, chiefly turneth. For this is that which I told you in the beginning, that my Text depended upon the last words of the former chapter and verse, Received into glory; which were therefore, out of their due order, put in the last place, because my Text was immediately to be inferred upon them. The like misplacing, and for the like reason, see Heb. 12. 23. where, in a catalogue or recension of the parts of the Church, Christ the Head, and the sprinkling of his blood, is mentioned in the last place, and after the spirits of just men, because the next verses are continued upon this sprinkling of Christ's blood: Ye are come to the general assembly, and Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the Spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than that of Abel: whereas the right order should have been • First, God the Judge of all; secondly, Christ the Mediator of the new Covenant; and thirdly, in the last place, the Spirits of just men made perfect. Agreeably therefore to this dependence of my Text I am to show, That the Invocation of Saints glorified implies an Apostasy from Christ, and a denial of his Glory and Majesty whereunto he is installed by his Assumption into heaven, to sit at the right hand of God. Which before I do, I must premise some General grounds, which are as followeth.

First, That as God is most One, and without all Multiplicity; so must the Honor and Service which is given unto him have no Communicability. Isa. 42. 8. I am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory will I not give unto another, nor my praise to graven Images: For the One-most God must have an One-most service. Therefore in that Action whereof God is the Object, nothing must be an Object but God. Or, in the Scripture phrase, thus, In those actions which look towards the Face of God, nothing may come between, whose Face such Actions may look upon besides him; whether by way of Subordination to him, or Representation of him: For I am the Lord thy God ( saith he) Thou shalt have no other God's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before my face.

Secondly, This Face of God is not only the Object of his Person, but also the Place of his presence, where his Glory is revealed in the Heavens, where we shall see him face to face, 1 Cor. 13. 12. Revel. 22. 4. and where the Angels in heaven behold the Face of the Father which is in Heaven, Matth. 18. 10. No Action therefore directed thitherward, that is, to this Face of his revealed presence and glory, may so much as look asquint upon any other Object, or behold any other Face but the Face of God alone; For we must have no other God's before his Face.

I say not, that a man may not turn his Face upon the Face of any other thing when he turns his Face towards the Face of God; for how then should we worship him at all, seeing which way soever we turn us, something will always be before us? But it is not the Face of our Bodies, or their posture, but the Face and posture of the Act we do, which must not have the Face turned upon anything else, when it is directed at the Face of God: namely, That Action in which God is faced, must face nothing else but God; that is, Where God is the Object; whether in regard of his Person, when we pray unto him; or of his Throne of presence, when we would approach it, or direct our supplications towards it; there nothing is to have any respect of an Object but God alone. So although when we pray unto God, we turn the face of our Bodies towards Heaven, the Sun, the Moon, and Stars; yet do we not therefore worship the host of heaven, because our Action hath no relation to them as to an Object, but to God alone; and howsoever they are between God and us in place, yet as an Object of our devotion neither they, nor anything in them, come any way between us and him.

Now for the reason (if you ask it) of this Incommunicableness of all Action and Service directed to Godward, you shall have it, Exod. 34. 14. Because the Lord whose name is Iealous, is a Iealous God: Iealous, not only lest he should not be honored and served as God; but Iealous lest he should not be honored as One God: For as by honoring him we acknowledge him God, so by the Incommunicableness of honor we acknowledge him One God.

For this cause, God being to give us a Mediator, by whom we should have access unto his presence, and whom, without his Jealousy, we might interpose in our devotions and supplications unto himself, or offered at the Throne of his Majesty and Glory in the heavens, provided that admirable Mystery of communicating to the nature of a man born of a woman, the Hypostatical union of the second Person of the Deity; and him, after he had vanquished death, to exalt to sit at his right hand of Glory and Power in the Heavens, there in his own Presence and Throne to receive our Requests, and to deal as an Agent between us and him.

Thus at length I am arrived at that Port which all this while I made for, viz. to show, That this Glory of Christ, which is styled His sitting at the Right hand of God, is that Incommunicable Royalty to which of right belongeth in the Presence of God to receive and present our devotions to the Divine Majesty; as in that which now followeth shall appear.

Sessio ad Dextram Dei, To sit at the Right hand of God, is to be installed in God's Throne, or to have a God-like Royalty, which is defined in Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Majesty of Christ in heaven; whence it is said, Heb. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He sat down on the Right hand of Majesty on high; and Heb. 8. 1. it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Right hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the Heavens: It is called also by Christ himself, Mark 14. 62. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luke 22. 69. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Right hand of Power, and the Right hand of the Power of God: For as to the Right hand belongs both dignity and strength; so doth this Glory of Christ include both a God-like Sublimity and a God-like Power; the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The proper place where the Majestical Glory is revealed, is the Heavens, as may appear almost wheresoever this sitting at the right hand of God is mentioned, Eph. 1. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Coloss. 3. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. 7. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Pet. 3. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Heaven, Heavenly places, High places, and the like, being always thereto annexed: and everywhere appeareth to be a consequent of his Ascension into Heaven, as we say in our Creed, He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the Right hand of God; and therefore in the words whereon my Text depends, is expressed by Assumed or Taken up into Glory, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For as God himself is styled Pater in Coelis; not because not elsewhere, but because his Glory is there revealed: so Christ sits ad dextram in Coelis, because there the beams of the Majesty given him by his Father are revealed: whence it comes that his Kingdom is called the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, a Kingdom whose King's residence and Kingly Throne are both in Heaven.