The Court of the Gentiles Part 3

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

The Causes of vain Philosophy; (1.) Ignorance, Act. 17.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2 Pet. 1.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (2.) Human Inventions, Col. 2.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ver. 22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (3.) Curiositie, Col. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Act. 17.21, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Cor. 15.32, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The sundry workings of this Curiositie. (4.) Spiritual Pride. Col. 2.18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Cor. 8.1, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The Effects of Philosophy Pride. 1 Tim. 3.6, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Psal. 10.4, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (5.) Carnal Presumption. Col. 2.18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hab. 2.4, Affected ignorance, the effect of carnal Confidence. Socrates 's sense of his ignorance. (6.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or contentious Logic. 1 Tim. 6.3, 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The verbal contentiose amongst the Philosophers. The effects of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Envy, Strife, Atheism, &c. 1 Tim. 6.5, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (7.) Opiniatretie and Dogmatising. Col. 2.20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , its origin and vanity. (8.) Carnal Policy, Psal. 119.113, 118, 163. (9.) Judicial hardness, Rom. 1.18, 21, 22, 28, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (10.) Idolatric inclination. (11.) Fabulose imitation.

§. 1. HAving in the former Part contemplated Philosophy in its origin and progress, we are now to take view of it in its degenerate, corrupt and deformed Idea or visage: For though it were in its origin a weak imperfect reflection of that glorious Divine Revelation, which shone from the Sun of Righteousness on the Jewish Church; yet falling on proud, carnal, indisposed hearts, it did but harden them the more: So that, Holding the truth in unrighteousness, they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened: for professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish, as Rom. 1.18, 21, 22. Now to penetrate fully the Corruptions and Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, we shall consider it, (1.) In its Causes. (2.) In its Mater and Parts. (3.) In its Form and Proprieties. (4.) In its Effects.

We shall begin with the Vanity of Philosophy, as considered in its Causes. And the first prolific seminal cause of all the Vanity and corruption of Philosophy, was the innate congenite darkness, or the native ignorance of the natural understanding. 1 Cor. 2.14, The natural man, i. e. Nature in its highest Philosophic elevation. By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Animal or natural man, we are to understand, not only the brutish, sensual man; but man under the highest raisures of natural or moral endowments, so far as he is void of the Spirit of God, and opposite to the spiritual man, ver. 15. Thus Chrysostom interprets this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who lives after the flesh, not having his mind illuminated by the Spirit, but clothed only with a natural human intelligence, which the creator hath more or less invested the souls of all with. This Dr. Reynolds, in his Conc. ad Clerum, has largely proved. These first Sophists or Philosophers, finding themselves in the dark as to the origin and first principes of the Universe; but much more, as to the sublime Mysteries of Divinity; they considered how they might reduce their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those dark Notices and Remains of natural light, unto a more perfect contemplation of things in their true and genuine Ideas. And in order hereto, that they might the better foment and improve these few commun Principes, contemplative and active, they under-took many tedious Travels and Labors; they went far and near, to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Chaldeans, but principally to the Hebrews, who were scattered amongst all these Nations; from whom they received immediately, or by the mediation of those neighboring Nations, some fragments and broken traditions of the first origin of things; their Connexions, Causalities, Effects, &c. Also of the first Eternal Being, his Perfections, Operations, and Modes of worship, &c. which foreign heavenly Plants of Divine Revelation, they endeavored to transplant into the Garden of their natural Understandings and Philosophy; hoping thereby to cultivate and elevate their own natural Principes. But these Divine Mysteries being too big for their natural Acumen, they soon degenerated into vain imaginations. We find all this set forth to the life by Paul, in his Discourse to the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , If happily they might, by groping after him, find him, i. e. like blind men, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , primarily and properly signifies, to touch, as they who play on a Music Instrument. But thence, in a more lax notion, it notes, to grope with the hand, as blind men grope for the Wal: and thence metaphorically, as applied to the mind, it importeth the dark inquiries of blind nature after God and things Supernatural. This is excellently illustrated, 2 Pet. 1.9, But he that wanteth these things, is blind, and cannot see afar off. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. not able to open his eyes: Or as Beza, Not able to see far. So Aristotle defines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. (according to Budaeus ) Myopes are such, who from their birth see things next them, but things remote they cannot see. Or as Beza, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because they always blink with their eyes. Thus learned Bochart, in his elaborate Book De Animalibus Sacris, part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 31. Where having laid down three interpretations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he adds a fourth, which he closeth with:

This fully agrees to these Gentile Philosophers, who are said, Rom. 1.18, To hold the truth in unrighteousness: i. e. They had some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , commun notions of a Deity, which they cultivated by studiose Contemplation of the invisible perfections of God in his visible works, as ver. 19; and farther, by some broken Tradition; borrowed from the Church of God. Yet all this while, the truth being captivated by their dark minds, they could not see afar off: they had only a purblind light, or as Plato calls it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a night-day knowledge of Divine things, which rendered them only skillful in coining vain imaginations, &c. They may be said to hold the truth in unrighteousness, on a twofold account. (1.) As by their unrighteousness they captivated the Truth: Their unrighteous lusts were too strong for Truth. Or (2.) As they did captivate Truth unrighteously, against all equity and justice. Had they given Truth fair play, it would have dealt roundly with them, and made them sensible of their Crimes; but their unrighteous lusts, did against all rules of equity, unrighteously captivate Truth, that so it might not disturb them in their wicked practices.

§. 2. A Second Cause of the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy, was the human Figments and Inventions of their own, which they mixed with those broken Traditions, they received originally from the Jewish Church; whence the whole of their Philosophy, according to Divine estimation, is judged to be at best but human Invention and Tradition. This is fully laid down, Col. 2.8, Through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, &c. The Apostle seems to strike primarily at the Pythagorean Philosophy, as it appears by the following, verse. 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, which were Pythagorean Doctrines. Thence Grotius, and Hammond out of him, understand this Discourse of the Gnostic Theology, composed for the most part of Pythagorean Principes. Now here the Apostle exhorces them First, That no man make a prey of them through Philosophy. What the proper import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, we shall hereafter show. He says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Grotius observes, that here is the figure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one and the same thing signified by two expressions: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by Philosophy and vain deceit, availeth as much, as if he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the vain deceit of Philosophy. Thence the Apostle proves, that it was vain Philosophy, from its Causes, (which is the highest kind of demonstration) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the tradition of men.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies the Elements, which the Philosophers suppose to be the first principes of Natural bodies. Thence in Philosophy the word was used to signify the first principes, or rudiments of any Science, which have an analogy with the natural elements. So that by rudiments, or elements of this world, is evidently meant those principe, of Philosophy, which had their main origin from the world; that is, the invention of man, though grounded on some Jewish traditions. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not according to Christ: i. e. says Grotius, Not such rudiments or institutions, which were brought by Christ from Heaven. 'It is true, much of their Philosophy, its first Rudiments and Elements, descended originally from Heaven by Christ. For, as it hath been proved, the chief principes of all Philosophy were but corrupt traductions, or broken traditions derived originally from God's sacred Oracles: Ay, but in as much as the manner of traduction, or conveighance was but human, not according to God's Ordinance; yea very broken and imperfect; and moreover, these purblind Philosophers mixed their own figments and inventions with their Jewish Traditions, which they understood not, neither emproved to any other use or end, than a little to elevate their own commun principes; hence the Apostle stiles the whole of their Principes and Philosophy but Traditions of men, worldly rudiments, which were partly false, partly imperfect; but wholly vain and useless as to Divine Institution and Instruction of men, in the saving knowledge of God in Christ. Not that the Apostle condemns all Philosophy as vain, because it was of human Invention or Tradition; but his design here, is to preserve these Collossians from the contagious infusions of the Gnostics, and other Heretics, who mixed Pythagoric Traditions and Rudiments, with Divine Revelations and Institutions; and so rendered both vain and useless. This our Apostle over and again inculcates, verse. 20.21, 22, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ to the rudiments of the world, &c. i. e. saith Grotius, Christ has delivered you from this human Institution. He that is dead, is freed from the incommodities of life. Therefore to die here, is taken in the better part, as Rom. 6.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rudiments, are every institution, as Gal. 4.3, 9. Where you will see the reason, why they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rudiments of the world; namely, because they were commun to the Jews with the Gentiles. For there was nothing in these Rites peculiar to the Jews, yea they rather came by God's permission from the Gentiles to the Jews, than from the Jews to the Gentiles. And indeed it is evident, That these Rudiments or Institutes here mentioned, ver. 21, 22, were not Jewish but Pythagorean, (as Grotius observes) which the Gnostics transplanted out of the Pythagorean Philosophy, into their Theology. This further appears by what follows, ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject unto ordinances? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is well known, is a Philosophic term, and signifies to impose a Dogme, or Doctrine, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to impose a Law. The Pythagoreans had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Dogmas, imposed on all their Sect; so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he said it, was a Law to them. Now, says the Apostle, Why do you suffer these Pythagorean Dogmas to be imposed on your Consciences, instead of Christ's Laws? Why do you subject your Consciences to these worldly Rudiments, or Pythagorean Ordinances, which are vain and useless, in point of salvation; as to maters of Faith and worship, &c? Then our Apostle procedes to lay down some of these Pythagorean Dogmas or Ordinances, ver. 21, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That these are no Mosaic Ordinances, is affirmed by Tertullian. Then it follows, ver. 22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the commandments and Doctrines of men. This, says Grotius, ought to be referred to the remoter, namely to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ordinances, ver. 20, which were the inventions of men, not of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are such things as are commanded by men's Laws: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are the Injunctions or Dogmas of the Philosophers. So that we see the sum of our Apostles Discourse, and scope in these forecited places, is, to show the vanity and deceit of this Pythagorean Philosophy, which these Gnostics (pretenders to wisdom) had foisted into their mystic Divinity. And this he doth fully demonstrate from its main cause; namely, that all these Pythagoric Principes (which these foolish Gnostics so much doted on) were but men's Traditions and worldly Rudiments, as ver. 8, or Dogmas, Mandates and Doctrines of men; as ver. 20, 22: i. e. Though they might have some origin Idea in, and Tradition from God's sacred Oracles; yet, in as much as this Tradition was only human, broken and corrupt, and no way apprehended, much less rightly improved, but rather abused to vanity, pride and idolatry, by these foolish Sophists; hence the whole of their Philosophy, according to Divine estimation, was judged at best but of human. Invention and Tradition; and therefore vain and deceitful, when made the measure of Divine things, or rule of faith and worship, as here it was. And this indeed the wiser of the Philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato, seemed sensible of; as also of their need of an higher and more Divine light, than what they had attained unto by Traditions received, and the improvements of their own natural principes thereon. What else mean those Pythagoric Symbols, Look not in a glass by Candle-light? Discourse not of Pythagorean things without light, &c. And Plato gives us many great acknowlegements of his natural ignorance, and of the need he had of a Divine light, to direct him into the knowledge of Divine Mysteries, &c.

§. 3. Another Cause of the corruption and vanity of Philosophy, was Curiositie, and affectation of Novitie. This is more than hinted in that of the Apostle, Col. 2.18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. (says Grotius ) Penetrating into those things, which he hath not seen or known; claiming a privilege of discoursing concerning things unknown or hidden. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Glossarie, signifies to dive or pry into. It is placed for the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 19.51. They preferred Angels to what Offices they pleased, coining Names for them, distributing them into Classes, &c. Schmidius renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Invading, or proudly intruding on things he hath not seen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , properly signifies, to place the foot on somewhat; and thence sometimes, proudly to undertake a mater beyond a man's capacity. Our Apostle here strikes immediately at the Pythagorizing Gnostics, their proud and curious speculations, concerning the Pythagorean Aeones or Angels; whose Natures, Proprieties, Orders and Offices, they so busily, but vainly pryed into: As after them, the Popish Monks and Schoolmen, who exactly follow the Gnostics and Pythagoreans herein; and so are without dout struck at here, by this Apostolic charge. This curious inquisitive humor was an original sin amongst the Greek Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans; who having had some dark notices of Divine Jewish Mysteries, were greatly inquisitive into them, even beyond sobriety and modesty; in so much, that being, as it were, drunken with their own curious conceits and speculations, they grew extreme vain in all their Imaginations and Philosophy. This sin of curiosity, and affectation of novitie, was that which Luke charged upon the Athenians, as the source of their vain Philosophemes, Act. 17.18, 21. ver. 18, we are told, that he was encountered by certain Philosophers, Epicureans and Stoics, who ver. 20, seem very inquisitive to know what Paul's new Doctrine meant; and ver. 21, Luke gives us the root of all their Vain Philosophisings, namely, their Curiositie, who spent their time in nothing else but some new thing. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. they were wholly busied, or, they counted their time in nothing else well spent but in Novities. This humor of Curiositie was that which the Corinthian Sophists or Wise-men were drunken with; for which Paul frequently rebukes them, specially, 1 Cor. 15.32, Awake to righteousness, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says Beza ) to awake, properly belongs to persons Drunken, who at length after sleep grow sober. He speaks here of the sobriety of the mind, to which he exhorts them to return, who had been, as it were, drunken with their many and curious speculations. This itch of Curiositie is that which has ever proved noxious (yea, perniciose where it prevails) not only to Pagan Philosophy, but also to Schole-Divinity; and 'tis like to prove as destructive to Sacred Philologie or Scripture-Criticisme, (according to the Prophetic fears of Pious Usher) if Critics awake not to righteousness. This peccant humor of Curiositie, as Aquinas has well observed in 2a 2ae, Quaes. 167. is not directly opposed to a thorough disquisition and knowledge of Truth, but to the irregular Appetite thereof, or Studies therein; which Irregularitie may be occasioned several ways. As (1.) when our Curiositie leads us to the study of Truth only upon some lower motive or base ends; namely, to feed our Pride, or gratify Lust. (2.) When our very Appetite or desires and studies after knowledge are inordinate and excessive. (3.) When the mater of our Studies and Inquiries is irregular, i. e. things secret, and above our capacities: or else things forbidden and sinful. (4.) When the manner of our disquisitions and contemplations is irregular; which happens sundry ways. [1.] When we are preposterous in our studies, and make that subservient which should be ultimate, and that ultimate which should subserve. [2.] When we violently persue shadows or things less useful, and neglect substantials or maters of moment, &c. [3.] When all is done in our own strength and confidence. Al these pieces of Curiositie the Pythagoreans, with the rest of the Philosophers, were greatly guilty of, which rendered their Philosophy exceeding vain and degenerate: and the Schole-men have herein followed, if not out-gone them.

§. 4. Another great Mother-root of the Vanity of Philosophy, was Spiritual Pride, which attended and influenced all the Disquisitions and Contemplations of those Pagan Philosophers. This is sufficiently expressed by our Apostle, in his forecited caution to the Colossians, Chap. 2. ver. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says Grotius ) here is spoken of human Knowlege, not reveled by God. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken, Matt. 16.17. This knowledge swells them like to the wind. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we have 1 Cor. 4.6, 18, 19, &c. They much pleased themselves in vain matters, as Ezech. 13.3. It is most evident, that our Apostle pursues his great undertaking begun ver. 8, to prove this Gnostic Theology, composed for the most part of Pythagorean Philosophy, to be vain and deceitful. He had shown, in the former part of the Verse, the Vanity of these their Pythagorean speculations from the Curiositie that attended them: he here procedes to a more pregnant Cause, which had an universal influence both on the Curiositie and Vanity of their Philosophy; and that was their Pride. Vainly puffed up, i. e. swollen with Pride, as an empty Bubble or Bladder full of nothing but Wind; which all procedes originally from their fleshly mind, i. e. as Grotius well observes, their human knowledge or Philosophy; which springing from their proud carnal minds tended to no other than the puffing up and exaltation of carnal self or fleshly interest: For we know nothing ascends higher than its spring-head and origin: When the proud fleshly mind is the source, proud fleshly self will be the center or end of all our contemplations. We have the like anatomie of Vain Philosophy, 1 Cor. 8.1, 2. Ver. 1, Knowledge puffeth up, but Charity edifieth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He doth, as some conceive, here also strike at those Pythagorizing Gnostics, who were carnal Gospellers, but yet pretended to an high spiritual 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Knowlege; whence they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Gnostics: which is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sophists or Wise men; whose pretended Wisdom or Theology was nothing else but a degenerate composition of Judaism and Pythagorean Philosophy; which puffed them up with a proud, vain, windy conceit of, I know not what, Mystic knowledge. Thence saith the Apostle, Knowledge puffeth up, &c. So it follows, Vers. 2, If any man thinketh he knoweth anything, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. says Grotius, if any man pleaseth (or prides) himself in this, That he is ingeniose, that he is learned, that he knows Dialectic Disputations, or is skilled in Philosophy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here notes one that fondly conceits, presumes, or arrogantly persuades himself, that he knows something: It imports a proud self flaterie and groundless presumption of what he hath not indeed. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He does in no wise know anything as he ought to know it. i. e. He is ignorant of the principal thing. That Knowlege is not saving which tends not to love. To know as one ought, is to use his Knowlege for the salvation of himself and others. The sum of all is this, That conceited, windy, empty, speculative Knowlege or Philosophy does but puff up the mind, and sil it with Pride, Vanity and Ostentation; which is but conceited Ignorance. And this was an Epidemic Disease and Universal Contagion, which tainted all Pagan Philosophy and Philosophers, though some had more skil than others to conceal their Pride and Vanities under modest Titles and Habits, as Pythagoras, Socrates, and Diogenes the Cynic, &c. Yea this original sin of Pride and Vanity so much reigned amongst these first Philosophers, as that they themselves could easily discern it in each other, although they could not or would not see it in themselves. Thus Plato and Diogenes accuse each other, as Diogenes Laertius, in the Life of Diogenes the Cynic, informs us: Diogenes, says he, trampled upon Plato 's Bed (where he Philosophised) saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I tread upon Plato 's vain study. To whom Plato replies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , O Diogenes, how much Pride dost thou discover, in seeming not to be proud (but to tread on others Pride)? So Antisthenes, seeing the Vessel wherein Plato 's Vomit lay, said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I see Plato 's Choler, but I donit see his Pride; meaning that Plato 's Pride was too deeply rooted to be vomited up. This Spiritual Pride was an universal contagion which infected all the Philosophers: Whence, says Minutius Felix, We contemn the proud looks of the Philosophers, whom we know to be Corrupters, and Adulterers, and Tyrants, and yet always eloquent against their own vices. We Christians) who boast not of our wisdom by habit, but keep it in our mind, do not speak, but live great things. Now the Pride of these Pagan Philosophers rendered their Philosophy and Imaginations vain in these particulars.

1. In that they endeavored to measure things Reveled and Divine (concerning which they had received some broken notices by Jewish Traditions) by their corrupt, proud, and vain understandings. Thence, says Minutius Felix, It is a piece of the greatest sacrilege to seek that on the ground which thou oughtest to find above. And indeed there is nothing in the World, that hath been a greater enemy to God's Word, or Divine Revelation, than proud and vain Philosophy: which, albeit it received the first rudiments and elements of all its contemplations about God and Divine Mysteries from the sacred Oracles, yet hath it ever rejected, yea opposed the same, endeavoring, by its vain and curious searches into sacred Mysteries, to comprehend and reduce the same to the measure of its proud conceivings.

2. The Pride of their vain Philosophy, appears in their intemperate desires of Knowlege, which indeed is of all the worst intemperance. So Seneca: To desire to know more than we ought, is an high degree of intemperance.

3. The Pride and Vanity of Pagan Philosophy appeared in their busy Disputes and Contemplations about trifles and unprofitable maters. This Plato himself was sensible of, when he said, (in his Meno, ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We account such mad, whom some count most wise. And Calvin pronounceth universally of such vain Philosophers, Sedulo in hoc omnes incumbunt, ne abs{que} ration insipere viderentur, They all labor with all their might in this, that they might not seem to play the fool without Reason. We find this proud vain Philosopher notably Characterised by Paul, 1 Tim. 6.4, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He is puffed up (as hydropical bodies, or Toads swollen with poison) with his aerial, proud, vain speculations, without true solid knowledge which humbles, &c. of which hereafter.

4. That which rendered the proud Philosophers so vain in their Disquisitions and Inquiries, was the peculiar curse of God upon them for their Pride. This was observed by some of the soberest amongst themselves. For Chilo (as Diogenes Laertius ) being asked, what Jupiter did? Answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He casts down the high things, and lifts up the low. This is more fully expressed by the Spirit of God, 1 Tim. 3.6. Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the novice in Christ's Schole is dehorted from Pride, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , lest being lifted up, or waxing mad, [So Physicians cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one that labors under a Frenzy. ] he falls into the condemnation of the Devil i. e. passively, the Devils cursed condition, &c. Thus through the Fever of their Pride they lost the understanding of their frail condition. God is said to resist the proud: And thus he did those proud Philosophers, by leaving them to be entangled and ensnared in their own proud Imaginations, and Philosophic Contemplations.

5. Hence this Pride of their hearts caused their Philosophy to determine in Atheism, Blasphemy, Idolatry and Sensuality. For God leaving them in judgment to their own proud Imaginations, they fell first into doutful Disputations, thence into Sceptic Conclusions, and at last arrived unto Atheism, Blasphemy and Sensuality: for their Skepticism ended in Epicureanism, as we shall after show. And all proceeded from the Pride of their hearts, according to that prophetic saying of the Psalmist, Ps. 10.4, The wicked through the pride of his countenance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is causal, denoting the cause of all their Atheism to be Pride. The Countenance is here put as that which is the Index of the heart. The Targum reads it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his spirit. God is not in all his thoughts, or all his thoughts are, that there is no God. This is the effect of all his proud vain Philosophy, to believe there is no God. It is certain, that Atheism was the effect of proud Philosophy, as hereafter.

It's a good observation of Senault, that sober Jansenist:

What greater Pride can there be than this, for a man to say, unless he be lest to his own corrupt will, he will do nothing? Which was the case of the Stoics, and most Philosophers, who walked in the sparks of their own fire, pleased themselves in their own abilities, both Contemplative and Active, but had not the least regard to God's glory. It was well observed by Austin, That they who will ascend to God, must descend in self-abasement and humility. The further from Pride, the nearer to God: He that ascends in himself, descends and falls from God. Pride and Vain-glory are the prime elements of vain Philosophy; whereas sacred and sound Philosophy is sounded in Humility. Ships that are heaviest loden, fail lowest: So a Mind laden with sound Philosophy is most humble.

§. 5. The Vanity of Philosophy sprang much from the carnal presumptions or confidences of these Philosophers in their own wisdom or conceited ignorance. This was another Master-Vice, which originally sprang from the forementioned Pride of their hearts, and had a potent influence on the Vanity of their Philosophy. This also is implied in Paul 's Anatomy of the Pythagorizing Gnostics, their proud vain Philosophy, Col. 2.18, Vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind, i. e. by carnal presumption and confidence on their own fleshly human wisdom. So Hab. 2.4, we read of an heart lifted up, i. e. with its own swelling proud confidences, or self-dependences on its own wisdom and strength; which indeed turns the best human Knowlege into the worst ignorance: Whence, says Seneca, (de Tranquil.) I think many might have attained to wisdom, if they had not thought they had already attained to it. Therefore we are unwilling to learn, because we conceit ourselves already learned. If thou desirest to learn, or know anything with profit, learn first to know thine own ignorance. There is nothing that proud nature more affects, than to be reputed wise; and thence it is most prone to slater itself into a fond presumption of its own knowledge; and so to aquiesce therein. It's rare, that such as are wise in their own conceit, have so much humility as to suffer themselves to be taught by others. Whence it is accounted by wise-men better to have little of knowledge with humility, and a teachable heart, than treasures of Sciences with vain self-complacence and confidence. For affected Ignorance is usually the fruit of such presumptuous confidence: When ever a man leans on his own understanding, he usually falls into some conceited Folly, or vain Imaginations. This Aristotle, Rhet. l. 2. c. 14. makes the cause why young men, or Novices, so often fall into foolish, indeliberate actions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Young men think they know all things, and thence are strong in confidences. And as this is usually the crime of Novices in Philosophy, so was it generally of all the Pagan Philosophers; and so the root of much Vanity in their Philosophy. Man indeed naturally affects a kind of Divinity: he would fain (with his first Parent Adam ) be a God to himself, and thence he makes an Idol of his own wisdom, which is an high piece of Idolatry, and therefore provokes the great God, to leave such to all manner of foolish conceits, and vanity of Imagination. That this was a main cause of those vain Pagan Philosophisings, is excellently laid open by Owen, Theolog. l. 1. c. 7.

These their endeavors being grounded only on the presumption of their own wisdom and parts, proved altogether vain. This Socrates, one of the wisest of them, seems sensible of, as Plato in his Al ibiades brings him in thus Philosophising: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou knowest that errors in practice come from this ignorance, that men think they know what they know not, &c. Then he adds, When men are conscious of their own ignorance, they are willing to be taught by others. Agen, But believe me and the famose Delphic Oracle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Know thyself. This Plato, in his Charmides, ingenuously confesseth; Many have erred from their scope, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by trusting to their own opinion without judgment. Agen, It is a great piece of temperance for a man to know himself. It would be a great advantage, if none would act beyond their knowledge and strength. We seem to know all things, but indeed we are ignorant of everything. It is an absurd thing to Philosophise of things we know not: When any attemtes a thing above his strength, he greatly errs. Thus Plato, out of what he had learnt from his Master Socrates. So agen in his Legib. 5. Plato discoursing of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , self-love; From this, say he, procedes this great error, that all men esteem their ignorance to be wisdom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whence knowing nothing, we think we know all things. Thence (adds he) not permitting ourselves to be taught what we are ignorant of, we fall into great errors. We have indeed a great saying of Plato, in his Epinom. pag. 980. showing, That we can get no true knowledge of God, but by dependence on, and prayer to him. His words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Trusting in the God's, pray unto them, that thou mayest have right notions of the God's. Thus it shall be, if God as a Guide shall show us the way; only help thou with thy Prayers. Had Plato really practiced what he here teacheth of Faith, Dependence, and Prayer to the true God, it's probable his Philosophy had not been so vain as it is. Lastly, Plato, Legib. 4, tells us, That he who is humble and modest will adhere to Divine Justice: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. But he that is lifted up in his own proud confidences, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as though he wanted no Guide or Governer, he is deserted by God; and being deserted disturbes others; and although he may for a while seem somebody, yet at last he is sufficiently punished by Divine Justice, &c. Which indeed was Plato 's own case, as well as the rest of the Philosophers, whose presumptuous confidences in their own wisdom and reason proved the bane of their Philosophy; as it proved also with the Jews, Rom. 2.17, 18, 19, 20.

§. 6. The Vanity of Philosophy received a great foundation and improvement from their vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Litigations about words and trifles. For we must know, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , That vain contentiose, mode of disputing, so much adored by the Greke Philosophers, had its foundation in the Italic or Pythagoric Schole: For the Eleatic Sect, where it first flourished, was but a branch of the Italic: And Parmenides, with Zeno the Eleatic, who were the great promoters of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Dialectic vain Disputation, did herein, as in other maters, Pythagorise. And the Gnostic Christians sucked in this itching humor of vain Disputation, together with their other Pythagorean Dogmas; which Paul does most professedly set himself to beat down, as that which he, by a Prophetic inspiration, foresaw would prove a mighty Engine to promote Antichrist's throne; as indeed it did, when the Schole-Divinity, which is wholly composed of vain Disputations, came in fashion. Therefore Paul lays in many precautions against this vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Litigiose Dialectic Sophistry, hatched in the Pythagorean and Eleaatic Schools, and foisted into the Christian Theology by the Gnostics, and after them by the Scholastic Divines. And the seat of our Apostles Dehortations against this itch of vain Disputation lies manely in his Epistles to Timothy, who, as supposed, was very much infested by those Pythagorizing Gnostics. So, 1 Tim. 6.3, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , If any one bring in any other Doctrine: Which was the design of the Pythagorizing Gnostics, who abounded at Ephesus, where Timothy had his residence, and endeavored to compose a new Mystic Theology, out of Judaism and Pythagorean Philosophy, tempered with some Christian Dogmas. Thence it follows, and consent not to wholesome words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , says Grotius, answereth to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a Temple-Phrase, belonging to such as approach to the Altar, as Lev. 9.7: as if our Apostle had said, These Gospel-Dogmas are sacred things, and ought to be handled with as much reverence as the Jewish Sacreds were. They are indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wholesome words, without any corrupt or poisonous mixtures; not like the Gnostic Infusions, composed of the venomous ingredients of Rabbinical Fables and Pythagorean Philosophy. And to the Doctrine according unto godliness; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and, is here as oft elsewhere exegetic: For the words of Christ truly are a Doctrine tending unto godliness, whereas those Pythagorean Gnostic contentions tended only to profaneness and licentiousness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. which is both agreeable and conducible unto godliness, as Tit. 1.1. Then it follows ver. 4. He is proud knowing nothing. i. e. He is as an empty vessel filled with nothing but airy speculations, which conduce nothing to true godliness, (as before §. 4, 5;) But doting about questions; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. Physic, Dialectic, or Metaphysic Quaestions and Disputes touching their Aeones, or such-like unintelligible Mysteries, which no way conduce to edification. And strife of words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. says Grotius, There were many disputations amongst the Philosophers merely about words: namely Aristotle and Plato cal such things as conduce to the well-being of the Body and Life, Goods: The Stoic will not have them called so, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Conducibles. The Platonist and Aristotelian, say, A wise man hath mercy: The Stoic will not allow that he hath mercy, but that he spareth. The greatest part of the Stoic Disputations, says Cicero, is spent about words. What more vitiose than to intend a controversy merely about Words? We may add to these the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Pythagoric and Eleatic Schools, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the probationatory, or problematic disputes in the old Academie begun by Socrates and Plato: Also Aristotle 's Dialectic Disputations, with all the sharp contentions in the New Academies, and by the Sceptics, &c. which were all but so many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or needless strifes about words. See more of this in Plutarch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , concerning the various placites, or opinions of Philosophers.

Whence follows Envy, Strife, Railings, evil Surmisings: These, says Grotius, were frequent amongst Philosophers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Envy, was the natural product of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or strife about words. What Envyings and Emulations were there betwixt the Italic and Ionic Sect, the Pythagoreans and Eleatics, the Platonics and the Peripatetics, with the other Sects. Hence follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Strife, or Contention: Such was their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Contentiose Logic, in the Eleatic and Megaric Schools, which was frequently attended with railings; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Blasphemings of each others reputation: all which ended in Evil surmisings. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. says Grotius, evil opinions or vain Philosophy: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to think. Such were the opinions of Diagoras, who held there was no God: Of Epicurus, who asserted that God regarded not human affairs; which also seemeth to be the opinion of Aristotle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Such also were the opinions of the New Academics and Sceptics, who held nothing to be knowable or perceptible; nothing to be in itself shameful, &c. Such were the fruits of this vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we find excellently set forth by Plato in his Repub. 7. from pag. 532, to 539; where discoursing professedly of Dialectic Disputes or Logic, and having opened the nature of it, that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wherein we proceed from some lower Hypothesis, to the first Principes, &c. he procedes to show the Qualities of a good Logician, and evil fruits of contentiose Litigations. And his general direction is, That men study not Logic before they are Thirtie years aged: for, says he, young men engaging in Dialectic Disputes, abuse this Art to contradictions each of other; and so sometimes overcoming, and sometimes being overcome, at last they come to believe nothing: whereas elder Persons, seeking not childlike glory but truth, are more moderate and grave; but young men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. being always used to contradictions, affect, like little Dogs, mutually to overcome each other. Thus Plato. It follows 1 Tim. 6.5, Perverse Disputings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so Jam. 1.22, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , deceiving themselves with a Paralogisme or false dangerous reasoning and dispute. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifies a perverse and inane Disputation or Exercitation, a curious, jejune concertation. It's rendered here by the Syriac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the conflict of the Sons of Man: Or, and the mutual attrition; for those Sophists mutually brought down each other, and by their Scab infected each other. Chrysostom, and Theophylact out of him, render it confrications: For those vain Sophists mutually rubbed each other, like scabbed Sheep, and by their Philosophic confrications or rubbings mutually infected each other. Thence it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. having their minds altogether averse from piety, which is the greatest corruption. Such were these Pythagorizing Gnostics, who albeit they pretended to a sublime mystical 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or knowledge, yet were they professed enemies to Piety, being indeed guilty of unheard-of uncleannesses and wickednesses. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. destitute of all true saving practic knowledge, notwithstanding all their Pythagoric Dogmas and Institutes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. making use of the Christian Religion only as a blind, or politic medium to promove their gain and cover over their sensual designs: Their godliness lies in gain, here lies their Religion or measure of good and evil: whereas, saith he, ver. 6, Godliness with contentment is great gain to a sincere Christian. This is added to the former by an allusive Antanaclasis, as Glassius; or by an Epanorthosis, as Schmidius. The Pseudo-Christians estimed Gain Godliness, i. e. They by their perverse Philosophic Disputations wrested the Scripture and Religion, so as to make all subserve their private Gain: These Nazianzone stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as Hucstered and made Morehandise of Christ. But the Apostle assures us, That godliness is the best gain, i. e. it brings the best profit to men's souls. Thus we see how Paul does here anatomise this Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or contentiose Logic, as the pregnant cause of their Philosophic Emulations, Contentions, Railings, Evil opinions, and all manner of vain Philosophisings. And indeed nothing more natural than that such perverse Disputings should determine in Skepticism and Atheism, as Jansen hath well observed of the Scholemens Disputes. Therefore our Apostle, in the end of this Epistle, does further inculcate this his Exhortation against these vain Disputes, 1 Tim. 6.20, O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being a decomposite of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies a Depositum committed to the trust of another. This Depositum, which Timothy was so charily to keep, was the great Doctrine of the Gospel; which he calls a Depositum, because it is committed by Christ to his Ministers in charge. So 2 Tim. 1.14, we find the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in the same sense, 1 Tim. 1.18. 2 Tim. 2.2. So in the Book called Musar the precepts of the Law are called a Depositum, as some observe. Thence it follows, avoiding profane and vain babblings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the Glossarie, is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vain speech. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here is either a clamor about vain maters, or of vain words; such as agree not with the form of sound Doctrine. Chrysostom understands it of novel words and forms of speech introduced. Theophylact here renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vain discourse or Disputation; which is therefore vain, because it's mater, form, concomitants and effects were all vain and fruitless: It was conversant only about vain maters, Genealogies of the Aeones, &c. and it tended only to vain ends, vain glory, &c. Further, he says these babblings were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not only vain but profane, i. e. they being foisted into sacred Theology, not by God's appointment, but from their own inventions, merely to symbolise with Pagar. Philosophers, &c. they were thence profane. It follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and oppositions. The Greeks interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Contradictions. Much of the glory of these vain Disputers lay in their faculty of contradicting each other. The Peripatetic studies how he might contradict the Academic; the Stoic opposeth both the Peripatetic and the Platonist; the New-Academic and Sceptic all other Sects. Thus were they involved in perpetual contradictions; and the fruit of all these Litigations was no other than a false Science or vain Philosophy. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of Science falsely so called: i. e. Of spinose, frivolous questions, such as assume the name of Science, but deserve not the same. Thence he produceth this Text. True Knowlege is that which profiteth to eternal life. Whence ver. 21 he adds, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. e. These Pythagorizing Gnostics, being swollen with proud conceits, and presumtuose confidences of their own pretended Knowlege and contentiose Philosophy, have deserted the true Orthodox Christian Faith. Paul gives us much the same account in 2 Tim. 2.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23. touching these Gnostic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or vain Disputes, of which in the following Chapter. At present we may take notice that our Apostle, though he strike immediately at the Gnostics who abounded then at Ephesus, yet in them he does propheticly strike through the Schole-Divines, who have, by their vain Aristotelic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rendered not only Philosophic but Divinity also vain and useless.

§. 7. Another cause of the Vanity of all Philosophy, was the Opiniatretie and Dogmatising humor of the Philosophers. This indeed hath an intimate and causal connection with the forementioned vain Disputation. For Self-love produceth in us all a fond conceit of, and regard unto our own Phenomena and Principes: The contradiction of others is as fuel to feed this self-flatering opinion of our own conceived notions. This Self-love or flaterie being engaged to maintain what it hath undertaken, sets the wits on work to contrive, study and dispute for the defense of its espoused persuasion: And the effect of all is a fixed Opiniatretie or abounding in our own sense, and stiff adherence to our own judgments; so that in this case men's stiffness in adhering to their own opinions or persuasions, is not from the force and strength of the reasons on which they are grounded, but rather from the force of their own violent Self-love. For when the strength of adherence to any opinion ariseth from grounded reasons, it will be either stronger or weaker, according to the force of those Reasons on which our Opinions are grounded: so that if we cannot show some proper motive or particular reason, as strong as the Opinion we espouse, it is apparent that the said Opinion is founded on assectionate Opiniatretie rather than on grounded Reason. This was the general fate of those Greek Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans, with whom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he said it, had the force of a first Principe or the most binding Reason. They generally affected 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be slaves to their own Hypothesis, rather than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to sacrifice to truth. Aristotle gives us a good character of a Philosopher, that he should be a slave to truth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the abandoning his own persuasions: which is quite contrary to this philosophic humor of Dogmatising Opiniatretie, which makes men to abandon Truth for the preservation of their own Phenomena. This seems struck at by the Apostle in that Col. 2.20, Why are ye subject to ordinances? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. Why do you suffer yourselves to be imposed on by those Pythagorean Gnostics, who would fain bring you under the yoke and bondage of their Pythagorean Dogmas, ver. 21, 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among the Grecians signified primarilie a placit, or confirmed, established opinion of any Sect; and thence an Institute, Edict, Decree. Whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primarilie imports to give a sentence, to impose an opinion, or tenaciously to adhere to an opinion. Thence it is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to suspend assent, or to hesitate: which kind of Suspension and Hesitation the Academics and Sceptics affected. It was a great question amongst the Philosophers, whether those of the Old Academie, namely Plato and his followers, might be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and it is generally concluded in the affirmative. Yea some would bring in those of the New Academie, who seemed most averse from this humor, under this mode of Dogmatising or Opiniatretie: For, say they, their stiff and tenacious adhering to this Persuasion and Dogme, That there is nothing knowable, is a great degree of Dogmatising. Though the Sceptics endeavored to avoid this imputation of Dogmatising, by affirming, That they gave not a dogmatic assent to those Sceptic propositions, viz. Nothing is knowable, I assert nothing, &c. Yet certain it is they were too opiniatre, tenacious, and stiff in renouncing those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , commun notions of a Deity so deeply engraven on human nature, (for their Sceptisme determined in Atheism) which is an hellish piece of Opiniatretie or Dogmatising.

§. 8. Another poisonous root which infected and tainted all Pagan Philosophy, was the carnal policy of their Philosophers; which appeared many ways. (1.) In their conceling the Authors and origin of those Scriptural Traditions they borrowed from the Jews. (2.) In their clothing these Jewish Traditions with a Grecian fabulous Garbe, thereby to make them seem their own. (3.) In conceling their own Ignorance of those Jewish Dogmas, on which they so boldly Philosophised under mystical, unintelligible Termes and Fables, like Apollo 's Oracles, &c. (4.) In converting all their traditional and invented Philosophy, to a subservience to their carnal Interest or superstitious Idolatrical designs, &c. These and such-like were the branches of their Carnal Policy, which rendered their Philosophy so vain and useless. We find this Philosophic craft well described in the Platonic definitions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Craft is an affection whereby he that hath it is enabled to design and promove his private end. But we have it more fully unbowelled by the Spirit of God, specially Psal. 119.113, I hate vain thoughts. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 French: les Discours, i. e. the vain and fraudulent Discourses of carnal sapience, contrary to the simplicity of Faith and that obedience due to God. So agen, ver. 118, for their tromperie is falsehood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. their cautelose Artifices, on which they trust, shall in the end deceive themselves, they being not able by all their cunning to avoid thy judgment: or, they are to thee abominable, in as much as in all their train and politic wiles there is nothing but fraud. So agen, verse. 128, Therefore I approve as right 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all thy commandments of all things, but I hate every false way, i. e. all Carnal Policy and shifts. The like ver. 163, I hate and abhor lying, i. e. politic craft, &c. And the Apostle seems to strike directly at this Carnal Policy of the Greek Philosophers, 1 Cor. 2.6, Not the wisdom of this world, nor of the Princes of this world, that come to naught. Grotius and Deodate understand this last clause of false reason of state, or politic prudence of the worlds Grandees, which directly opposeth the Kingdom of Christ, Matt. 11.25. 1 Cor. 2.2. And we need not dout, but that the Apostle here takes in the worldly wisdom and politic prudence not only of Statesmen, but also of the Philosophers who passed for Princes and Rulers of this World, specially the Pythagoreans, who were great Statesmen and Politicians as well as Philosophers. This Carnal Policy was the great engine of the Gnostics, those sensual professors, who, to symbolise and keep fair both with Jews and Gentiles, composed a politic and flesh-pleasing Theology of worldly Rudiments and Elements, partly Pythagorean and partly Jewish, as before on Col. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, wherein Antichrist and his Adherents (as in other Institutes) have exactly followed them, as hereafter.

§. 9. The great judicial Cause, which rendered all Pagan Philosophy vain and cursed, was Judiciarie Hardness of heart and Blindness of mind; or God's delivering those Pagan Philosophers up to spiritual Occecation, Blindness and Hardness of heart. This was the effect of all the former causes, and a great cause of all their vain Philosophy, as we find it fully laid down by the Apostle, Rom. 1.18, 21, &c. Vers. 18, he says, The wrath of God was reveled from heaven, against such as hold the truth in unrighteousness. We must know, the Apostle in these Verses discourseth of the Gentile 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Philosophers, as ver. 22. And I conceive principally of the Pythagoreans, who were of the Italic Sect, and therefore flourished at Rome. Now of these Paul says, That the wrath of God was reveled against them, because they held the truth in unrighteousness, i. e. whatever knowledge of Divine truth they had acquired either from Jewish Tradition, or from the Improvements of their own commun Principes, by which they were capacitated to contemplate the invisible perfections of God in the visible creatures, it was all captivated by, and made subservient to their lusts; whence God gave them up to their own vain Imaginations and foolish hearts, as verse. 21, Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, i. e. Their knowledge was not active. Neither were thankful, i. e. They ascribed not the glory and praise of their Philosophic contemplations unto God, they owned not him as the Sun of righteousness, whence all these rays of human knowledge sprang: but they attributed all their Philosophic attainments to their own parts, Sagacitie and Disquisitions; and so improved all for the greatening and advancing of themselves, their Idolwisdome, &c. Whence it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , They waxed vain in their Discourses, Reasonings or Philosophisings: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Philosophy term, the manner of Disputing amongst the Ancients both Jews and Grecians being by Dialogues. The meaning is, all their Philosophic reasonings and disputes proved by God's secret judicial dereliction and permission of them vain, yea cursed. And thence it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. e. (says Grotius ) Such as the sin was, such was the punishment. They shook off the light of Reason and God took away the remainders, as Eph. 4.18. So verse. 22, Professing themselves wise. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. glorying in their wisdom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they were made fools: God in his righteous judgment befooling them. Which is more fully explained, verse. 28, as they did not like, &c. Here is an elegant Paranomasia or allusion in the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they reprobate or reject God in their knowledge, and God gives them up to a reprobate or drossy mind. So we read of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , reprobate money, i. e. drossy, &c. Justly does God leave such to a reprobate mind who reprobate him.

10. We might mention also, as another fruitful womb of vain Philosophy amongst the Pagans, the universal Inclination of all, more or less, unto Idolatry and Superstition, as Rom. 1.23, 24, 25, 26, which is, Act. 17.18, applied to their Philosophers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but of this more in the effects of vain Philosophy, B. 2. Chap. 1.

11. Lastly, Mythologic or fabulous imitation of Divine Truths and Mysteries might also be mentioned, as that which had a great influential causality on the vanity of the Pythagorean, as of all other Philosophic: Of which we have already largely treated in the causes of Mythologic Philosophy, Part. 2. B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, &c.

CHAP. II. The Vanity of Philosophy from its Mater, Parts, &c.

(1.) The Vanity of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or contentiose Logic, &c. Rom. 1.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Phil. 2.14. 1 Tim. 1.6. Aristotle 's Logic, how it became so Eristic by the Arabians and Schoolmen. A general consent of the learned against Eristic Logic, 1 Cor. 14.20. (2.) The vanity of Physiologie, 1 Cor. 1.20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what. Rom. 1.20. 1 Cor. 2.6. Physiologie the cause of idolatry, Rom. 21.23, &c. (3.) The vanity of the Mathematics, its influence on Idolatry and Atheism. (4.) The vanity of Ethics, Eph. 5.6. 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Defects of Ethics, [1.] as to its mater. [2.] As to its ends amongst the Romans and Stoics. [3.] As to its Rule, which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . [4.] As to its principe, which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Freewil, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Good-nature, or seeds of Virtue. Socrates opposed that Stoic Principe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. This Philosophic Free-will the root of Pelagianism: No moral virtue but what is supernatural, against the Schoolmen. The defects of Philosophic Ethics, as to supernatural principes, Faith, Love, &c. [5.] The Vanity of their Politics, 1 Cor. 1.20, both comparatively and absolutely, as the root of Atheism and Idolatry, &c.

§. 1. WE have hitherto only considered the vanity of Philosophy in its Causes and Roots; we shall now proceed to demonstrate the said vanity of Philosophy from its own essential Idea or Nature, Parts, and Proprieties. The essential Idea, Nature, and parts of Philosophy (as of other things) consist in its Mater and Form; both of which have great mixture of vanity in them. As for the mater of Philosophy, it contains Naturals, Morals, and Supernaturals. Natural Philosophy comprehends Logic, Physics, and Mathematics. Concerning Logic, we have no full mention of the Pythagoreans being much versed herein; yet are we not without some concluding, though indirect Arguments of their skil herein. For Porphyry tells us, That Pythagoras had, besides his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a plain and familiar way of Philosophising. And we have already shewn, how that Parmenides and Zeno the Eleatics (who belonged to the Italic Sect) did much Pythagorise, as in other points, so likewise, as we may presume, in this of Logic, of which they are thought to be the first Inventors, at least great promoters; as it appears by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that contentiose mode of Disputing, for which Zeno hath been so famose ever since. As for the vanity of this ancient Dialectic or Logic mode of Philosophising, it hath been already in part demonstrated in the foregoing Chapter, §. 6. But in as much as I find the Spirit of God so much in invectives against this piece of vain Philosophy, (foreseeing that it would prove, as abused by Scholastic Divines, a main engine to pul down the Kingdom of Christ, and settle Antichrist upon his Throne;) I shall follow the sacred method herein, by endeavors to give farther demonstration of the vanity of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contentiose Logic, thereby, if it may be, to open in any degree a door to some more useful kind of Logic in the Schools of Christ. And lest I should be thought singular herein, I shall follow the steps of Lud. Vives, Grotius, Jansen, yea of the Philosophers themselves, in opening the vanity of this contentiose Logic. We find the Apostle accusing the Sophists, (and I conceive particularly the Pythagoreans ) of a vanity in their reasonings, Rom. 1.21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , They became vain in their disputes. For the way of Disputation in the Old Academie was by Dialogues; which mode, I presume, they traduced from the Jewish Schools. And thus Grotius understands these reasonings here:

Thus is truth lost by altercation, Jer. 11.5, by great Essays to act the greatest trifles; such as are not only unprofitable, but damnable to themselves and others, Esa. 41.29. We find the same word used, Phil. 2.14. Disputings. So 1 Tim. 1.6, Paul mentions some who had turned aside, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. to unprofitable dissertation or disputation. They who use such are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Tit. 1.10. This, 1 Tim. 6.4, he terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as ver. 20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which he opposeth to sound Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.6. We find all this fully laid open and confirmed, 2 Tim. 2.14, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. e. be thine Auditors daily remembrancer of this. The Hebrew express it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Paul chargeth him to inculcate this continually on his hearers; yea to charge them as before the Lord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , That they strive not about words to no profit. That this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Contentiose Logic, we have proved from 1 Tim. 6.4, 20, Chap. 1. §. 6. He is the more warm in his exhortation against this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because it was not only unprofitable, but destructive to their Christian Faith and Communion. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the subversion of the hearers. This Paul gives as a good Antidote against the contagiose infusions of the Pythagorizing Gnostics, who by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and strife about words insinuated much of their poisonous Doctrine, as the Schoolmen after them their Antichristian Dogmas. Our Apostle inculcates this caution, ver. 16, calling these strifes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which he says, ver. 17, eat like a gangrene; and ver. 23, foolish and unlearned questions which gender to strife, &c. of which hereafter. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Eristic Logic, began, as we have once and agen hinted, in the Italic and Eleatic Schools, and was improved by those of the Megaric Sect, Euclid, &c. It was also of some use in the Old Academie, passing under the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of great use amongst the New Academies and Sceptics. But none gave so great an advance and perfection to this Dialectic litigiose mode of Philosopising, as Aristotle; who having naturally a mighty Logical Acumen, and the same much improved by study and artificial disputes, made it his business to carp at all such opinions of his predecessors, as were not parallel with his artificial Scheme or Method of Philophising. He spared not his own Master Plato, nor any other whose Dogmas were not commensurate with his Phenomena. And foreseeing that posterity might with the same censorious Rod strike at him, with which he had struck at his foregoers; to prevent the same, he reduced his Philosophy to the most accurate Method, his Logical head could invent; and withal frames a Logic answerable thereto; which he intended not only as a Key or Organ to open the way to his Philosophy, but also as a Shield or Buckler to preserve the same from such blows or objections which posterity might offer against it. And indeed (as Learned Owen hath observed in his Praefat. Theolog. ) Aristotle, in the whole of his Philosophy, seems to design and study more how to defend himself from the objections of others, than to evince truth; which rendered his followers more skillful in hatching intricate controversies, subtle nice distinctions, and wrangling Sophistry, than true solid Philosophy. But yet to give Aristotle his due, I think it may be made evident, that he was not the main Author of this Sophistic kind of Disputation, which now reigns in our Schools, but rather the Arabians, Averroes, Avincenna, his Commentators; who, being wholly unacquainted with the Greek Tongue, were fain to depend upon the versions of Aristotle, which being very imperfect, left them under great darkness and ignorance touching Aristotle 's mind and sense; whence there sprang a world of unintelligible Termes and Distinctions, with as many Sophistic Disputes and Controversies. These the Schoolmen (more barbarous than the Arabians ) greedily licked up (as the Minor Poets Homers vomit) and incorporated with their Theology; which filled the Universities of France, (where this Schole Divinity was first broached) and England (which had continual recourse to Paris for Learning) with nothing but vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or strifes about words, instead of solid Philosophy and Divinity; far worse than what was to be found in the Pagan Schools: Which vain itch of Disputation hath proved the Scab of the Church, as Erasmus, Ludovicus Vives, Sir Thomas More, the Lord Bacon, Sir Henry Wotton, Jansen and Owen, with other Learned men have well observed. Yea, the vanities of this Dialectic Sophistry was observed and decried by many of the old Philosophers. Both the Sect of the Cynics and Stoics (as Diogenes Laertius observes) took away Dialectic Philosophy as vain, holding that our end is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to live virtuosely; which this wrangling Logic no way conduceth to. Aristo Chius the Stoic (saith Diogenes ) compared Dialectic Dissertations to a Spiders Web, which is artificially made but yields no profit. And Plato, Repub. 7. gives us his judgment against this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. It seems to me that there should be no controversy about words amongst such as have so great maters to discourse of. Wiclef was much offended at this kind of Sophistic litigation in maters of Faith: So was Calvin, who affirms, But in this age none hath more amply, fully, and learnedly opened the vanity of this Sophistic, Eristic mode of Disputation, so much Idolised by the Schoolmen, than Jansen, in his August. Tom. 2. Lib. Proaem. Cap. 28, and elsewhere; with Owen, in his Praefat. to his Theolog. also, Lib. 6. Cap. 7. Pag. 512 unto 520. I have insisted the longer on the vanity and corruption of Sophistic Logic, because it hath been, and still is greatly abused and noxious in some of our reformed Universities, to the corrupting the minds of many well-disposed young Students. I must confess myself to have been too far in love with and entangled in this Snare; which had not the Lord by his sovereign hand of free grace broken and delivered me from, might have proved the ruin, not only of my Studies, but Soul. Thou'lt therefore, Reader, pardon this invective against the corruption of vain Logic; which designs not the utter Rejection, but Reformation of Logic in Reformed Schools. We shall conclude this Digression with the Apostles Exhortation, 1 Cor. 14.20, Brethren, be not children in understanding. But in understanding be men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. like persons adult, Eph. 4.13, who are ashamed to play as Children with baubles and Rattles.

§. 2. The vanity of Pagan Philosophy discovered itself much in their Physics, which are at best dark and cloudy, but for the most part fabulous, grounded only upon some broken Traditions, traduced from Moses 's description of the Creation, Gen. 1, and Job 's Discourses of Meteors, &c. with Solomon 's Natural Philosophy of Plants, Animals, &c. which being but imperfectly traduced unto, and more imperfectly understood by these blind Philosophers, they turned all these Jewish Traditions of the origin of the Universe, of the first principes of Bodies, of Plants, of Animals, &c. into mere Fables, or unintelligible Speculations and Controversies. This vanity of their Physics our Apostle seems to strike at (inclusively if not exclusively) 1 Cor. 1.20, Where is the disputer of this world? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 :

Hence the Syriac Version renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Investigator; and the Arabic by a word that signifies Scrutator: Because such Physiologists spent their whole time in acute Researches and Inquisitions into the Bowels of nature, which afforded infinite vain Disputes. And indeed their Physics did abound with almost as much 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Verbal, Captiose, Sophistic Questions and Controversies, as their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Logic: which made the Cynics, as also the Stoics (who symbolised much in this as in other points) to reject Physics or Natural Philosophy as well as Logic. Socrates also seems to be much of the same persuasion, who perceiving how much his Predecessors, Thales, &c. (who were generally Physiologists) had abused Physics, addictes himself chiefly to Moral Philosophy. The like is reported of Padre Paul, that great Venetian, who finding the vanity of contemplative Philosophy, converted his studies to Active, or Moralitie. But it follows in the same verse 20, Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Fool or Madman, answering to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies here to convince of folie, or make to appear as such, according to the import of Verbes in Hiphil amongst the Hebrews; as if he had said: hath not God made all those pompose contemplations of these proud Philosophists (who have pried into the Bowels of Nature for hidden Philosophy) to appear to be foolish and vain? in that they have not as yet, by all their Natural Philosophy, attained to any true notion and discovery of the first Principe or God of nature, which is the chief end of all natural as well as other Philosophy? So it follows verse. 21: For after that in the wisdom of God the World by wisdom knew not God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which results from the contemplation of Natures Bowels. This answers to that Rom. 1.20, The visible works of God have impressed upon their natures certain visible stamps or legible Characters of the invisible glories of God, which these purblind Physiologists could not, by all their natural Inquisitions, come to any serious reverential acknowlegement of. So much is implied in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is used in the same sense, Joh. 1.10, and answereth to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 1.21. Al their anatomisings of Natures bowels could not give them any true Idea or notion of the first Principe or God of Nature. Which gives us an evident demonstration, that all their Natural Wisdom was but folie, because it reached not its first Principe and last end. Therefore it follows, It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. i. e. Our Gospel, which seems folie to these Sophists, or Naturalists, has availed more to the knowledge of God, than all their Physiologic Contemplations. The same v. 27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise: i.e. Our Gospel, which seems foolish in the worlds eye, in regard of the discoveries it makes of God, leaves a blush and confusion on all the vain Contemplations and Philosophy of these proud Naturalists. We find the like encomium of Gospel-light and depression of Natural Philosophy, 1 Cor. 2.6, Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: Yet not the wisdom of this world. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. (faies Grotius ) not that Physic or Natural Philosophy, of which above Chap. 1.20, &c. This great vanity and folie, which attended the Natural Contemplations or Philosophy of these Pagan Physiologists, proceeded not from any defect in the objective wisdom, or light of Nature, but from the subject; the darkness, pride, lusts, and vanity of their hearts, as Rom. 1.20, 21. The visible works of God have as well since, as before the Fal, sensible images, or visible glorious Ideas of the invisible glories of God, his Wisdom, Power, and Goodness stamped on their Beings and Operations; but the most acute Philosophers (like Seneca 's fool, who went up and down his house complaining the rooms were dark, when as the darkness lay in her eyes), could but go up and down groping after God, by their Physic contemplations, as Act. 17.27. Yea, the most sharp-sighted of these Heathen Philosophers, though by the Divine assistance of some influential rays of commun illumination, they espied some vestigia or obscure impresses of God's glorious Wisdom, Power and Goodness shining in created emanations on his Works; yet were they so far from glorifying God as God, and giving thankful acknowlegement of that commun light they had received, (according to Rom. 1.21.) as that they changed the glory of this incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, &c. Rom. 1.21, 23. i. e. they idolised those Divine Virtues, Powers and Excelences, which they found in the Creatures. Not that the Philosophers or wiser Heathens made the Creatures the ultimate object of their worship; no, that gross Idolatry was peculiar to the Mythologic Poetic Theology: But the great Idolatry of these foolish sophists was, that where they espied any eminent Divine Quality or Power shining in the creature, they idolised that creature so far, as to make it a Mediator or medium of their worship performed to the great God. This they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology, we rather, Idolatry, which was the fruit of their Natural Philosophy; of which more hereafter.

§. 3. What hath been discovered of the vanity, yea Idolatry of the Physiologists, is applicable to the Mathematicians, both Pythagorean, as well as other. Indeed the Mathematics seem to be the soundest, the most pleasant, and most useful piece of their Natural Philosophy; yet it hath not been exemt from much corruption and vanity. For 1. It had the same cursed effect on their corrupt foolish minds, as that Natural Physiologie before mentioned: namely those blind Mathematicians, by continual Astronomic contemplations of those glorious Celestial bodies, fell first into deep admiration of them, their excellent composure and perfection, their excellent virtues and powerful influences on all sublunaries, their admirable order and harmonious regular motions. These and such-like eminent qualities, which shone so brightly, could not (and that justly) but fil them with Admiration. And this Admiration, which should have led them to admire infinitely more the Creator and Conserver of these glorious creatures, was so far from having such an influence, as that it drew their Idol-framing hearts to set down and terminate their Adoration on these creatures, the Sun, Moon and Stars, &c. And this Idolising these Celestial creatures as God's opened also a door to their Judicial Astrology, or the black Devilish Art of Divination by the Stars, wherein the Pythagoreans pretended to have a more than ordinary skil; which Pythagoras brought with him from the Chaldeans, who were the first that fell into this piece of Idolatry or Star-worship, and that from their Astronomic observations and admirations of these Celestial Bodies; as we have afore shewn in the origin of the Chaldean Philosophy, from Job. 31.26, 27. P. 2. B. 1. C. 4. §. 3, 4. Of which more hereafter.

2. Another great Corruption which attended their study of the Mathematics, was, that it determined in Atheism, and that two manner of ways; (1) Indirectly and Consequentially, in that it brought them first into Polytheism, or belief of many God's; which had this fate attending it, that at last it led them to Atheism, to believe there was no God: for Polytheism naturally degenerates into Atheism. (2) But the study of the Mathematics has this more direct influence on blind proud hearts to lead them into Atheism, in that Mathematicians being wholly versed in Demonstrations, and those for the most part ocular and most evident, they cannot bring their proud minds to stoop or assent to anything, no not to Divine Revelation, without a Demonstration. This made Aristotle, who had a Mathematic head, to reject all the Oriental Traditions which his Ancestors Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato had gathered up, touching the origin of things and Divine maters; and rather to believe an Eternity of mater, because those Jewish Traditions were not backed with Demonstrative Arguments. This also made the Epicureans and Stoics reject Paul 's new Doctrine, (albeit they seem at first a little tickled with the novilty of it) because his Testimony was not backed with Demonstrative Arguments; though indeed Paul gave them sufficient Demonstrations, had they had eyes to see them, Act. 17.18, to 30. This Mathematic humor was that which made the Grocians generally offended at the Gospel, accounting it but foolishness, because it was not proved by Demonstrative Reasons and Arguments, as Paul frequently observes, specially 1 Cor. 1.20, 21. & 2.6. of which before. And indeed this has been the sad fate of some great Mathematicians of this, and of former ages, who being wholly taken up in Demonstrations, expect the same in Divine maters; and not finding that footing their Atheistic hearts expect for their Mathematic phantasies to build upon, in order to a Demonstration of the Scriptures authority, &c. they reject all Divine Revelations, yea all true and found notions of a Deity and of the Creation, with inclinations rather to believe the Worlds Eternity, or such like monstrose Phanomena. I wish there were not too many such Mathematic Atheists breathing in Christian air. But of this more hereafter.

§. 4. We proceed to show the vanity and corruption of Moral Philosophy, as well amongst the Pythagorean as other Philosophers. Moral Philosophy (as has been mentioned) regards either single persons, and so it's styled Ethics; or Corporations and Societies, and so it passeth under the name of Politics. Both of these had great corruptions attending them, both in the Italic and Jonic Schools. As for Ethics, it's true, the Pythagoreans with the other Philosophers had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ethic sentences, or Symbolic characters, answering to, and, as I presume, traduced from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Proverbial sayings amongst the Jews: yet we are to remember, that these their Ethic precepts were at best very imperfect, and not without a great mixture of vanity and corruption. As for the Pythagorean Ethics they were very mythologic and enigmatic, wrapped up under such dark symbols and figures, as that it was difficult to come to a true understanding of them. The first that reduced Moral Philosophy to a naked familiar dress was Socrates, who yet was excedeing defective both in his precepts and practice of Moralitie; for Incest, Fornication and Sodomy, were things not only allowed, but the later of them practiced by him, if he be not belied, on his Minion Alcibiades: and Plato brings in Socrates expressing great affection to Alcibiades, telling him that he loved him for himself, &c. which argued an extreme affection towards him. Grotius informs us, that this sin of Sodomy was generally allowed by the Philosophers. So on Ephes. 5.6, Let no man deceive you with vain words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. with vain Reasonings or Philosophy.

Whence the Apostle exhorts them, Ver. 15, To walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He does (says Grotius ) by a witty Paronomasia or allusion cal the Philosophers (those proud Sophists) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unwise, in as much as their Moralitie was but vain and foolish if compared with the Gospel; wherefore he exhorts them, Ver. 14. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. Al their Moral Philosophy was but a dreaming, dead, shadowy light; 'twas Christ only that gave them the true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or light. So 1 Cor. 1.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Where is the wise? So Grotius on 1 Cor. 2.14. The Greek Philosophers were Fornicators, corruptors of youth, hunters of Vain-glory, cursers, envious, &c. Thence saith, Minutius Felix, And indeed it was just with God to leave the wisest and best of their Moralists to fall into sins against nature, who abused their natural light unto so much pride, presumption and vain ostentation. Yea take Moral Philosophic in its highest elevation and refinement, as seated amongst the Stoics, and we shall find it a very poor imperfect vain shadow, if compared with those precepts of Moralitie contained in the Word of God. For first if we consider the mater of all their Philosophic Moralitie, it was very narrow and far short of those Moral duties taught us in the Word of God. (1) The Philosopher's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , right Reason, which they made the measure and rule of their Moralitie, being but crooked and depraved, allowed them many sins, as Incest, Fornication, Sodomy before mentioned, which God's Law forbids. So Grotius on 1 Cor. 5.2, tells us, that both the Cynics and Stoics judged Incest amongst their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , things indifferent. (2) Neither did it give any conviction or prohibition of the first motions or ebullitions of Original Sin. (3) Neither did their Right Reason back its precepts with such forcible promises, motives and threats, from future happiness or punishment, as the Word of God doth.

2. Neither were the Ethics of the Stoics and other Moralists defective, and so vain in the mater and duties only, but also in the principes, form, and manner of Moralitie: For (1) The soul and spirit of all Moralitie is placed, and that by the Philosophers themselves, in the End. For, say they, such as the form is in Naturals, such is the end in Morals and Spirituals; such as the Principe is in Demonstration, such is the end in Action: Or, the end has the same place in Actives, as the Principe has in Speculatives. The persection of everything is measured by its end, which is the term of all actions, as the form is of productions. Now it is most certain, that the chief, yea the only supreme End of all Moralitie (as well as of Divinity) can be no other than the glorifying and enjoying of God; as Augustine long since, and Jansen out of him hath demonstrated, Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 17. pag. 208. And how far these proud Moralists were from this End is apparent to all that are versed in their Ethics. For (1) what was the main End which the ancient Romans (amongst whom the Pythagoreans flourished) proposed as the scope of their Moralitie? surely nothing but Honor, Renown, or Vain-glory; arising from the splendor, luster, or shine of their glittering heroic and seemingly virtuose actions, which rendered all their good works but splendid sins, as Augustine. (2) The Stoics and Peripatetics seem a little more noble and refined in their ends, proposing it as their main design, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to live according to virtue; or, to desire virtue for virtues sake. But what was the virtue they aspired unto? it was a virtue spun out of the bowels of their own free-will: so that they still make Self the objective mater of their felicity: they deify and idolife Self, their own home-spun Virtues. Whence Augustine pronounceth universally of these Stoics,

for (saith he) to live according to the flesh is to live according to a man's Self, his own Virtues, &c. as Jans. Aug. Tom. 2. l. 4. cap. 14.

2. Hence follows another great spring of vanity and corruption in all their Philosophic Moralitie; in that, as they made Self the great standard, measure, and last end, so also the first influential and effective principe of all their good works. They acted all not only for, but also from Self their great God, or Idol, as Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 4.30, BY the might of my power, and FOR the honor of my Majesty. He makes himself his first principe and last end, which is the highest Idolatry. So these proud Moralists they all made self as the last end, so the first spring of Moralitie. For (1) They all supposed those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , commun principes, which some called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , presumtions, or presuppositions of natural light remaining in their corrupt understandings, to be if managed aright a sufficient Rule or Law to guide them in their Morals. Whence these dark glimmerings of corrupt nature were generally styled by the Platonists, as also by the Stoics, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , right reason. Though indeed Plato now and then seems a little modest in acknowlegeing his ignorance, yet generally they supposed an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a right reason, which if well improved might bring them to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or top of their Moralitie. This right reason was in a more particular manner the Stoics (who pass for the greatest Moralists) Diana or Goddess, as we find it excellently observed by Jansen, in his August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 205.

Here we may see whence the Schoolmen borrowed their Recta ratio, right reason, which they make with the Philosophers to be the Regula esse moralis, the rule of Moral Beings and Actions. So Suarez in his 1a 2ae, or Ethics, touching esse Morale, its rule, &c. Yea indeed the Schoolmen herein came much short of many of the more modest Philosophers, namely Socrates and Plato, who make frequent acknowlegements of the imperfection of their Natural light, and therefore by their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seem to understand the objective Divine light, or Law of God, of which I dout not but they had received some notices from Jewish Traditions, as we have proved, Court Gentiles, P. 2. B. 2. c. 10. §. 2. (2.) The Heathen Moralists, both Romans, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics, supposed there was in men a Good-nature, disposition, seeds of Virtue, or Moral Free-will, which if well improved would raise men to the highest elevation of Virtue. This the Romans, (where the Pythagorean Philosophic flourished) called the Elements, or root of Virtue. Some Platonists cal it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Good-nature; The Aristotelics 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Free-will; The Stoics, the seeds of virtue. And none abounded more in this Idolising of their own Free-will than the Stoics, whose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , first truth, or according to the Christians Philosophic, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , first lie, was, That it was in the power of a man's own Free-will to make himself virtuose or wicked, happy or miserable; yea a God if he pleased. So Diogenes Laertius in the life of Zeno tells us, the Stoics held 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. That virtue was teachable, because good men are made of bad. Agen (says he) because reason is given to reasonable creatures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To live rightly according to reason happens to men naturally. He also tells us, that the Cynics held the same principe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that virtue was teachable. Plutarch has a Book thus titled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that virtue is a thing teachable. Yet we must confess that some of the more modest Moralists made it a mater of question, Whether virtue were teachable? Plato, or rather Socrates, in Plato 's words, utterly denies it: so Meno pag. 89, he brings in Socrates thus speaking, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I have often sought if there were any Preceptors of virtue; and doing all I can, I can find none. Whence he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Virtue comes not from nature, neither is it teachable, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by a Divine fate it is produced, without the active concurrence of the mind in those where it is. Thus Socrates in Plato 's Meno, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pag. 99. whereby it seems he had some apprehension of the insufficience of corrupt nature, or Free-will, to afford any spark of true Virtue, and that it must come from some Divine fate. Though what this Divine Fate was, and how Virtue was communicated by him, he was altogether at a loss. Timaeus Locrus the Pythagorean, from whom Plato borrowed the main Ideas of his Physics, asserted seeds of Virtue in corrupt nature. Thus pag. 103, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Principes of these Virtues are from nature, but the middle and end from diligence, with the benefit of Philosophic institution, which nourish and corroborate virtue, as exercises do the body, &c. This Philosophic Dogme of a Moral 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , good nature, free-will, or seminal virtue implanted in corrupt nature is excellently opened to us by Jansen, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256. It's true, (as Jansen before well observes) if we consider Virtue only in regard of its office, duty, or mater, it may not be inconvenient to allow some more noble spirits, some kind of seminal inclinations or radical dispositions to many heroic actions materially good, with which many Noble Romans and Grecians were endowed. But alas! such seminal material dispositions to actions materially good, are but the corps or body of Moralitie, or Virtue; it is the Principes specially the End, that is the soul, which spirits and informs every good act, and renders it truly virtuose: in which regard to suppose with the Philosophers any seeds of virtue in corrupt nature, is to suppose a contradiction, or an opposite in an apposite, i.e. pure nature in corrupt. From this Philosophic Dogme of the seeds of virtue in human nature, the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, Cassianus, &c. drew their Doctrine of Free-will, which Augustine does so greatly inveigh against. This opinion has been since espoused by the Schoolmen, who finding themselves opposed herein by all Christian Catholics, they invented this new stratagem or blind to salve their Phenomena, namely by distinguishing Virtues into Natural or Moral and Supernatural or Divine. Whereas indeed there can be no Virtue truly Moral, but what is also Supernatural or Divine; for according to their own Schole-maxim, Bonum constat ex causis integris, malum ex quolibet defectu, Good must have all its causes, but evil ariseth from any defect. We find this piece of Scholastic vanity or corruption fully laid open by Jansen, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256. That there is no Virtue natural, or truly moral, but what is supernatural, see Court Gent. Part 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 4. Indeed herein the vanity and corruption of the Pelagians and Schoolmen excedes that of the Philosophers: for these having no Divine Revelation to measure Virtue by, but only some dark glimmering of Nature's light, could not attain unto any entire or true Idea and notion thereof, as to its principe and spiritual quality, and therefore no wonder if these poor Philosophers, who by reason of their darkness accounted the picture, shadow, or mater of a good action to be Virtue, supposed an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or some seminal dispositions to the mater of Virtue to be Virtue. But as for the Pelagians and Schoolmen, who have a clear rule to judge of Moral good by, and also confess, that every good action must consist of all its causes; for such to allow of any seeds of Virtue, or Moral Free-will in corrupt Nature, is a piece of pride and vanity far beyond that of the Philosophers.

3. Hence follow many other Essential defects in all the Philosophic Ethics of the Pagan Moralists. (1) We find no one precept in all their Rules of Moralitie, pressing men to spiritual poverty, self-emptiness, &c. which Christ's Ethics make the foundation of Virtue, Mat. 5.3, 4. But we find the quite contrary every-where in the Philosophers Morals, which wholly tends to feed spiritual pride. (2) We find no mention of Christ, and Dependence on Him, which is Essential to every good work. 'It is true, Socrates bids his Friend, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , depend on God, and pray for assistance to perform good acts: But 'tis most probable he knew not what this Dependence meant, or where to pitch it on its right Object: for if he had, he might have been reckoned a Believer, which we have no ground to believe he was, but the contrary. (3) In all their Philosophic Ethics we find not any one word of performing Virtuose Acts out of Filial love to God, which is part of the spirit, or Essential constitution of Moralitie. Many other defects in their Ethics might be mentioned.

§. 6. A second part of Moral Philosophy is Politics, wherein the Philosophers were not a little vain and corrupt. So 1 Cor. 1.20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Where is the Scribe? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (says Grotius ) according to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hellenistic manner of speaking, signifies him that is skilled in the Law or History. So in Baruch. 3.23, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are such as have skil in the Law or History. There was a twofold Scribe among the Hebrews, the one Politic, the other Ecclesiastic. The Politic Scribes were, (1) Ministers of State, such as were the King's Privy Counsellers, or persons constituted in some Office of trust. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Officers, Exod. 5.6, is rendered by the Seventy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Scribes. So Ezra 4.8, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Scribe, notes civil Dignity and Office; whence it is rendered in our Margines, Secretary. (2) There were also among the Hebrews inferior or plebean Scribes, for the making private Contractes, answerable to our public Notaries. The Ecclesiastic Scribe was a Doctor, Expositor, and Interpreter of the Law; whose Office it was to meditate on, expound and vindicate the Law. Scribe here is to be understood chiefly in the last sense, yet not exclusively as to the first notion of it. But we find a more full account of the Vanity of all Philosophic Politics, or Civil Wisdom, 1 Cor. 2.6, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Nor the wisdom of the Princes of this world. He means (says Grotius ) Politic Wisdom, to which belongs Jurisprudence, or skil in Laws and Histories. As if he had said, Take notice, that all these proud Monarchs, notwithstanding all their Politic Laws & Government, are come to naught, or spoiled of all their Politic Designes and Interess. For this seems the proper import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that come to naught. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is said (1) Of that which has lost its efficacitie, as Luk. 13.7. (2) Of that which is abolished and made void. Politic Philosophy has lost its spirits and efficace. So Grotius. The Empires that now are shall perish, as well as those figured by Daniel 's Image, Dan. 2.44, &c. 1. The Vanity of all Human Politics discovers itself by their imperfection if compared with Divine Politics. Human Politics consist of two parts, Legislation and Administration. Legislative Politics had for their main Institutors Minos the Cretian Legislator, Lycurgus who gave Laws to the Lacedemonians, Solon the Athenian Law giver, with Draco. Also amongst the Romans, Numa Pompilius, who gave Laws to Rome; Zaleucus the Locrian Legislator, and Charondas the Thurian, both Pythagoreans. Amongst the Philosophers, who gave an Idea both of Legislative and Administrative Politics, we have first Pythagoras, who spent the Afternoon in instructing his Disciples in Politics; besides his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Laertius says he writ. Also Plato who left behind him an excellent Idea of Politics, both Legislative, in his several Books of Laws, and Administrative, in his Books of a Communwealth. Aristotle likewise has given us a good Idea of Politics. Yet all these Human Politics, both Philosophic, or Contemplative and Active, if compared with Divine seem but shadows, very imperfect, yea vain: for (1) Al these Human Politics were but broken imperfect derivations or traditions from the Divine Jewish Politics; as elsewhere. (2) Al Human Politics were very narrow and particular, not general and comprehensive of particular circumstances. Therefore Aristotle, lib. 1. Polit. observes well, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Al things are most evident to such as consider particulars, but they who pronounce universally, deceiving deceive themselves. So Trajan in his directions to Pliny, says, That nothing could be constituted universally as a certain form. (3) Hence it follows, that all their general Laws and Politic Precepts, whether Ideal or Practic, were liable to a world of Exceptions, Restrictions, Limitations and Alterations: for their best Idea of Politics was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the most part, not universally true and good; because particulars, the object thereof, are infinite. Hence, says Aristotle, Rhet. l. 1. c. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , no Art considers (or comprehends) particulars, because infinite: which is most true of all their Human Politics, which could not consider or comprehend those infinite circumstances which attend Human actions; and therefore such of them as ventured to lay down an universal Idea, or general Rules of Politics, discovered much vanity and imperfection; besides the many Exceptions they were fain to admit: and after all their most possible exactness in their Politic Constitutions, they were forced to have recourse to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Law of Equity, or Court of Chancery, for the emendation, correction, or supplement of such things as were not excepted or provided for in their universal Idea of Politics. But now the Divine Politics admit not of such imperfections; because the Divine Law is the most August, Equal, Universal, Adequate Rule of all Politics, as well as Ecclesiastics, as we have copiosely proved, Idea Theolog. l. 1. c. 8. 2 These Human Philosophic Politics are not only imperfect and vain comparatively in regard of Divine Politics, but likewise in themselves, in regard of that Corruption, both inherent and subsequent, which attends them. As (1) in regard of their End, in that they made their carnal Interest the only measure of Good and Evil, without the least respect to Divine Interest, or Glory, as before. (2) The mater of their Politics was very corrupt, in that they allowed many things in themselves evil, and very destructive to Human Societies: as Communitie of Wives, Fornication, Incest, Sodomy, Drunkenesse, &c. (3) But the greatest Corruption in their Human Politics was in regard of their sad effects many ways. [1] In that all their Politics were the mother and nurse of Atheism: For (1) they made Religion subserve their Politic Interests and Constitutions. So Owen Theol l. 1. c. 8.

Such was Numa 's Politic Religion with the rest. (2) Their Politics were the mother and nurse of Atheism, in that these great Politicians attributed the good or il success of Human affairs to their Politic wisdom or contrivances. In which regard they made their Human Prudence their God, or great Idol, unto which all the great occurrences and dispositions of Providence must stoop, which opened the door to Atheism, and shut God out of the World. [2] The Philosophic Politics opened the door also to Idolatry: for these Politicians had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Politic Religion, which out of compliance with the people's Idolatry humor proved a great nurse to Idolatry, as hereafter.

CHAP. III. The Vanity of Metaphysics, or Natural Theology, and Divination.

The Pythagorean Philosophic Theology of all most vain. (1) In regard of God: [1] They understood not their own notions of God; [2] Nor the Trinity; [3] Nor their Ideas. (2) The vanity of their Theology as to the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Word, and Demon-Doctrines. Col. 2.8, 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. really, essentially, perfectly. Col. 2.10, 18, 19, largely opened. (3) The vanity of their Daemon-worship. (4) Also of their notions about the Soul. (5) The hellish corruption of their Magic and Divination, which they took up in imitation of the Jewish modes of Revelation. Their Art of Divination part of their Doctrines of Demons. 1 Tim. 4.1. Apollo their great God of Divination, his Origin and Temple at Delphus, &c. The nature of Divination out of Plato, (1) Its origin, Divine afflation. (2) Its instruments, at first Poets, then Philosophers. (3) This mode of Divination usually extatic. (4) Also by Enthusiasm. (5) These Enthusiasts had their Judges, as the Jewish. (6) The End of Divination. (7) The sundry kinds of Divination, by Dreams, Maladies, &c. (8) Divination by Magic: of Apollonius Tyanaeus: 1 Tim. 4.1. (9) Divination by Animals, Plants, Men, Elements, Stars, and things artificial, Glasses, Axes, &c.

§. 1. HAving discoursed of the Vanity of Philosophy in Naturals and Morals, we now proceed to the Vanity of its Metaphysics, or Supernatural Philosophy, which contains Natural Theology, and Divination. As for the Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology, there was none more famose than that of the Pythagoreans, which came the nearest of any to the Scripture Theology, and yet was nevertheless corrupt. Yea indeed there seems to be this peculiar curse on the Pythagorean Natural Theology, that though it came the nearest of any to Divine Theology, yet was it the most corrupt of all both in itself, as also in its effects. For none more devoted to Superstition and Idolatry than the Pythagoreans; none greater Heresiarches, or founders of Heresy in the Christian Church than they. This we may look upon as procedeing from a particular curse of God upon this, as on all other Human Inventions in Divine Maters, which usually the nearer ressemblance they have with Divine Institutions, the more are they blasted by God, even to the turning aside and subverting such as depend upon them. Thus the case stood with these Pythagoreans, as well as with the rest of the Philosophers; who finding themselves fallen from that Natural Theology their first Parents were possessed withal, and which their natures still retained some Physical and more remote capacity unto, they studied all ways possible to recover the same: in order whereto having acquired some broken Jewish Traditions of that new model of Religion God was pleased to vouchsafe unto his Church, they hoped by the improvement of their own 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , commun principes, on these rudiments or foundations received from the Jewish Church, to erect a new frame or body of Natural Divinity, in lieu of that which they found themselves deprived of. Which design of theirs proved altogether abortive; yea so far were these blind Philosophers from reaching their End of attaining a new edition of that Natural Theology they had lost by the Fal, as that all their attempts and studies in order hereto serve only the more effectually to envelop and entangle them in grosser ignorance, Atheism, Superstition, and Idolatry. This has been excellently opened to us by Owen, Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 7. where having laid open the design of the new Platonists, after the breaking forth of the Gospel to reform Philosophy, so as to make it a Vicarious Natural Theology, he adds the same of the Pythagorean Philosophy:

Such were the miserable effects of their proud and vain attempts, by which hoping and endeavoring to restore themselves to their ancient inheritance of Natural Theology, founded on the Covenant of Works, and possessed by their first Parents in the Golden age of Innocence, they fell into greater bondage of Superstition and Idolatry. But to treat more particularly of the corruption of this Philosophic Natural Theology, we shall consider it (1) In its Ultimate object. (2) In its Mediate object. (3) In its parts.

§. 2. As for the ultimate and supreme Object of their Metaphysics or Natural Theology, it was God the first Eternal Being, and last end of all things. And here it cannot be denied but that the Pythagoreans, and Platonists after them, had many good Metaphysic Contemplations of God, as the first Being and last End; also of his Divine Perfections and Ideas, as we shall Demonstrate Part. 4. B. 2. Yet these their Metaphysic notions of God were not without great mixture of vanity and corruption. For (1) few or none understood their own Philosophic notions touching God, their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. but receiving the foundations of these Metaphysic Contemplations from Scriptural Traditions, as Exod. 3.14. or the like, they Philosophised thereon, without right conception of the things of which they discoursed. This seems more than hinted in Paul 's observation touching the Athenian Altar, To the unknown God, Act. 17.23. That there was a God the wiser of these blind Grecians knew, partly by Tradition, partly by the improvement of their own commun Principes: but what, or who this God was, that was to them a thing unknown; and therefore some suppose Saturn to be this one God, i. e. Adam or Noah: others cal him Jupiter Hammon, i.e. Cham: and others of them could reach no farther than the Sun, whom they supposed to be the most glorious Creature, and therefore God. The wisest of them knew not where to find, or what to make of this God, on which they thus Philosophised. They only groped after him, as Act. 17.27. So 1 Cor. 1.21, For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God: i.e. By all their Metaphysic wisdom, whether Traditional or acquired from the improvement of their Natural Principes, they could not come to any right Idea or true notion of God, what he was and where to be found. 'It is true they had some general speculations of him as the first Being, self Being, infinite, eternal, and most simple Being, &c. yet they knew him not as the Author and Object of Eternal Life, as Joh. 17.3. whence all their knowledge of him proved altogether vain and unprofitable. This Grotius makes the import of Paul 's declamation against the vain deceit of Philosophy, (principally the Pythagoreans, ) Col. 2.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , take diligent heed, look well to it. It notes, that men are very prone to fall into this snare, and therefore ought to take the more heed. That no one spoil you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is interpreted by Hesychius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that no one strip you naked. Vain Philosophy strips men naked of their best Robes, namely the Righteosenesse of Christ, and saving Knowlege of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is a Militarie notion, deduced by Critics from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a prey, or spoil taken in War, (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to spoil ) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to lead. Whence it primarily notes, to lead or carry away by an armed power in an hostile manner. Thus many Pythagorizing Gnostics seduced and led captive many carnal professors, and stripped them naked of their Christian Doctrines, by vain Philosophy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He useth (saith Grotius ) the Greek word Philosophy, because it was received; but it truly deceived men: for either it did not promise Eternal Life, or else it shown not the true and certain way which leadeth thither. So that in truth all their fine-spun Metaphysic Contemplations of God the first Eternal and all-sufficient Being, were as to them altogether vain and useless; because they had no regard to God as the Author, Object, Mater and Way to Eternal Life, which they were wholly ignorant of. (2) Much less had these Pagan Philosophers any true notions of the Trinity. This great Mystery of Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity was altogether hid from them. I shall not deny, but that these blind Heathens, specially the wiser of them, might have some very dark and imperfect Traditions concerning a Trinity: whence some conceive that great Oriental maxim, which Pythagoras brought with him into Grece touching God, that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , One and many, was but some broken Jewish Tradition of the Trinity. We may grant also that the Platonists had some weak corrupt Traditions of three 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Hypostases, or Persons, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Trinity; whereof the first was by them named 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Self-being; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the good, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Father: The second Person they called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Mind; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Word; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the begotten; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the framer: The third, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Soul of the World. These and such-like poor dim notices of a Trinity, 'tis likely Pythagoras and Plato after him traduced originally from the Jews, if not immediately, yet mediately by the Phoenicians and Egyptians. Of which see more fully, Philos. General. p. 1. l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 1, §. 13. But yet that neither the Grecian, Egyptian, or Phoenician Philosophers had any true or sound notion of the Trinity, I think, will be sufficiently evident to any sober mind, that shall consider what a world of fables and contradictions they mixed with these broken discoveries they had received of a Trinity. This indeed Plato ingenuously confesseth, in saying, That he had received many Mysteries from the Ancients, which he understood not, but expected some Interpreter to unfold them to him. And indeed he never spoke more truth; for both he and Pythagoras before him, having an infinite thirst after Divine Mysteries, to satisfy their inquisitive humor, they would catch at every shadow of Oriental Jewish Antiquity, though they understood nothing thereof. This seems the true account of their Philosophic Speculations about the Trinity, which is confirmed by Justinian, on 1 Joh. 1.1, &c. Sect. 52, 53, 54. where having mentioned the many Metaphysic Contemplations of the Pagan Philosophers about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he concludes thus:

The like account I find in Serranus, on Plato's Epist. 6. pag. 323. where Plato speaking of God in these words: God the Imperator of all things that are, or that shall be; and the Father of this Principal Cause: [Et illius Principis Causae Patrem.] I find something also in Sanchoniathon 's fragments much like this passage of Plato: (which confirms what has been quoted out of Serranus ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to these was there begotten a certain Eliun. That Eliun is the same with the Scripture 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elohim God, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elion the Most High, is plain; though Sanchoniathon 's Fables touching this Eliun argue he understood not what he said. This may suffice to prove, that all those Metaphysic Contemplations, which peradventure had their origin from some shadowie dark Jewish notices touching the Trinity, as managed by the Philosophers, were but vain corrupt and unintelligible notions; yea, that they gave foundation to the Arian Heresy, which was hatched in the Schole of Alexandria, where this Pythagorean Platonic Philosophy then flourished, as we shall prove, B. 2. c. 1. §. 9. (3) What we have mentioned of the Trinity holds also true to prove the vanity and corruption of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophemes about the Divine Ideas, and Decrees. It's true, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Timaeus the Locrian, and Plato out of them, had some more tolerable Contemplations concerning the Divine Ideas, both of things possible and future, inherent in the Divine mind; yea they seem to assert the Eternity, Simplicitie, Immutabilitie, absolute Soveraintie and Independence of these Divine Ideas; to the shame and confusion of the Pelagians, Schoolmen, and Arminians; as we shall prove, Par. 4. B. 2. c. 5. §. 2. of Divine Ideas. Yet these their Metaphysic notions of Divine Ideas were not without great commixture of vanity and corruption in themselves, and of much more dangerous influence in the Christian Schools: for much of the Gnostic Infusions in the primitive Churches, as also of the Monkish Mystic Divinity, and the Scholastic corrupt speculations about the Decrees of God, received their origin from these Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas, as it may appear hereafter, B. 2.

§. 3. As the Pagan Philosophic Theology was vain and corrupt as to its ultimate Object, the Divine Being, Persons, and Ideas; so was it much more corrupt in regard of its mediate Object, or the mediums and ways, by which the soul was to be raised up to the knowledge, worship, and enjoyment of this first Eternal Being. 'It is true, the light of Nature, and those visible Ideas of God's Wisdom, Power, and Goodness impressed on the Book of the Creatures, together with those imperfect notices traduced from the Jewish Church, gave these Natural Theologists some glimmering notions of the Deity, his Perfections and Operations: but as for Christ the mediate Object, or Mediator betwixt God and Man, Him they seem to have been altogether strangers unto. It's granted they had some fabulous Traditions touching their Sheepherd-God Pan; touching Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom, her being produced out of Jupiter 's brain; touching Silenus, &c. which some conceive to be but corrupt imitations of and reflections from the Jewish Messias, his Name and Offices; who is in Scripture called a Sheepherd, Shilo, the Wisdom of God, &c. But yet the many Fables which they mixed with these Traditions, (perhaps originally Jewish ) argue their stupid ignorance of Christ the Savior of the World. We shall hereafter B. 2. C. 1. §. 5. and C. 2. §. 2. §. 3. show how that all the Phoenician Baalim, and Grecian Demons, were but Idolatry Imitamens or Apes of the true Messias; yet were these blind Heathens so far from gaining any knowledge of the true Messias hereby, as indeed all their Demon-contemplations and worship did but leave them under greater darkness and distance as to the true Mediator. For this was the great design of Satan, by these Idol-Demons or Mediators (which he fat up in opposition to, though in imitation of Christ) to shut the door against Christ, that so he might detain those blind Sophists in ignorance of, and estrangement from him the way of Life. 'It is true, these Gentile-Philosophers, the wiser of them, Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato, (who having conversed abroad in the Oriental parts, seem to have had some more awakened thoughts touching the Fal and lost condition of Mankind by reason of Sin) could not but conclude a necessity of some Satisfaction to be made to Divine Justice; and finding nothing in themselves as a fit Atonement, they found out these new Mediators their Demons, whose Office it was to intercede betwixt Men and the supreme God; conveying men's sacrifices, supplications, and worship to God; and God's Divine commands, Gifts, and other vouchsafements to men; by which means there was a Communion maintained betwixt the supreme God and Men. This was the substance of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology, brought in by the Philosophers, in distinction from (if not opposition to) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the fabulous Theology of the Poets; as also to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Politic Theology of Statesmen, Priest and People. This Natural Theology of the Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, which comprehended this Doctrine of Demons, was not less injuriose to Christ, than the fabulous Theology of the Poets, or the Politic of the Statesmen: For look as in the Christian Church Antichrist sits in the Temple of God, as a counter-Christ; so amongst these Pagans, their Demons were a kind of Gentile-Antichrist, or counter-Messias. Yea, which is more, all Antichrists Apostasy to Saint worship; all his Images, Shrines, Relics, Canonifations, Invocations, Intercessions, Satisfactions of Saints, with all his Festivals, Abstinences, &c. were all but branches of this Demon -Worship, as 'tis evident from 1 Tim. 4.1. Act. 17.18. 1 Cor. 10.21. Rev. 9.13. This will appear in its place, B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, &c. which is a sufficient demonstration of the monstrose vanity and corruption of this Natural Theology, which these vain Sophists so much prided themselves in, as that whereby they hoped and endeavored to restore that Natural Theology they lost in their first Parents. But at present it shall suffice us to discover, how this piece of their Metaphysic Philosophy, or Natural Theology, was not only void of, but also Diametrically opposite to Christ as Mediator, and therefore most vain and degenerate. And for the proof hereof I shall have recourse to that great Chapter, wherein Paul seems professedly to set himself against the vanity of the Pythagorean and other Philosophy. Col. 2.3, he tells them, That in Christ were hid all the treasures of wisdom, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are hid; the similitude seems to be taken from a Chest, wherein men lay up their money, to be taken forth as occasion may serve. Thus the LXX, Dan. 11.43. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the hidden treasures of Gold. What infinite hidden Treasures of Wisdom are there in Christ! The Wisdom of Christ is compared to Treasures, Prov. 8.10, 11, 19. Whence Paul adds, V. 4. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to the Hebraic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for which the LXX place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It signifies primarily, by false Ratiocinations, which yet have the color and tincture of truth, to circumvent the simple; by sophistic reason to impose on others; by a captiose fallaciose syllogism to deceive. Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is, by Hesychius, made Synonymous and equipollent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Deceit; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Apostles mind seems this: Let no Pythagorizing Judaising Christians plunder you of your Christian Wisdom and Theology, by the enticing heart-bewitching notions of vain Philosophy. Grotius observes, that there were, even in those dawnings of Christianity, sown in Phrygia the Seeds of the Phrygian Heresy, composed of Judaic and Pythagoric Dogmas, mixed with Christian Theology; and those that would not espouse this Heresy were styled by these Sectaries carnal and illiterate. Whence Vers. 8. he exhorts, that None spoil them of Christ's treasures of Wisdom, through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men. i.e. (says Hammond in his Paraphrase on these words,)

It's evident, he opposeth the vain Philosophy of these Pythagorizing Gnostics to those Treasures of Wisdom which were hid in, and reveled by Christ the only Mediator, whom these Pythagorean Gnostics endeavored to exclude, placing their Aeones and Demons in his room. Whence it follows, Vers. 9. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , bodily; i.e. (1) really, and that [1] In opposition to all the Jewish Types and Figures, which were but shadows of Christ the substance or body; [2] Really, in opposition to all those false Demons or Aeones, which were at first hatched by the vain Metaphysic Philosophy, or Natural Theology of the Heathen Philosophers, and now brought into the Christian Theology by these Pythagorizing Gnostics, as forerunners of Antichrist. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also essentially, or substantially. Thus Occumenius interprets it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , essentially. So among the Hebrews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies essence as well as body; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ver. 11. denotes essence: and then the meaning is, That the whole Divine Nature or Essence dwells in Christ, so that he is truly and Essentially God, in opposition to their Philosophic Demons, which were but Idols. (3) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendered personally. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Person, Rom. 12.1. 2 Cor. 10.10. So Pindar, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , four Persons: and Sophocles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , My person. The Deity dwells in the Human Nature of Christ personally, by an Hypostatic personal Union, typified by God's habitation over the Ark, which was but the Type of Christ's Human Nature. (4) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify perfectly and eminently; as Christ is said, Ver. 10. to be a complete Head, above all Principalities. (5) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may also denote the perfection of Gospel-revelation delivered by Christ, in opposition to the Typic shadowie Theology of the Jews, and to the false Natural Theology of the vain Philosophers, Ver. 8. Thus Hammond in his Paraphrase: Though this sense seems also included, yet the former may not be excluded, as it appears by what follows, v. 10. Ye are complete in him, which is the Head of all Principalitie and power. i. e. He is a complete Head, or perfect Mediator, infinitely above all Angelic Principalities and Human Powers, whence those Pythagorean Demons and Aeones had their origin. For all their Demons were but Human powers, or great Heroes deified; and all their Aeones, but Angels of a superior or lower degree; all infinitely short of Christ, who is the Head of all Principalities and Powers, and therefore a perfect Mediator in whom you are complete, in opposition to all their Gentile Demons or Aeones, &c. I am not ignorant, that Hammond in his Paraphrase on these words, (following the humor of Grotius, who was too much Socinian and against the Deity of Christ) Which sense, though true and included in the words, yet may it not exclude Christ as the simple object of Faith, or as he is the complete only Mediator, in opposition to all those Philosophic Demons, Aeones, or Idol-Mediators, which these Pythagorizing Gnostics then began to foist into the Christian Theology, and were afterward in a more perfect manner established by Antichrist, that great Demon, or Idol set up in God's House. These Pythagorean Demons and Aeones, which were the great Mediators in the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology, and brought into the Christian Theology first by the Gnostics, and then by Antichrist, are again openly struck at by the Apostle, in this caution of his to the Colossians, Chap. 2. v. 18, 19. V. 18, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and will-worship of Angels. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to its origination, signifies an humility of mind, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , minding low things. But here it signifies a superstitious and servile demission or prostitution of the spirit to false objects of worship, together with an hypocritie show and study of humility. Here is, says Grotius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i.e. In an humble Will-worship performed to Angels; which these Pythagorizing Gnostics called Aeones, and worshipped as Mediators to God, distributing them into certain Classes, and allowing them their respective Offices, without any other ground than their own fantiastic imitation of that Natural Theology amongst the Heathen Philosophers. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let no man beguile you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies (1) and properly, to give sentence against any one, whereby he is pronounced unworthy of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the reward given to such as contended for victory. And so it is an allusion to such as ran in the race, who if they were defective or irregular in their race, were condemned by Judges appointed for this purpose to lose the reward; whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered by Phavorinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let no man condemn you, as defective or irregular in your Christian race; beware of losing your reward by an Idolatry Will-worship given to Angels or Men, answerable to the Heathens Natutural Theology. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praeripere, by craft to cheat men of their crown or reward. So Pausanias, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Jerome saith, And then the sense is, let no one, by these Pythagorean Dogmas, craftily cheat you of your reward, by inducing you to bow your souls, in a superstitious servile manner, to worship Angels, and thence to reject Christ your Head. So it follows v. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i.e. (says Grotius ) The sum of these Apostolic exhortations is this: Paul saw the Pagan Demons (which were the main subject of their Natural Theology ) creeping in apace into the Church of God, under the Mystic Theology of the Pythagorizing Gnostics: he foresaw also by the spirit of Prophesy, that Antichrist, the great Christian Demon, would advance the said Demons on Christ's throne, by assuming to himself a power of Canonising Saints as Intercessors or Mediators; giving Indulgences, making Laws, erecting Images, &c. all which were but branches of the old Pagan Demon worship; which Paul foreseeing Antichrist would erect in the room of Christ, he was the more invective against this their Pagan Natural Theology touching Demons, &c.

§. 4. Hence it followed that the Natural Theology of these Pagan Philosophers proved exceeding vain, corrupt, and abominable, as to all those modes or rites of Worship, which they either invented themselves, or traduced from the Jewish Church. It has been acknowledged, that these blind Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, had very many Rites and Modes of Worship by tradition from, and in imitation of the Jewish Rites and Worship, as Part 2. B 2. chap. 2. §. 4. But all these apish Modes of Worship being not received as Divine Institutes, but mixed with their own fantastic Idolatric inventions, and passing through the hands of their Demons, and thence terminating on some Idol-God, proved but a miserable piece of Heathenish Will-worship and Idolatry. It's true, these proud Philosophers aspired, by this their Demon -worship (the fruit of their Natural Theology ) to reduce themselves to a friendship with the great, though unknown God: but all their attempts herein proved vain and successelesse; yea all did but cast them at a greater distance from the true God, into a servile subjection to Satan the God of this World. The Demon-Theology, or Will worship of the Pagan Philosophers was brought into the Christian Church first by the Gnostics, and afterward by Antichrist; which the Apostle Paul foreseeing does greatly caution Christians against in the forementioned Epistle, Col. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. specially v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Also in the 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, of which hereafter, when we come to Antichristian Will-worship, which was but the effect of this Pagan Demon -worship.

§. 5. Another part of their Metaphysic Philosophy, or Natural Theology, consists in some Traditions and Contemplations touching the Human Soul, its Divine Origin, Infusion, Separation, and Immortality; concerning which it cannot be denied but that the Philosophers, specially such as had conversation with the Jews or Jewish Traditions, had very many good speculations and notions, far beyond many atheistic spirits of this age; but yet such as were mixed with many vain corrupt conceptions and gross superstitions: as (1) They held the Soul to be of Divine extract and origin, according to that citation of Paul, Act. 17.28. Of which see Court Gent. Part 2. B. 3. C. 9. Sect. 3. §. 3. But yet withal they held the eternal simultaneous production and Pre-existence of all Souls: which opinion of theirs Origen, with some other of the Fathers, who did much Pythagorise, are said to have sucked in. (2) The Philosophers also held the Subsistence, yea Immortality of the Soul after its disunion from the body; but withal they held also a Metempsychosis or Transmigration of the Soul into other bodies: which opinion the Jews, specially the Pharisees, drank in from the Pythagorean Philosophy, if the Pythagoreans had it not from the Jews first. (3) The Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophers asserted some kind of Purgatory, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Purification of the Soul by fire; whence the Papists had their Purgatory, as hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 11.

§. 6. But amongst all the pieces of Pagan Metaphysics, or Natural Theology, none is more corrupt, yea Satanic, than their Magic, or black Art of Divination, wherein the Pythagoreans and other Philosophers were greatly versed. That this Satanic Science of Divination, or Witchcraft, so much in request amongst the wisest of Pagan Philosophers, proceeded originally from, and in imitation of the Divine Oracles vouchsafed the Jewish Church, will be evident to any that shall give himself the trouble of drawing a parallel betwixt the one and toother. That the Pythagoreans were famose for this Art of Magic, see Jamblicus in the Life of Pythagoras, Cap. 29. Pythagoras, as it is supposed, had it from the Chaldeans, or Egyptians, or peradventure immediately from the Jews; amongst whom having observed a spirit of Prophesy, or Divination vouchsafed them by their God, with which Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel (who lived much about his time, and with whom some think he had converse,) were endowed, he affecting an imitation of them herein, enters into a compact with the Devil his God in order hereto.

The Jews had four kinds of Divine Revelation. (1) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prophetie: which was either [1] by externe Vision; or [2] by interne Imagination, or mental Vision, vouchsafed either to persons sleeping, and so it was called Dreams; or to such as waked, and so it was called Ecstasie, Apoc. 1.10. Ezech. 1.12. we have both mentioned, Numb. 12.6. in a Vision and in a Dream. Answerably whereto the Pagan Diviners had their night-Dreams, and day-Visions, whereby they divined things. (2) The Jews had a more gentle and commun kind of Enthusiasm, or Divine Afflation of the Spirit, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Afflate of the holy Spirit, as in Job, Moses, David, and other Penmen of the Sacred Scripture; who had also the spirit of Prophetie, though not in such an Ecstatic mode as some other Prophets, Ezekiel, Daniel, &c. Answerably whereto the Pagan Diviners had also their milder Enthusiasmes, vouchsafed their Poets by Diabolic Inspiration. (3) The Jews had their Urim and Thummim, which was the Oracle by which God vouchsafed Answers to his People. In imitation whereof Pagan Diviners had their Teraphim, which Mede on Deut. 33.8. ( Diatr. 2. pag. 368.) says, was amongst these Idolaters answerable to the Urim and Thummim of the holy Patriarchs. And such also was the Ephod of the Idolatrous Jews, which they consulted as their Responsorie, Jud. 8.27, 33. Answerably whereto the Egyptian Priests (as Elianus and Diodorus write) had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their little image of Sapphire; which was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , truth, in imitation of the Jewish Urim and Thummim, as Grotius. (4) The Jews had another kind of Divine Revelation, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the daughter of voice, or vocal revelation, which seems mentioned Numb. 12.8. but was more usual under the second Temple, after the Urim and Thummim ceased, whereby God reveled himself to his people, as at Christ's Baptism, Mat. 3.17. Answerable whereto the Gentiles had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Aparitions of their God's, with Vocal tradition or declaration of their minds to men, which gave the first occasion to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Pillars of Stone, erected as Memorials of their God's Aparition, in imitation of the Stone which Jacob erected at Bethel, as a Memorial of God's Aparition and discourse with him. Of which more fully, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 3.

That this black Art of Divination was in much use, not only amongst the Poets and Priests, but also amongst the wisest of the Philosophers, the Pythagoreans and Platonists, is evident by this, that it was a part of that Doctrine of Demons, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology, which did in a more peculiar manner belong to the Philosophers. So Plato, in his Symposium, pag. 202, 203. treating professedly of these Demons, he brings in Socrates demanding of Diotima, what faculty this his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demon, had. To which Diotima replies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a faculty of Interpreting the God's mind, &c. And having discoursed at large of the Offices of this Socratic Demon, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from this Demon all the Art of Divination procedes. Whence Mercury the great Egyptian Demon, was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Interpreter, as 'tis supposed, from and in imitation of Joseph that great Divine Interpreter. Farther, that this Satanic Art of Divination was part of their Demon-worship, and thence of their Natural Theology, is evident by what Diogenes Laertius reports of Pythagoras in his Life.

Diog. of Pythag.

The great Oracle to which all their Diviners resorted, was that of the Idol-God Apollo, (whose Temple was erected at Delphus, in imitation of God's at Jerusalem ) and all inferior Vates or Diviners were but his Interpreters. This is well set forth by Plato in his Io, pag. 534. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Vates are nothing else but Interpreters of the God's. Pag. 536. he gives us the manner how their Idol- Apollo inspired these Diviners; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God, by the endeavor of all these, draws the mind of men where he pleaseth. Plato here (according to his Allegoric mode) supposeth a long chain or series of Diviners impelled or drawn by their God Apollo, whom he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the prime and first mover. That this their great Oracle Apollo was no other than the Devil, is most evident, who is called by the same name in Scripture: as Deut. 32.17. he is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Destroyer; which the Greeks cal most properly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Apollo; and so Rev. 9.11. the Devil's name Abaddon, which signifies a Destroyer, is by the Spirit of God rendered Apollyon, which is the same with Apollo. That Apollo was the great God of Divination is asserted by Augustine, de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 11. In Divinations Apollo, &c. where Lud. Vives on these words observes,

Thus Diodorus Siculus, and out of him Ludov. Vives.

§. 7. To treat a little more distinctly of the nature of this Pagan Divination, whereby both its origin and vanity will more fully appear. The Greek name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is by some derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because they supposed its cause to be externe, spiritual, and divine. I find no-where a more full and clear account hereof than in Plato, who both in his Timeus, Phaedrus, and more professedly in his Io treats of this Subject. 1. As to the origin of Divination, Plato Io, p. 533. saith, That Poetic Enthusiasm comes not by Art, but by a Divine power, like the stone which Euripides called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Magnetem, Loadstone; which stone doth not only draw iron-rings, but also puts a virtue into them to draw others to them. So Prophetic men are inspired by the Muse. Thence he, in his Io, pag. 534. tells us, That it comes not by Art, but by a divine power: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Prophets utter these things not by Art, but from a divine power: For (adds he) Art extendes itself to all things under the same kind. So agen pag. 536. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. not by art but by a divine fate, or afflation. And more particularly in his Phaedrus, pag. 245. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. But the third sort of madness and transport, surprising the tender and inaccessible mind is from the Muses, exciting and inspiring it unto Enthusiastic Songs and Poems. But he that undertakes this Prophetic Poesie from a confidence on some art, is very imperfect, in comparison of him that is possessed with an Ectastic furor. Wherefore all that Prophetic Poesie, which issues from the mind of a sober temperate man, vanisheth. Truly I could reckon up to thee so many and more illustrious effects of this furor inspired by God. His design is to show, that all Poetic Prophesy comes from a Divine Enthusiasm or afflation without art. Thence he tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This furor is given by the God's with the greatest felicity. Whence in the Platonic Definitions we find Divination thus defined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Divination is a science discovering a mater without Demonstration; i. e. by mere Enthusiasm. 2. The usual Organs or Instruments the Devil (under the name of Apollo ) used to deliver his Oracles by, were at first the Poets; whence amongst the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Poets and Prophets, were of the same import. So Paul, Tit. 1.12. calls one of their Poets Prophet, and Vates signifies both a Poet and Prophet. Yea the Philosophers (who were many of them Poets also) were not a little guilty of this Satanic Art, specially the Pythagoreans. These Organs, Plato tells us, the God used in delivering his Oracles to men: So Io 534, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Wherefore the God whiles he takes from them their mind, useth these ministers as messengers to deliver his Oracles, and divine Prophets; that we who hear may understand, that it is not they who are thus deprived of their mind, that speak things of so great moment, but that it is God that speaks them, and by the ministry of those men speaks to us. Wherein observe, (1) That the Devil under the Title of Apollo, and as an Ape of God, deprived his Prophets of their right mind, and put them into an Ecstatic rapture, thereby to declare unto the World, that his Oracles came not from the exercitation of Reason, or by Art, but by Divine Enthusiasm. (2) That the Prophets were but mere Organs used by this God, to declare his Oracles. Thence he subjoins, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. We have an infallible demonstration hereof in Tynnichus Chalcidensis, who never composed any other Verse worthy of memory, save that Pean in the honor of Apollo, which is in the mouth of all, and indeed the most excellent of all Poems, which he himself stiles the Invent of the Muses. Now hereby it seems to me that God hath demonstrated, that we may not dout, but that these excellent Poems were in no regard human, or the product of men's wits, but divine and coming from God; for the Poets [or Prophets] are no other than Interpreters of God. This description which he gives of these false Diviners suits well with God's true Prophets, who are but Instruments by which he speaks. (3) Plato tells us that these Organs or Prophets, which the Demoniac power inspired, were, whilst under this spirit of Divination, in an Ecstasie or Rapture. So Io 533. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thus therefore the Muse herself by a certain divine spirit doth inspire some; and by the ministry of such inspired persons there is a series of others inspired aptly connected. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They rage and foam, and are possessed like the Priests of Bacchus. And pag. 534. he saith, that this his Diviner was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Rapt into a divine ecstasy, and mad, neither did he continue in his senses or mind, being moved 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by a divine fate. The meaning is, he was in an ecstatic rapture, not (compos mentis) in a sound mind. This Plato explains yet more fully in his Timaeus, pag. 72. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , This is a sufficient sign, that God hath vouchsafed this faculty of Divination to human madness: (i.e. to men furiose: ) and he gives this reason for it, because God has planted this power of Divining in part of the Liver, &c. Then he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. for no one in his right mind or senses is inspired by this spirit of Divination, but such only whose minds and senses are bound up by sleep, or disease, or Enthusiasm, &c. Herein also the Devil plaid the Ape, and imitated the Divine mode of Prophetie, which for the most part was by ecstatic raptures and visions. Whence, (4) The usual mode or way by which this their Demoniac spirit inspired or possessed these ecstatic Prophets, was Enthusiasm. So Plato in that fore-mentioned place of Timaeus, pag. 72. None is inspired with this true divine power of Divination continuing in his mind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , But having his prudence or reason bound either by sleep, or by a disease, or changed by some Enthusiasm. And then he gives the reason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. But it belongs to a prudent man to understand such things as are spoken, or expressed by certain signs, either by dream or watching, from the Enthusiastic nature. This ecstatic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Enthusiasm, Plato in his Io makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an imitation of Divine ecstasy or rapture. And indeed it was but a Satanic imitation of Divine Enthusiasm, which Divines describe to be a Divine extraordinary immediate Inspiration of God, in the reception whereof the Soul is merely passive, and yet vehemently moved or agitated thereby, even unto an Ecstasie or Divine Evagation; as the Apostles were inspired after Christ's Ascension. This Demoniac Enthusiasm, of which Plato so much treats both in his Timaeus and Io, was but the Ape of the Divine. (5) Hence, says Plato, these Ecstatic Diviners could not judge of their own Enthusiasm, but had Judges appointed them by the Law. So it follows in that forecited place of Timaeus, pag. 72. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The work of such an ecstatic Enthusiast, whether he remain under this Enthusiastic furor, or not, is not to judge of those things he saw or spake. — Hence the Law has appointed a sort of Prophets as Judges over these divine Vaticinations, which some cal Vates, — which name they are worthy of, who are certain Interpreters of things uttered in Propheties. Herein also these Demoniac Diviners imitated the Jewish Prophets, amongst whom there were some who had a gift or spirit of discerning touching the Prophetic revelations of others, as 1 Cor. 12.10, Discerning of spirits. 1 Cor. 14.19, Let the other judge. So v. 32. which though here perhaps it may be meant of ordinary teaching; yet there was the same gift of discerning and judging extraordinary Prophets in the Jewish Church. (6) The main end or design of this their Demoniae Divination was to bring them into a Reconciliation, and friendship with God. So Plato in his Symposium, pag. 188. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Divination is to breed a friendship between God and men; because it knows those amorose impetuosities that are in men, and tend to piety or impiety. By which it appears, that the main end or design of those Natural Theologists in erecting this Demoniac mode of Divination, was to make up those defects that were in their Natural Theology; thereby to breed a reconcilement and friendship with their God's: wherein they also affected an imitation of Divine Oracles and Propheties, whose main end was to restore lost man to a friendship with God. And thus far indeed these Demoniac Oracles attained their end, that they brought such as subjected themselves to them into a miserable compact and friendship with the Devil, their great Apollo or Soul destroying God.

§. 8. As for the sundry kinds of Divination, the Philosophers (who were sufficiently vain herein) were not yet so vain as the Poets or common Prophets: for Plato in his Timaeus, pag. 7. makes mention only of three sorts of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Enthusiastic Divination. (1) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by sleep or dreams. (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by some disease or frenzy. (3) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by some Enthusiasm, properly so called. These also were the chief of the Pythagorean Divinations, and the effects of their Demon -worship; (as was before observed) wherein they affected an imitation of Divine Oracles. (1) As for that of Enthusiasm, we have already sufficiently opened it. (2) In their Divination by Dreams they had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Onirocrites, Judge and Interpreter of Dreams, as before out of Plato. Apollonius Attalus writ of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Artemidorus after him. Diogenes Laertius reports of Diogenes the Cynic,

So that we see some of the Philosophers were not so vain and doting on Dreams as others. Yet were the Pythagoreans greatly vain in this piece of Dreaming-Divination: So Epicharmus, (aliàs Cous ) that famose Pythagorean Philosopher, of whom Tertullian in his Book de Anima, cap. 46. speaks thus, He makes mention also of Hermippus, who writ five Books of Dreams. (3) Their Divination by Diseases may take in that of Sternutation or Sneesing, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and made use of as an instrument of Divination. This mode of Divination was very ancient. Aristotle, 1. de Animal. saith, That Sternutation was an angural sign, and that the ancients estimed it ominose. Yea Casaubon, ad Athenae, l. 2. c. 15. saith, that they received Sternutament with Adoration; because they not only thought it sacred, as Aristotle, but also a God. Thus Salmasius, among the Letters collected by Beverovicius, Quaest. Epistol. p. 31. i.e. the Sternutament which they estimed as sacred, and God. And as Sternutation was reputed ominose among the ancient Grecians and Romans, so also among the later Jews, who were wont to say to him that sneesed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Good life be to you, i. e. God save you. If any sneesed in prayer they thought it a good Omen, as Buxtorf. Synagog. c. 5. From this Pagan Superstition of saluting such as sneesed, many Christians in the times of Papal darkness sucked in the like custom; which continues to this day in France, where generally all salute such as sneese, and pray, God save; as if it were a thing very ominose. Thus among the Abbyssinians in Africa, when their Negus or Emperor sneeseth, he is saluted by all throughout the City with great solemnity, such as are next him at the Court beginning first, and thence others following. More of Divination by Sternutation, see Voctius, Disputat. Part 3. p. 132. Agen, the tinkling noise of the ear was by Pagans used as a medium by which they divined. Likewise the salissation or palpitation of any member called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was another mode of their Divination. Whence Melampos the Hierogrammatist his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. yet extant; and Soudas tells us that Possidonius writ his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in which he expounded what the sudden motion of every Member did indicate. Isidorus, Origin. lib. 8. c. 9. acquaints us, that these Salissators were so called, because when any parts of their Members suffered a palpitation, or leaping, they foretold something prosperous or sad to happen. These three were branches of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

§. 9. They had another kind of Divination strictly called Magic, which was, as they say, the Invention of the Persians, (whence their wise-men were called Magi ) wherein the Pythagoreans and other Philosophers were not a little versed; of which Soudas gives this account: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Magic truly is the Invocation of the Demons, those benefactors, for the procuring of some good; such were the Predictions of Apollonius Tyanaeus. Whereby we are informed that Magic was a part of the Demon-worship; which as it's supposed, Pythagoras brought into Grece. That the Pythagoreans were generally exercised in Magic is a commun opinion. And this Apollonius Tyanaeus, whom Soudas here brings in for a famose Magician, was indeed of the Pythagorean Sect, who by his Magic and Sorcerie produced many lying wonders; for which he was greatly extolled by the Pythagorizing Platonistes, Porphyry and others; who endeavored to equalise him with Christ in point of Miracles and Divine (or rather Diabolic) Predictions; thereby to cast a disgrace upon the Christians Redeemer and Religion, in order to the advancement of their own Natural Theology or Metaphysics. We have the Life of this Apollonius Tyanaeus writ by Philostratus, by which it is apparent that all his Predictions and lying wonders were wrought by commerce with the Devil, who was the Philosophers great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demon or Diviner. Philostratus having, Chap. 1. shewn how much Apollonius affected an imitation of Pythagoras, procedes Chap. 2. to vindicate him from the Imputation of Magic.

Thence he goes on to give us the History of his Life, and the many Miracles he did. Hierocles out of this History of Philostratus, equaliseth this Apollonius, in point of Miracles wrought, to Christ. Eusebius answers Hierocles, and demonstrates, that all Apollonius 's Miracles were but Lying wonders, or Magic Delusions, wrought by Diabolic Inspirations. Grotius relates, More, in his Mystery of Godliness, B. 5. C. 7. proves, That there is nothing in the History of Apollonius that can answer to Christ's Resurrection, &c. It is evident that all his Prophetic Predictions were but Satanic Delusions. Thus Grotius understands that Prophetic prediction of Paul, 1 Tim. 4.1, And the Doctrines of Devils, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Though I can no way fall in with Grotius 's design, to interpret this (as he does others) Scripture chiefly of Apollonius Tyanaeus 's Magic Art, thereby to secure Antichrist's Doctrines from the dints of this Prediction; yet thus far I think we may safely allow him, that this Text may have some eye or regard to Apollonius Tyanaeus, and other Pythagorean Philosophers, who were the inventors and promoters of these Doctrines of Demons here mentioned, and so counter-Christ's, or Pagan-Antichrists; and therefore be consequence, great promoters of those Antichristian Demons and Doctrines, which (by means of their Philosophy foisted into the Christian Church by the Pythagorizing Gnostics ) were now gendring. Thus may we safely understand this (and so other) Scriptures of the Pythagorean Demons, and particularly of Apollonius Tyanaeus, (who was famose in that Sect) as he was a Type and forerunner of Antichrist, by reason of his Pythagorean Doctrines of Demons, and Magic Art, which Antichrist atterward was to reassume and practice, according to that 2 Thes 2.9, Lying-wonders. And indeed all Antichrist's Lying-wonders, all his Saints, and Saint-worship, are but Satanic imitamens of the Pythagorean Demon Doctrines, Worship and Magic; as hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. So that we may well allow this Text a collateral typic regard to the Pythagoreans, though its principal eye be on Antichrist and his Demon-Doctrines, as Mede observes.

§. 10. There were many other kinds of Satanic Divination, more ordinary and usual amongst the Priests and vulgar people. As (1) Divination by Birds, which principally belonged to the Augures: who were so called by the Romans, as if one should say Avi-geres, because they observed what the Birds did. Now this Bird-Divination was gathered chiefly by the flying, or singing of Birds. To which also we may refer their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Divination by Cockes, &c. (2) They had also their Divinations from fourfooted Bestes, specially their Sacrifices, which belonged to their Aruspices; who were so called from aras inspiciendo, beholding the entrails of the Sacrifice on the Altar. The first inventor of this kind of Divination was, as 'tis said, Tages. There was in like manner mater of Divination taken from the meeting of four-footed Bestes; also from the neighing of Horses; but specially from any monstrose production in nature, or preternatural motion; as if there were any excess or defect in Nature. (3) They had likewise their Divinations from Men, as from the lineaments of the Body; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chiromantie, from the Hand: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Physiognomie from the Face; also from meeting of Men, from casualties at Festes, and from dead persons, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Necromantie. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 2. speaks thus of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Chiromantie, &c.

(4) They had their Divinations from Plants, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , practiced by Witches. (5) They had their Divinations from Inanimates; as [1] from the Elements: from Water, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Numa, to prove that his Sacred Constitutions came from the God's, was compelled to make an Hydromantie, affirming that he saw in the Water the Images of the God's, or rather the Devils, from whom he received his Constitutions. And Caesar says, there were Women in Germany, who divined from the course and noise of Waters. They had also their Divination from the Earth, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the Fire called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the Smoke called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . [2] They had also their Divinations from Celestial Bodies; from the Stars called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Astrology; wherein the Chaldeans were much versed: from Thunder and Lightening, &c. [3] They had likewise their Divinations from things Artificial, as (1) from Glasses; which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (2) From Sieves, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (3) From Keys, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (4) From Axes, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (5) From Rings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (6) From Phials, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : (7) From Meal, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (8) From a Bason, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (9) From Lots, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Of these sundry kinds of Divination, see more Lud. Vives, in August. de Civit. l. 7. c. 35. Vossius de Philosophia, p. 1. c. 22. and our Philosoph. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Sect. 9. §. 8. So monstrose and Hel-bred was the Ethnic Divination and Natural Theology.

CHAP. IV. The Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its Form and Proprieties.

The Corruption of Philosophy from 1. Its Symbolic Form, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 5, 6, 7, 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the origin of the Jewish Cabala, 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tit. 1.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2. From its formal Attributes. (1) Its deficience as to truth, and its clear discovery. (2) It was only Traditional, Equivocal, and Artificial, not Univocal, Real, and Intuitive. It contemplated only Pictures, not native Ideas of things. Col. 2.23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rom. 2.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a show, &c. (3) 'Twas only General, not Particular and Experimental. (4) It was cloudy and obscure, not Evident and Divinct. Heb 11.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. either Natural or Philosophic. (5) 'Twas only Uncertain and Opiniative; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Faith is 1 Cor. 2.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Gal. 3.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Col. 2.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (6) 'Twas not truly Dianoetic or discursive, but Paralogistic. (7) 'Twas not truly Noetic or Intelligent of highest Principes. (8) Twas defective as to Prudence; viz. [1] Soul-reflection. [2] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . [3] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . [4] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . [5] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (9) 'Twas not Transformative, 2 Cor. 3.18. Changed. The Philosophers falsely pretended to a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

§. 1. WE have hitherto endeavored a Demonstration of the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its original Causes and Mater, both Natural, Moral, and Supernatural: We now proceed to make good and strengthen the said Demonstration from the Consideration of that Vanity which attended the formal nature and proprieties of the same. And herein we shall begin with the Pythagorean, which was the source and most principal part of all the Grecian Philosophy; yea, that which had the most cognation with, and ressemblance of the sacred fountains from whence it was, though by very corrupt derivations at first traduced. So that by proving the vanity of the Pythagorean Philosophy, which was the most noble, and so the measure of all the rest, our Conclusion will hold much more true of the other Parts and Sects. The Form or Mode of Philosophising (as we have frequently observed) amongst the Pythagoreans was Symbolic and Enigmatic: yea indeed this was the usual mode of Philosophising amongst the Ancients before Aristotle's time, as he himself confesseth; which we no way dout they took up in imitation of the Jewish Church; as it's well observed by Clemens Alexander. lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The ancient mode of Philosophising was Hebraic and Enigmatic: Therefore they embraced short speaking, which is most apt for admonition, and most profitable. That this mode of Symbolic discourse was frequent amongst the Jews in Pythagoras 's time is apparent from what we find in Ezekiel, (who is thought to be Contemporary with, yea the Instructor of Pythagoras ) as Ezech. 17.2. Put forth a riddle and speak a parable, or Symbol. Now albeit this mode of Symbolic Philosophising was originally Divine, and very useful for the infant-state of the world, in that it affordes the fantasy most pleasant and lively colors or images of truth; yet was it not without much vanity and corruption as made use of by those ancient Philosophers, both Pythagoreans and others. And the great principe on which this Symbolic mode of Philosophising was founded, was this: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Things sensible are but Imitamens of things intelligible. i. e. There is nothing in this inferior sensible world, but doth ressemble something in the superior Intelligible world: sensible forms are but Symbolic Images of insensible perfections. Whence these blind Philosophers (who traded in Oriental Jewish Traditions) were mighty greedy in catching after every sensible form, corporal image or shadow, whereby Divine Truths were set forth: wherein none abounded more than the Jewish Church, which was the chief seat of all Symbolic Wisdom. Hence therefore those Grecians derived either immediately or mediately the chief of their Symbolic learning, both as to mater and form: But not understanding the true mind and scope of these Jewish Symbolic Mysteries, they at first amused themselves in contemplating the shel, cabinet, or bone only, without ever attaining unto the kernel, jewel, or marrow of Divine Truths. Thence having satiated their phantasies, and glutted their curiosity in their dreaming contemplations of those Jewish Symbols, without any real notion of those Truths which were wrapped up therein, they coin an infinity of fables or false images, which they mixe with those Jewish Traditions they met with in their travels; and herein their phantasies (which are the greatest Apes in the world) were so skillful and unwearied, as that they soon rendered the whole body of their Symbolic Philosophy cloudy, dark, vain and monstrose; no way like its original Idea in the Jewish Church. This Grecian itch and humor of coining, fables (not for the illustration, but to the darkening of truth) the Jews also when they came under the Grecian Monarchy, sucked in to the prejudice of their Religion; wherein they were in like manner followed by those carnal Gospellers the Pythagorizing Gnostics in the Christian Church: and all was by the father of Liars made use of as the foundation of Antichrists throne, which was founded on Lying-wonders, or fabulous lies, as 2 Thes. 2.9. And this is a good key to open to us those bitter invectives used by the Apostles, specially Paul, against those Pythagorean and Jewish fables, which the Gnostics then endeavored, and Antichrist after them, to bring into the Temple of Christ. And it seems there was none more infested with these fable-coining Pythagorizing Dreamers, than the Church at Ephesus, where Apollonius Tyanaeus, that great Pythagorean Sorcerer, had been, and as it's thought infused some of his poison about the same time that Timothy resided there. Also there were many Jews at Ephesus, who in this faculty of coining Fables and Wonders fully jumped with the Pythagoreans; and both joining their forces had a mighty influence on those many Gnostic Antichristian Fables, which creeped into the Christians Theology. Whence we see the ground why Paul in both his Epistles to Timothy, gives such severe censures of and cautions against this Pythagorizing Jewish humor of Fable-framing Philosophy; which he then saw creeping into the Church, and which he foresaw would give a mighty lift to help Antichrist on his throne. So 1 Tim. 1.3, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus. Paul saw these Pythagorizing Judaising Gnostics creeping into the Church at Ephesus, and by their Pythagorean Jewish Fables laying a foundation for Antichrist; wherefore he besought Timothy to continue at Ephesus, and behave himself there as a stout Soldier of Christ, against those Gnostic Antichristian false Teachers. So it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , That thou mayest charge some that they teach no other doctrine: i.e. That they do not overthrow the Gospel of Christ by their Pythagorean and Jewish Fables, as he expresseth himself v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Neither give heed to fables. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Philosophic notion, and amongst them it signified a Symbol or Fable, whereby they expressed some Philosophic mystery. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are much of the same import amongst the Philosophers. Thus Plato oft makes mention, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Of a Syrian and Phoenician Fable; also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of an ineffable fable, whereby he understandes some Oriental Hebraic Tradition. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies also a feigned Oration, Fable, or fictitious discourse: thence it is expounded by Hesychius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vain false speech, representing truth. Thus it is taken in the New Testament, as here, so C. 4. v. 7. 2 Tim. 4.4. Tit. 1.14. 2 Pet. 1.16. of which hereafter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does here also take in the Jewish Fables, which these vain Gnostics so much addicted themselves unto. So Grotius on this place:

These Fables, though they were entertained by the Jews, yet were they many of them of Pythagorean extract; namely that of the first man's being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which also Plato asserted; likewise the opinion of the Souls Pre-existence; to which we might add that of the Metempseuchosis, which the Jews also, together with the Pythagoreans and Platonistes asserted. It follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and endless Genealogies. These Genealogies the Jews cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because they supposed successive Productions and Emanations one after another. So Philo Judaeus discourseth much of such Genealogies. The origin of these fabulous Genealogies began with the first Poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, &c. Pherecydes also had his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Pythagoreans after him filled up much of their Theology with such fictitious Genealogies, whom the Jews followed herein, as also the Gnostics; the most of whose Divinity consisted of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Conjunctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joining with another begets a third; whence sprang their Aeones or fabulous God's. So Grotius here: I do not conceive that they were called Gnostics in the Apostles times, but in the following Age, partly from their own Pretensions to a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. an high speculative, mystic knowledge; and partly from those Characters which are given them in Scripture, as hereafter. Indeed the whole of their Theology seems to have consisted only of some mystic Fables and Genealogies, borrowed from the Pythagorean Philosophy and Cabalistic Traditions. It follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which minister questions rather. i. e. These Pythagorean Jewish Fables, and Genealogies, taken up by these carnal Gnostics, produce nothing but vain Questions, which the Rabbin's cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , than edification of God in faith. As if he had said, these Pythagorizing Gnostics pretend to make use of these their Mystic Fables and Genealogies, as explications of Evangelic Dispensations and Mysteries; but indeed they effect nothing less; for the Oeconomie of the Gospel holds forth a plain and simple way of believing in Christ, without such fabulous narrations. So v. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Now the end of the Commandment is Love. i.e. The scope and drift of our Gospel is Divine Love; whereas their pretended 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or fabulous Speculations tend only to foment endless disputes and strises about words. Then our Apostle procedes to give us the true Genealogy of Divine Love, in opposition to the fabulous Genealogies of those Pythagorizing Gnostics: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of a pure hears, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned. Paul (saith Grotius ) gives us a short but very useful Genealogy. The Pythagoreans, and Jews after them, make much ado about the Genealogies of Virtues. Philo Judaeus (who did greatly Pythagorise ) turns much of the History of the Old Testament into Allegoric Genealogies of Virtues, &c. The Gnostics followed in the same paths: Paul here gives us an easy and familiar Genealogy of true Christian Love, in opposition to all their Mystic Fables, which tended only to turn them aside to vain janglings. So v. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , From which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primarily notes such an one as unhappily errs from his scope or marque: Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, either properly or figuratively, not to reach the marque. These Pythagorizing Gnostics aimed at high Speculation and Mystic Notions, but they reached not their marque or end, but fell into a vain contention and strife about words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were such as busied themselves only in vain disputes, as Tit. 1.10. or fabulous narrations, as these Gnostics here, who would fain pass for some grand Sophists or Teachers. So v. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , desiring to be teachers of the Law. That first notion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is very emphatic, denoting here an ardent desire and ambitiose affectation of a name and repute for Doctors of the Law. Thus fabulous and vain were these Pythagorizing Jews and Gnostics, who delighted themselves in nothing more than in unintelligible fables. So it follows: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , understanding neither what they say, neither whereof they affirm: i. e. they wholly give up themselves to fabulous Genealogies and Mystic Traditions, which they neither understand, nor yet can affirm anything positively of, as Tit. 3.8. which Fables are directly opposite, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , verse. 10. as also to that great Evangelic Cabala or Divine Tradition touching Christ, v. 15, This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, whereof I am chief. Our Apostle had in ver. 4. given a caution against those Pythagorean Cabalistic Fables and Genealogies, which the carnal Gnostics had sucked in, to the great prejudice of Evangelic Mysteries: in this v. 15. he gives them a Divine Cabala (in opposition to their fabulous Cabala, ver. 4.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and worthy of all acceptation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cabala, unto which our Apostle seems here to allude, as Paulus Fagius has observed on Deut. 5.27. For the more full explication hereof, we must know that the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Monarchy, imbibed together with many other gross corruptions this mythologic fabulous mode of Philosophising, which was so commun amongst the Grecian Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, and indeed proved the bane of the Jewish Religion, as we shall show hereafter. For look as Pagan Philosophy was in its origin but a corrupt Imitamen of Sacred History and Mysteries, so the great corruptions which crept into the Jewish Church after the Babylonian Captivitie, had their foundation in some corrupt Imitation of Pagan Philosophy; amongst which this of their Jewish Cabala was one of the worst. For these vain Jews growing weary of the plain and familiar simplicity of Sacred Revelations, fall in love with that Mythologic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Mystic kind of Philosophising, which they observed amongst the Grecians, specially the Pythagoreans. This fabulous and Mystic mode of Philosophising they make use of in their Commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Cabala, i.e. a reverential reception of their Rabbies Traditions: wherein they grew so vain and fabulous, that there was not the most plain, naked, and Historic Text, but they would bring it under some Cabalistic, Enigmatic or Mystic sense: which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the hidden sense, which must be curiosely searched into. Whence it grew into a commun saying amongst these Cabalists, That there was no Scripture without its Cabalistic or Mystic sense. These Pythagorizing Cabalists were at first followed by the licentiose Gnostics, whose whole design was to compose a flesh-pleasing Theology out of Pythagorean and Jewish Dogmas and Fables, which were afterward greedily received by Antichrist and his Adherents; who glory much in their Mystic, or rather fabulous sense and interpretation of Scriptures. Yea it cannot be denied but that some of the Fathers, specially Origen (who being of the Alexandrian Schole did much Pythagorise ) were too guilty of mixing their Fables, Allegories, or Mystic sense with Divine Revelations. Al this the Spirit of God foresaw; and therefore he abounds the more in his Divine Cautions against such Pythagoric, Cabalistic, Mystic and fabulous mixtures in sacred Theology. We find the like sacred premonition, 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , But refuse profane and old wives fables. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an old woman, signifies anile, or absurd, ridiculose. That this fable of the Metempseuchose, which Grotius conceives to be here understood, was indeed of Pythagorean extract, has been at large proved. This and other Fables these Pythagorizing Gnostics made the foundation of their Abstinences, wherein they were afterward followed by Antichrist, whose Doctrines of Demons were but one great fable or lie; which the Apostle here dehortes all Christians from, under the name of Timothy, whom he exhorts rather to exercise himself to Godliness: But exercise thyself rather to Godliness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , properly signifies to exercise in the Gymnade. It follows, v. 8, 9, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Of which see hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. S. 3. §. 10. Our Apostle gives the like exhortation to Titus, whom he left in Crete to preserve those Churches from the leaven of the Jewish and Gnostic infusions. So Tit. 1.14, Not giving heed to Jewish fables: There were in Crete many Jews, who had sucked in this Grecian humor of coining Fables. They had their Fables concerning Behemoth, Leviathan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Metempseuchosis; also of their Messias his being a temporal Monarch, his War with Gog and Magog, &c. which they took up in imitation of the Grecian Fables. By all this we see how much Vanity and Corruption ensued upon that Mythologic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Mystic mode of Philosophising, which was at first taken up, in imitation of Sacred Oracles, by the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the Grecians derived it; and from these the Jewish Cabalists, after their subjection to the Grecian Monarchy, brought it back again and mixed it with their Divine Oracles and Mysteries, to the great prejudice of their Religion, as also of the Christian: for the Pythagorizing Judaising Gnostics, to save themselves from persecution, did herein symbolise both with the Jews and Grecians, as also Antichrist and all his adherents, who have been as fruitful in fabulous mystic Theology, as the Grecians, Jews, or Gnostics ever were.

§. 2. Having demonstrated the Vanity and Corruption of Philosophy, specially Symbolic, from its form or mode, we now proceed to demonstrate the same from its Proprieties. And herein we shall only mention such Proprieties, as the Philosophers themselves have made essential to true Philosophy; showing how defective, yea corrupt their Philosophy was in regard of those very Attributes, which they themselves constituted as essential thereto. For, 1. The Philosophers generally supposed that Truth was an essential ingredient, yea the spirit of all Philosophy. This Plato largely proves, Repub. 6. pag. 485, &c. where he affirms, That there could not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , anything more proper to Wisdom than Truth; whence he adds, that it was impossible that the same nature should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Philosopher and yet a lover of falsehood. That truth is an essential Attribute, yea indeed the principal end of all true Philosophy, see Philosoph. General. P. 2. l. 3. c. 1. Sect. 3. §. 1. Now that all the Pagan Philosophy was greatly defective, and thence vain in regard of this Proprietie, is evident in that it was not only for a great part fabulous and false, but wholly shadowy and conjectural only. (1) That a great part of the Ethnic Philosophy was fabulous and false, has been already sufficiently demonstrated from its effential parts both Mater and Form, namely that all Physic Speculations about the origin of the Universe, its first Mater, Form, and Privation, &c. were but fabulous, and for the most part false Traditions about the first Creation: that their Ethics were but false, or at best imperfect Ideas of Virtues: that their Politics were but carnal, and so false Reasons of State; and therefore styled in the Scripture, tromperie, deceit and lies, as Psal. 119.113, 118, 128, 163. That the whole of their Theology, as to their Doctrine of Demons, &c. was most corrupt and Idolatric. We have all summed up, Rom. 1.28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. a drossy, spurious, reprobate mind or judgment. (2) That the whole of Pagan Philosophy was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (according to the Platonic notion) a cloudy dark nocturne Philosophy, is most apparent; whence it also follows, that it had little of truth in it: for all true knowledge supposeth ideal existence or in-being of the Object in the Understanding; also that this existence, which the Object has in us, be agreeable to the existence it has in itself, otherwise our conceptions of it cannot be said to be true. For what is knowledge but the Imitamen, Idea, or Image of a thing impressed on the Mind? how then can any have a true knowledge of a thing, unless the subjective Idea in his mind exactly answer to the objective Idea of the thing in itself? Yea, he that Philosophiseth on a thing truly, must have in his formal conceptions the latitude, and other dimensions of the thing; also its Causes, Proprieties, Qualities, Operations and natural effects, all which suppose the inherence of the thing in the mind, (not Physically, but) in its ideal form or image, as Digby has at large proved, in his discourse of the Soul. Now how vastly short these poor blind Philosophers came of such true ideas and notions of things is easy to guess by their own Confessions. Plato ingenuously confesseth, That all men did but as it were dream in their contemplations and notions of things: And this dreaming Philosophy he thus describeth, Repub. 5. p. 476. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To dream, is when a man counts that which is like to another, not like, but the same with that other, to which it is like. So agen, says he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Men curious to hear and see are much taken with beautiful, words and colors, and figures, and whatsoever proceedeth hence: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but it is impossible for the mind of such to see and embrace the nature of beauty itself, (he means God.) Then he adds, That such as judge of good things, but yet cannot judge of good itself, or the first Beauty, can be said only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to live in a sleep or dream. Such he calls, pag. 480. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lovers of opinion rather than lovers of wisdom; which is a true character of all the Philosophers. The like Plato adds, Repub. 7. pag. 534. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Such an one knoweth not either good itself, or any other good; but if he hath attained to some shadow of good, it is rather in opinion than certain knowledge: and thence the life which he now leads is as it were sleepy and buried in the vain Images of Dreams, until he awake; and so descendes into Hel, there to take an eternal nap. I grant Plato in this and the forementioned citations speaks not universally of all Philosophers, but only of some who rested satisfied in the contemplation of some lower shadows, pictures, or reflections of good, but contemplated not the supreme original Good, Beauty itself, or God: But yet upon the supposition of his Position, viz. That all true Philosophy leads men unto and terminates on God, the knowledge, love and imitation of him, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the first Beauty and Good itself; this, I say, being granted, (as it is eternally true) hence our assertion will necessarily follow, that the wisest of these blind Philosophers were indeed but Dreamers, void of all true practic knowledge of God. But will you hear Plato speaking Categorically and universally of the whole mass of Mankind plunged in Cimmerian darkness? Consult then what he lays down in his Repub. 7. pag. 514.

Thus Plato ingenuously acknowledgeth man's native ignorance, in words worthy of a Christian. He says p. 533. that Human nature is fallen into a gulf of darkness and ignorance: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The eye of the soul is immersed in the barbaric mire of Ignorance. Agen he tells us, Rep. 7. p. 521. how the Soul may be delivered from these chains of native ignorance, and that his Philosophy was intended for this use: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To be is the knowledge of the reduction of the Soul from its night-day (or ignorance) to the true knowledge of Being. (or God.) This knowledge of God he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Idea of the chiefest Good: also the Contemplation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of being, not according to opinion, but according to essence. This he terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , true Philosophy; which he and all those of his Tribe were void of. For albeit they pretended to some Metaphysic Contemplations touching the first Being, yet that they were without any true Idea of God, and so without true Philosophy, I think is evident by what has been said. But the Scripture speaks more fully of the falsehood and vanity of Pagan Philosophy: so in that famose Text, Col. 2.8, Philosophy and vain deceit; i.e. as Grotius, vain and deceitful Philosophy. So 1 Tim. 6.20, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of false knowledge; which Grotius understands of the Pythagorizing Gnostics, their Philosophic infusions. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a lie, signifies primarily falsely so called, assuming a name not belonging to it, or, not answering its name. These Pythagorizing wanton Gnostics affected the name of Mysterious science, or knowledge; they would fain pass for knowing men, such as had a deep insight into the most abstruse Mysteries: But Paul assures us, That all their Mystic science was but falsely termed such: their spinose and argute questions were but frivolous and vain, imbibed from the Pythagorean source, and no way deserving the name of true science. So Clemens Alexander. applying this Scripture to the Gnostics, says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as pride and arrogant opinion spoiled Philosophy, so false knowledge, knowledge, &c. With which that of Plato suites well, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I think nothing has done so much hurt to man as false opinion. To all which we may add that of our Lord, Luk. 11.35, Take heed that the light which is in thee be not darkness; i.e. content not thyself with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a dark, spurious, false night-Philosophy, &c.

§. 3. A second Proprietie of true Philosophy, according to the Philosophers themselves, is that it be a contemplation of things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not only by phantasms or imaginations, but according to the nature or essence of the things themselves: i. e. all true Philosophy gives a natural or native Idea of things; it is substantial, solid, real, intuitive knowledge. But now it's apparent, that Pagan Philosophy was but artificial imitamens, traditional empty notions, and aerial speculations about the pictures of things; they never saw nor yet understood the things themselves, more than by some broken corrupt Tradition. And surely this gives us a great demonstration of its vanity. We have sufficiently proved, that all Pagan Philosophy was no other than traditional imperfect corrupt Imitamens of Jewish Revelations and wisdom. Those blind Philosophers had no substantial, real, native, intuitive Contemplation of those things about which they Philosophised; they could obtain no more than some artificial pictures, or rather shadows only of the first principes of Nature, of God, and of other Divine Mysteries, which were conveyed to them by some broken oriental Jewish Traditions; these did much please their phantasies, (as pictures do Children) but gave them no solid, real, intuitive notices or Ideas of those Divine things they related to. Now we know Pictures or artificial Images give but equivocal, not univocal or natural representations. Al know what a vast difference there is betwixt a real substantial intuitive view of the Sun in the Firmament, and the mere artificial equivocal Contemplation of its picture on a Sign-post: or betwixt the view of a Country with our own eyes, and the viewing of it in a Map, or by Tradition: such is the difference betwixt the Mimic, Traditional, Artificial Philosophy of the Pagans, and the real, substantial, native, univocal Wisdom vouchsafed the Jewish Church. That all Pagan Philosophy was but an equivocal image, an artificial picture, or rather but an imperfect dark traditional shadow of Divine Wisdom and Philosophy, may be easily gathered by their own concessions: so Plato, Repub. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Mimes or imitators make only phantasms or pictures, not things. This he more fully explicates elsewhere, telling us, That imitation is the third degree from truth; for it considers not the things themselves, but their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Idols or pictures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , making phantasms of thing. Agen, Repub. 10. he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Mime will neither know nor think aright of those things he imitates as to good or evil. This he does more fully explain in what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Imitator knows nothing worthy of reason about those things he imitates; but imitation is but a kind of jest or play, not a serious study. This he proves in that all imitation is employed only in drawing shadows of things, it reacheth not the things themselves. This indeed is an exact character of Pagan Philosophy, which was but an artificial imitation of, or shadow reflected from Jewish Wisdom and Mysteries. These Gentile Philosophers, the most sharp-sighted of them, saw those Divine Mysteries they so boldly Philosophised on in a Mimic broken glass, or abstract Idea only, conveyed to them by some imperfect corrupt Tradition; they had not any real intuitive vision or contemplation of the things themselves in their own native Idea, Proprieties and Effects. Thus much is acknowledged by Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 476. where speaking of such as were very curious to hear sweet words, and contemplate beautiful colors and figures, he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , It is impossible for the reason of such intuitively to behold and embrace the nature of beauty itself. This which he applies to particulars is universally applicable to the whole tribe of Pagan Philosophers, who received sweet sounds, and saw some beautiful colors, figures, and pictures of Divine things in the broken glass or abstract of Jewish Tradition, but never had an intuitive contemplation of those Divine Mysteries shining in their own real, native, glorious Ideas on the glass of Sacred Revelation in the Jewish Church. Thus much indeed seems acknowledged by Plato himself in the aforesaid place, Repub. 5. pag. 476. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Are there not very few if any who are able to know and contemplate beauty itself, [ i.e. God] according to himself? i.e. intuitively. Whence he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Is not this therefore true knowledge, to contemplate the first Being in his native perfections, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as being, under this reduplication? Agen, Repub. 5. pag. 480. Plato concludes thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Such therefore as have embraced this singular self-Being, are to be called Philosophers, not Opiniators, or lovers of opinion. i. e. None deserve the name of Philosophers, but such as have had a real intuition and contemplation of God; all others are but lovers of phantasms, pictures, or opinions. And Plato in his Philebus, pag. 40, gives us a more particular 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or discrimination of such Philosophers as had this intuitive, real knowledge, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Virtuose persons have for the most part true ideas or images engraven on their minds, because they are Theophilists, or beloved of God, but wicked men have for the most part the contrary. These (as he elsewhere adds) contemplate only beautiful colors and pictures, not beauty itself. And if so, we may certainly conclude, that there was not one of those Heathen Philosophers that was truly such as they pretended to be; for they were all wicked men, and therefore could not have a real, native, intuitive contemplation of God, who is Beauty itself, which they make to be essential to all true genuine Philosophy. Thus much also our Apostle, in his discourse of that vain Pythagorean Philosophy, which was sucked in by the Gnostics, Col. 2.18, 23. v. 18. he speaks of their intruding into things they had not seen. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies, proudly invading or intruding into things beyond their reach; as before, c. 1. §. 3. i.e. They pretended to an intuitive knowledge of Angels, &c. but Paul gives a true character of all their Philosophy, v. 23. which things have indeed a show of wisdom; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. of some excellent Philosophic Contemplations, or sublime notions, which seem rather to be dropt from Heaven than invented by men: but all this, says our Apostle, is but a show. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. saith Erasmus, a species or form, as 'tis opposed to a thing or substance; they had only a picture and artificial form of wisdom, or rather a false opinion, or apparent shadow, not a real substantial intuitive contemplation of things. This our Apostle affirms universally of the Jewish wisdom or Philosophy in its degenerate state, Rom. 2.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a form of knowledge. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the form of a thing that is beheld; and being translated to the mind it signifies the impressing or forming of an idea of the thing thereon; but here it seems to import only an abstract form, or artificial scheme, and picture of truth; so Oecumenius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , manifesting that they had not the true knowledge and godliness, but an artificial image; for they had the scheme of truth, not the substance. Thence Hesychius expounds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an artificial scheme; and Phavorinus, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a feigned scheme, form, or picture of true knowledge; how much short were the blind Pagans of any real, solid, substantial knowledge of things Divine? Is not this proper only to the true Church and people of God? Thence it's said, Prov. 2.7, He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies primarily, that which really is essence, substance; thence it notes real, solid, and substantial wisdom, such as carries with it an essential true Idea of the thing known; which as to things Divine is proper only to the real Christian. The same we find, Prov. 3.21, Keep sound wisdom.

§. 4. Hence it follows, that all Pagan Philosophy is only universal and general, not particular and experimental; which gives us a farther demonstration of its imperfection and vanity, specially as to Morals and Metaphysics. For Aristotle rightly informs us, that universal knowledge in maters of practice is vain, but particular more true. So Aristot. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In Practic discourses universals are more vain, but particulars more true; for Actions are about singulars. This the Civilian has well observed:

i. e. When its Causes, Effects, Adjuncts, Qualities and Parts are apprehended by us. And it is a received opinion in the Schools, Now this was the case of all those Pagan Philosophers, they had only some General Ideas, or loose broken notices of those things they discoursed of; they had not any particular apprehension of the Parts, Qualities, Causes, Influences, and Effects of things, specially such as depended on Divine Revelation: They had only some general rumors, or traditional notions of God, his Divine Perfections, Operations and Effects of Providence; they had only some traditional fragments of the first Origin of the Universe, the state of Innocence, the Fal of Man, &c. but all their Philosophisings on, or notions of these things were only general, and so very imperfect and vain. Yet the main of their vanity in this regard lay not so much in Naturals as in Morals and Supernaturals: For it cannot be denied, but that many of the Pagan Philosophers had very particular, experimental, and curious Contemplations about Natural things; they were very exact in anatomising the bowels of Nature, and gathering up a System of Natural Experiments, which is the choicest part of Natural Philosophy, as it appears by Aristotle 's excellent History of Animals, and Theophrastus his Discourse of Plants; wherein they have excelled most of this later age. But yet as to Ethics and Metaphysics their Philosophy was only traditional, general, and notional, not particular and experimental; and therefore very vain and useless. This also may be demonstrated out of Plato 's own Concessions; for in his Theaetetus he lays down this as his opinion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , It seems to me, that he who knows anything has a sensate cognition of what he knows; for, as it now appears, science is nothing else than sensation, or a particular experimental feeling knowledge. So Timaeus, pag. 103. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wisdom is a good sense of soul. So Plato in his Gorgias, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Experience makes our life to pass away according to rules of art, but Inexperience casually. Agen he adds, That an experimental Philosopher only can judge prudently of things; for, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , persons inexperienced of the truth and other maters, have no sound opinions of pleasure and sorrow. Now that none of these blind Philosophers had this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , good sensation, or experimental particular knowledge of good and evil, pleasure or sorrow, is most evident; because they had not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a good habitude of soul, which they themselves make essentially requisite to this spiritual good sensation or experimental Philosophy. So Aristotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A virtuose man judgeth truly of what is good, but a wicked man casually: as it is in bodies, such as are well-disposed can judge truly of things that are wholesome, or conducing to health; but those who are sick, otherwise; for to these bitter and sweet have the same relish. This indeed was the very case of all these Pagan Philosophers, they had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an il habitude of soul; and so were void of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , right sensation, or experimental knowledge; they had not those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. 5.14. which rendered all their Morals and Metaphysics vain.

§. 5. Whence it follows, That all Pagan Philosophy is but cloudy, obscure, and confused, not evident, clear, and distinct: for it is a commun and true maxim, that in Universals and Generals there lies much Ambiguitie, Obscuritie, and Confusion; all clear, evident, distinct judgment procedes from the consideration of particulars. And that the evident, clear, distinct contemplation of things is essential to all genuine Philosophy may be easily gathered from the Philosophers themselves, their own acknowlegements. Plato, Epinom. pag. 976. makes mention of an admirable faculty of discerning, which belongs to a Philosopher; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Which many cal nature rather than wisdom; and it is conversant in this, that a man does with facility and dexterity learn a thing, and having learned it, commit it to a faithful and firm memory, and recalls it with celerity as occasion serves. This some cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , wisdom; others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nature; others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sagacitie of nature. This natural Sagacitie is thus described, Platon. definite. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sagacitie is a good disposition of soul, whereby he that has it is enabled to discern what becomes everyone; or more briefly in what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an acumen of judgment. This, says Plato Repub. 2. pag. 376. Dogs are in some sense endowed with, which have a natural sagacity to discern their friend from their foe, only by the countenance. This Repub. 7 pag. 537. he makes a character of his Logician, that he be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one that can accurately look into and distinguish things. And in his Repub. 9. he makes a Philosopher to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a diacritic or very critic instrument; for look as the eye is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an accurate critic of bodies, such should the Philosophers mind be of good and evil. He tells us also in the same Repub. 9. whence this critic judgment springs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a critic judgment is made by Experience and Prudence, and Reason or Discourse. And Seneca Epist. 71. tells us,

By all which it is evident how little of true wisdom these Pagan Philosophers had: For how could they distinguish aright betwixt Good and Evil without spiritual senses exercised, as Heb. 5.15? This Intellectual Sagacitie is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dexterity; which according to the Platonic definition, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an habit of choosing what is best; which all will grant these Pagan Philosophers were void of. And indeed Plato ingenuously confesseth, That this faculty of distinguishing or discerning what was best, was not commun, but peculiar to the judgment of Jupiter. And Aristotle seems sensible of this, that there was much difficulty in distinguishing betwixt truth and falsehood; because there was so much falsehood like to truth. So Rhet. l. 1. c. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for it belongs to the same faculty to judge of truth, and that which is like unto truth. Which faculty he and the rest of his Tribe were greatly void of; for how often does a falsehood, if like to truth, pass with them for truth? so confused and indistinct were they in all their Philosophemes. This is excellently set forth by Aristotle, Ethic. l. 3. c. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for a righteous man judgeth rightly of all things, &c. Then he adds, that this righteous or virtuose man doth accurately difference things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being as it were the canon, rule, and measure of all things: i.e. (saith Lambinus ) not that truth depends upon the judgment of a virtuose man, but that his judgment is conformed to truth. But then Aristotle concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the most of men seem to be under deceit by reason of pleasure, &c. This indeed was the case of all those poor Philosophers; their foolish hearts were darkened and deceived by lust, which rendered their Philosophy, specially in Morals and Supernaturals, extreme confused and cloudy. It is Faith only, according to Heb. 11.1. that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an evidence of things not seen, i.e. Supernatural. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is either (1) a natural evidence; as the light is the evidence of itself and all things else. (2) A Philosophic evidence, as first principes are in themselves most evident, and give evidence to all other lower principes; or as a demonstrative argument is evident, and gives evidence to the conclusion. (3) Legal evidence; which is either of Right or Fact. (4) Supernatural evidence; such is Faith of things naturally and rationally invisible.

§. 6. Another Adjunct, which the Philosophers made essential to their Philosophy, is Stabilitie and Certainty of Assent. For, says Plato, Repub. 5. such as content themselves with fluid weak Opinions, are not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Philosophers, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , lovers of Opinions. So agen in his Phaedrus, pag. 262. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that knows not the truth, but hunts after Opinions, will exhibit only a ridiculose and inartificial Art. But Repub. 6. pag. 506. more fully thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , What then? doest thou not know that Opinions without science are base, the best of which are but blind? or do they seem to thee to differ anything from blind men, who, though going on in a right way, have only some opinions about truth without understanding? surely nothing. Whence he concludes, That it is not lawful to contemplate base and blind Opinions, when things more certain are before us. And in his Meno he gives us the privilege of a certain knowledge above opinion; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that has science or certain knowledge always reacheth what he aims at; but he that has only a right opinion sometimes attains his end, sometimes not. Now that these Pagan Philosophers had not this Scientific or certain knowledge of things, (excepting some of their Mathematic Demonstrations) but only some weak fluid dark opinions, is very evident. For according to their own principes, science or certain knowledge is the result of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demonstration, which supposeth a clear, steadfast knowledge of the Causes, and their causal connection with the Effect; which the Pagan Philosophy was, in its chiefest parts, wholly destitute of. For what jejune and slender notices had these purblind Sophists touching God, the first Cause of all things, his great Productive Acts of Creation and Providence? The certain knowledge hereof depends wholly on Divine Revelation, the proper object of Faith, according to Heb. 11.3, Through faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God. By which it's evident, that there can be no certain immovable assent or knowledge touching the first origin of things, (which comprehends a great part of Pagan Philosophy) but what procedes from Faith assenting unto Divine Revelation. Whence the Spirits act in working this assent is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 2.4. Demonstration, i.e. The assent wrought by the Spirit of God is as certain, as assent wrought by Mathematic ocular Demonstration. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Mathematic notion, noting a most potent and essicacious conviction of the mind, which leaves no place for douting; and so it's opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifies a dark Adumbration, or rude draught, like the first lines in a demonstration; whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a complete scientific certain assent. The Pagan Philosophers had some kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dark adumbration, or shadowy description of the first principes of nature, &c. which they received by some broken Traditions from the Jews; but they had not this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demonstration, or certain assent touching the Worlds origin: this is peculiar to Divine Faith, bottomed on Sacred Revelation, as Heb. 11.3. Yea, Divine Faith has according to its Sacred character, Col. 2.2. an objective 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. a full, stable, certain persuasion of the veracitie or truth of its Object; the Metaphor being taken from a Ship carried with full sails. The like Luk. 1.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of those things which are fully and certainly assented unto by us. Every Believer has a direct, adhesive plerophorie, or certain assent touching the certainty of the things contained in the Word of God; albeit he has not a reflex plerophorie, or cortain assurance of his own propriety and interest therein. Thence Gal. 3.1, Before whose eyes Christ has been evidently set forth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , painted forth, or drawn to the life; they had as certain and steadfast a vision of Christ by faith, as they had who stood by the Cross and saw him crucified. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is opposed to Plato 's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dark adumbration, or opinionative knowledge. The Divine Faith of Jews and Christians gives them a full, steadfast, certain, spiritual vision of things invisible as to sense or reason, Heb. 11.27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But now the wisest of the Pagan Philosophers had only the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dark shadowy notices of these Divine Revelations from Jewish Traditions. The Schole-men tell us, that the certainty of Divine Faith, as bottomed on Divine Autoritie, is more infallible than that of human Science bottomed on Demonstration. But this the most quick-sighted of these Pagan Philosophers were void of, and therefore could not attain to that certain knowledge of the principes of Philosophy which they pretended unto. We have for this a great acknowlegement by Plutarch, one of the wisest moderne Philosophers, who in the life of Coriolanus speaketh thus:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Many of the Divine maters are (according to Heraclitus ) by reason of our unbelief hidden from our knowledge. Thus Plutarch ingenuously acknowledgeth their ignorance of Divine affairs, as also the root of all, which he makes to be unbelief. This incertaintie of Pagan Philosophy gives us a farther Demonstration of its vanity.

§. 7. Philosophers give this as a propriety of true Philosophy, that it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Dianoetic, Dialogistic, and Dialectic or Discursive. i. e. originally springing from, and ultimately determining in some necessary first Principes. Thence Philosophy is described in the Platonic definitions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a true and unerring Ratiocination in the Dianoetic judgment. Thence Plato under the term of Dialectic or Logic seems to comprehend the whole of his Philosophy. So in his Repub. 7. pag. 533. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Dialectic method procedes this way only, namely that removing the Hypotheses it may arrive to the first principe, and lay a firm foundation for assent — using other arts as auxiliarie aides. Agen in the same Repub. 7. he defines his Logician thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Thou callest a Dialectic one who considers the reason of every Being; for he that accurately discerneth things is a Dialectic. Yea indeed he makes nothing true Logic or discourse but what determines in the knowledge of God, the first Principe, who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Platonists speak, the sum and comprehension of all reason or discourse. By which it is apparent, that all Pagan Philosophy was not truly Logistic or discursive, but rather paralogistic and sophistic. For indeed most of their Disputes were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contentiose Ratiocinations, vain both in their Principes and Conclusions. This Paul takes notice of in Rom. 1.21. Vain in their imaginations. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In their disputes, or Dialogistic Ratiocinations: for their ancient way of disputing was by Dialogues, or Interrogations and Answers, agreeable to the Judaic Argumentation, as we have shown, Court Gent. P. 2. B. 3. C. 8. §. 2. Al their Disputes both Mental and Verbal were vain. So 1 Cor. 1.20. Where is the disputer of this world? i.e. Al their Philosophic Disputations could not bring them to the knowledge of God the first Principe. So 1 Tim. 6.4. Doting about questions; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which, as he adds, were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , strifes about words no way conducing to edification. Or, as he adds v. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , very busy, but perverse discourses about trifles. So that indeed all their Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , disputes, were but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , perverse or false reasonings no way conducing to clear up truth or any first principes, as has been observed Chap. 1. §. 6.

§. 8. Another Attribute, or if you will, formal part of Pagan Philosophy is, that it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Noetic or Intelligent; i.e. comprehensive of the first and highest Principes. This part of Philosophy they usually style 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Intelligence; which they make to be a comprehension of the first Principes of Science; and so distinguish it from Dianoetic Philosophy, which is the assent to Conclusions by discourse from first principes; as also from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Sapience, which they take to be the knowledge of the most excellent Being, God, &c. But Plato seems to make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Intelligence, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Wisdom, to be the same, and so at present we shall consider them. This Intelligence or Sapience Plato makes to be the supreme and most perfect of all Sciences. So Repub. 6. pag. 511. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Intelligence in the highest place; which afterward he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the most perfect of all; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the end of all Disciplines: unto which all other Arts ought to be subservient. So in his Phileb. pag. 58. he terms it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the principal Science; because it prescribeth mea2ure, weight, and rules to all other Sciences. And the original ground why this Intelligence or Sapience is so excellent a Science Plato lays down, Repub. 7. pag. 513.

This he explains more fully in his Theaetetus, pag. 140. where he says, this Intelligence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the return of the soul from its night-day to the true light of Being; i. e. of God. Whence he adds, pag. 176. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The knowledge of this first Being is true sapience and virtue, but the ignorance of him the worst rudeness and evil. So Alcibiad. 2. pag. 146. he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the knowledge of other sciences, without the knowledge of that which is best, is little advantageous. This gives us a farther demonstration of the vanity of all Pagan Philosophy; which notwithstanding all its pretensions, was altogether void of this Divine Intelligence or Sapience. Thus much indeed Plato acknowledgeth in his Phileb. saying, that the knowledge of the one infinite Being was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a gift of God to men: which in his Theages, he says, God gives to none but such as are his friends. And Plato, Repub. 6. p. 483. gives us a large Analogy, or proportion, 'twixt the light of the Sun and this knowledge of God; showing, that as the eye cannot contemplate the Sun but by its own light, so neither can the mind contemplate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Being itself; i.e. God, unless there be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , some Idea or beam of this chiefest Good; which, says he, is the cause of all truth in every intelligent faculty, without which there can be no science. Now that the wisest of these Pagan Philosophers were altogether void of this infused Divine Intelligence or light, I suppose no Christian will deny.

§. 9. Another formal Attribute or part they give Philosophy is, that it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prudential. Of this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prudence, they make several parts. (1) Self-reflection, or the knowledge of ourselves, specially our Souls. So Plato, in his Alcibiad. 1. pag. 133. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , If the soul wilknow itself, must it not reflect upon itself? — And to know himself, we confess is wisdom. And he adds, that such as know not themselves know not either their goods or their ils, or anything else that belongs unto them, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Therefore this part thereof seems to be most like to the Divinity; and if any reflect thereon, and behold all that is Divine, and God, and Sapience, he shall thus mostly know himself. By which he instructs us, that by knowing the Divine part of the soul we come to understand what is Divine, both God, and Wisdom, and ourselves. So de legib. 1. pag. 650. he saith, It is the most profitable of all Sciences to know, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the dispositions and habits of the souls. (2) A part of this Prudence they cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Providence; which the Platonists thus define, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Providence is a Preparation for something future. Whence say they it is the part of prudent persons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to foresee difficulties. And because they estimed nothing more difficult than to die well, thence Pythagoras, Plato, and Tully define Philosophy, the Contemplation of Death. (3) The chiefest part of the Philosophers Prudence consisted in the framing of happiness. So in the Platonic definitions: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prudence is a science effective of happiness. So Stobaeus, Serm. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prudence is the science of Happiness as to life. So Aristotle. (4) As to present affairs, they make this Prudence to consist in the right disposing and ordering of all things with subservience to our last end. So Pittachus makes Prudence to lie in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the right management of what is before us. And Socrates makes a young man's Wisdom to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the doing nothing rashly. This Plato calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , good consultation. So Rep. 4. pag. 428. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Aristotle makes Prudence to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a consultation what is to be done, and what not. (5) More particularly the Philosophers made Prudence to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a knowledge of good and of evil. i.e. [1] Rightly to distinguish betwixt good and evil. [2] To imitate what is best: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lay up what is best, and those things do thou imitate, Stob. Serm. 3. [3] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To use things conducing to this life well, as Plato Charm. [4] To preserve the rectitude of the will, and regular order in the affections, &c. By all which Descriptions of Prudence it is apparent these blind Philosophers were altogether void of it. For (1) How seldom or never did they reflect on their actions, souls, and state? (2) How little foresight of, but much less preparation for a future state, had they? (3) How little influential on future happiness was all their Prudence? (4) How little practic or directive as to present affairs was their Prudence? (5) Much less could they attain to any true virtue by all their Prudence. Indeed all their human Wisdom or Prudence was but carnal policy, according to the Platonic definition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Craft is an affection, whereby he that has it is enabled to design his private interest; which is the greatest solie, according to Eccles. 10.3. His wisdom faileth him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his heart, or his Prudence.

§. 10. The last Proprietie ascribed to Pagan Philosophy is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a plastic, efformative, or transforming virtue: So Plato, Repub. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Philosopher conversing with what is Divine and excellent, becomes also, so far as its possible for a man, Divine and excellent: by imitating these Divine things we become like to them. Agen, Gorgias, p. 460. he tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that studies anything is wrought by his science into the likeness of that which he studies, — and he that studies righteousness becomes righteous. But he speaks more fully, Repub. 6. p. 501. where showing how Philosophers by their institutes do form men according to the Divine Exemplar: This Divine Product in men (says he) Homer calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Deiforme, or little God in man. The like Rep. 9. p. 592. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , But there is placed in Heaven a most exact exemplar for any that will to contemplate, and by contemplating conform himself unto it. Agen, Theaetet. p. 176. he tells us, That the Soul's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. assimilation unto God, so far as 'tis possible in righteousness and holiness, is the product of Wisdom, or Philosophy. But this Divine Metamorphose, or Transformation is peculiar to Divine and saving Faith, according to 2 Cor. 3.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we are transformed; i.e. by beholding the glorious Ideas of Divine Wisdom and Grace, reflected from the face of Christ on the glass of the Gospel, we are by the efficaciose concurrence of the Spirit changed into the same glorious image of Christ. This Pagan Philosophy could never reach: all its transformative virtue was to change men's minds and conversations into the image of Satan. Such was its Vanity and Insufficience to reach those ends, which those blind Philosophers proposed to themselves. But this may suffice to show the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its Formal nature, Attributes or Adjuncts.

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

Pagan Philosophy vain, (1) as to its end, Eccles. 10.2, 3. (2) As it causeth Soul-deceit, Ephes. 4.14. Ephes. 5.6. Col. 2.4, 8, 18. (3) As productive of Idolatry, specially Demon-worship, Images, &c. As to Atheism, which was the product of Physics, Mathematics, Politics and Eristic Philosphie. (4) Jewish Apostasy from Pagan Philosophy; [1] The Jewish Baalim, or Demons. [2] The Aposasie of the Jews after the Captivitie from Pagan Philosophy. The Jewish Cabala from Pythagorean Symbolic Philosophy. So likewise their Talmud. (5) Pagan Philosophy the cause of the great Errors in the Primitive Churches, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (1) The Gnostic Errors from Pagan Philosophy; their Mystic Theology from Mythologic, Symbolic Philosophy, [1] Their Aeones from Philosophic Ideas and Demons, 1 Joh. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . [2] Their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from Pythagorean Institutes. [3] Forbidding Mariages, 1 Tim. 4.3. [4] Abstinences. [5] Sorceie. [6] Sensuality. [7] Expiations. [8] Allegoric Resurrection. (2) Pagan Philosophy the cause of many Errors amongst the Fathers, specially those of the Schools of Alexandria. (3) The Errors of Samosetanus and Arius had their rise in the Schole of Alexandria, from the Platonic Contemplations about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. (4) Pagan Philosophy the cause of Pelagianism, which was founded by Origen and the Origenists, with other Greek Fathers, who did too much symbolise with Pagan Philosophers herein. A Summarie of Pelagianism and Augustine's zeal against it.

§. 1. WE have discoursed of the Vanity of Pagan Philosophy from its Causes, Essential Partes, and Attributes; we now proceed to demonstrate the same from its Effects; wherein there appears much more Vanity than in the former. The many vain Effects of Pagan Philosophy may be reduced to these commun Heads. (1) They are more general, such as regard both Pagans and the People of God. (2) They are more particular and peculiar, [1] To the Jewish Church: [2] To the Christian Churches, both primitive or purer, and later under Antichristian Apostasy. We are to begin with the corrupt Effects of vain Philosophy in general, as relating both to Pagans and the Professing People of God. And amongst these we may reckon, (1) as one great piece of its Vanity, that it reached not that end which it proposed: For a thing is said to be vain, when it attains not its proposed End. Now the End which these vain Philosophers proposed was by their Philosophy to reduce the Soul to that natural state of knowing and enjoying God, which it was possessed of in Innocence. So Philosophy is defined by Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The reduction of the soul from its night-day to the true sight of Being, i.e. God. Agen, he calls Philosophy the contemplation, love, and imitation of God. But now how far all Pagan Philosophy came short of this End, is evident by what has been laid down in the foregoing Discourses. Yea take Philosophy in its zenith or meridian glory, and it was but a mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Theorie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , likeness, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Rom. 2.20, form of knowledge. It gave not the least 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Metamorphose to the Soul, as Faith is said to do, 2 Cor. 3.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Solomon gives an excellent character of all the Pagan Philosophers, Prov. 7.7, And beheld amongst the simple ones — a young man void of understanding. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of an heart: i.e. Practic understanding. So Eccles. 10.2, 3, we have an excellent antithese betwixt a true Philosopher and the vain: we find the true Philosopher characterised thus, v. 2, A wise man's heart is at his right; i.e. his Philosophy or Wisdom is practic and directive, he can make use of it on all occasions. But a fools heart is at his left; i.e. his Philosophy is no way practic or operative. So it follows, v. 3, Yea also when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 his heart ] faileth him. i.e. Al his Philosophic Contemplations, when they come to maters of Practice or Direction, fail him. Whence it follows: [and he saith to everyone that he is a fool,] i.e. his actions bespeak him to be a mere fool, void of an heart or practic judgment, notwithstanding all his pretensions to Philosophic Wisdom. Such wise fools were Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, &c. who, notwithstanding all their Philosophic Speculations, were void of an heart or true pactic directive Wisdom.

§. 2. Pagan Philosophy has not only come short of its End which was proposed, but also proved a great snare, delusion, and cloke for all manner of wickedness, which is an effect worse than the former. This our Apostle Paul seems to give some hints of, 1 Cor. 3.1. He calls them Babes. They had much carnal wisdom, being seated in the eye of Grece, yet he looks upon them as Babes as to Divine Wisdom. Ver. 10, &c. he gives cautions against building Hay and stubble, i.e. Human Philosophic Inventions on the Gospels foundation. Then v. 18, he gives a particular caution against this self-deceiving, vain Philosophy, Let no man deceive himself; if any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let no man deceive himself; i.e. with vain Philosophy, &c. So Grotius on this Text: Al Philosophy (says he) repugnant to the Gospel is deceit, 2 Thes. 2.3. Thence it follows v. 19, For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their Metaphysic Sapience, or Philosophy. He notes the most sublime Contemplations and Philosophemes among the Philosophers. Thence he adds, He takes the wise in their own craftiness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies all manner of Calliditie, or Dexteritie to cheat and deceive; an art of cheating; wherein many Corinthian Sophistes or Gnostics were much versed. So agen v. 20, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Philosophic Reasonings or Disputes of the Sophists; they are both Philosophic terms. These Philosphic reasonings are said to be vain, in that they deceived those who trusted to them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primarily notes, to confer among themselves by Questions and Responsions or Answers; which was the ancient mode of disputing both among the Jews and Grecians. Thus Mat. 21.25. Luk. 12.17. Mark 2.6, 8. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Disceptation or Ratiocination either Mental or Oral. Sometimes it signifies the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , inane concertation or dispute of words about things of no moment. So Phil. 2.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, saith Grotius, seems to be those bitter contentions about things no way conducing to piety: whereof there were many among the Philosophers, specially the Aristoteleans, who abounded in Macedonia where Philippi stood. Our Apostle seems also to strike at this soul-deceit of vain Philosophy in his Epistle to the Ephesians, amongst whom there lived many Pythagorizing Jews and Gnostics. So Ephes. 4.14, That we be no more henceforth children tossed to and fro. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. fluctuating up and down like the waves of the Sea, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Amongst the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified a Dice, and because the cast of a Dice was most casual and incertain as to its event, as also that whereby crafty Gamesters circumvented the more simple; thence the word was by them translted from its primitive notion to signify, (1) any casual and uncertain event; and this signification here, though metaphoric and borrowed, is very emphatic, and lively, setting forth the skipping levity and inconstance of men's minds, more uncertain than the cast of the Dice. Thus Beza understands the word here. But yet (2) we must take in also the second notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it notes crafty circumvention of the more simple. There were at Ephesus many Pythagorizing Gnostics, who, by their sublime speculations and subtle fraudulent distinctions, circumvented the more simple professors as well as themselves. Thence our Apostle procedes to give a further account of the root of all: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by cunning craftiness. It is the same with that before mentioned, 1 Cor. 3.19, whereby he seems to paint forth the Philosophic sophisterie of those Pythagorizing Jews and Gnostics, who lay in wait to beguile and ensnare poor silly professors. So it follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereby they lie in wait to deceive. i.e. By their cunning crafty Philosophisings. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , method, is a compendiose and artificial way of handling simple Themes, Propositions, or Sciences. Thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes a certain Art of cheating or deceiving, comprehended under certain general rules. Thus Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to lie in wait to deceive, is artificiosely to circumvent someone, and by a compendiary way to reduce him under his power. Agen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Lying in wait to deceive, i.e. Preparing a persuasive discourse, and using artifices to cover the cheat. Which course these Pythagorizing Gnostics took. Our Apostle inculcates this exhortatorie caution, Ephes. 5.6, Let no man deceive you with vain words. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He marks out, says Grotius, the Philosophers who asserted there was no evil in Incestes, Communitie of Wives, over-reaching of one the other in buyings and sellings, &c. whose vain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. reasonings or Philosophisings the Pythagorizing Gnostics made use of, to color over their gross wickednesses, and so to deceive the more simple Christians. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify Philosophic Arguments or reasonings as well as words. This our Apostle does yet more professedly discourse of, and against, in his Epistle to the Colossians, who were very sorely infested, at least assaulted, by the Pythagorizing Gnostics. So Col. 2.4, And this I say lest any one should beguile you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. Deceive you by Sophistic disputes of vain Philosophy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to impose a sophistic and fallacious argument, which yet has the color and show of a good argument, thereby to circumvent the credulous and simple; which is the main work of a Sophister. It answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Seventy interpret by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to cheat and deceive. Hence Hesychius explicates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Paralogisme, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , deceit; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Paralogist, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Deceiver or Cheater. So that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies properly by false ratiocination to deceive, by sophistic reason, or captiose syllogism to impose on others, or on ourselves; and so it's opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to dispute regularly. Hence Jam. 1.22. Such as content themselves with mere Philosophic reason, or notional knowledge, are brought in as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , imposing a Paralogisme, or fallacious argument on themselves. Indeed for men to acquiesce in mere Philosophic or speculative Wisdom, is the worst of Paralogismes, and Sophisterie; for it is self-deceit, it is soul deceit: Therefore the Apostle gives the more severe caution against it. Then it follows, Col. 2.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with enticing words. Here we have the mater of their Paralogistic fallacious Philosophisings; which was fair plausible pretextes of Reason, probable or persuasive Discourses, Artificially and Philosophically composed, thereby the more effectually to deceive: so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 imports. This our Apostle does more fully explain, v. 8, Beware lest any spoil you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This term is military, signifying the carrying away a prey. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes a prey or spoil taken in war, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to carry away. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth properly, in an hostile manner, and by an armed power to plunder and carry away: whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is by Hesychius interpreted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , plundering, or stripping naked: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As if the Apostle had said:

Thence follows the great engine by which this was accomplished: By Philosophy and vain deceit, here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one and the same thing under a double expression; as if he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the vain deceit of Philosophy. So Grotius. The like he adds v. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Let no one deceive you of your brabium, or reward. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to moderate as a Judge in the Grecian Games, and so it is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , jus dicere, to judge and pass sentence; whence the Judges were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Reward 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifies (1) and properly to give sentence against any one as unworthy of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Reward. So Phavorinus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Beza here understands it, Let no man act the part of a Judge against you. But (2) Jerome tells us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Cilician tongue, wherein Paul was instituted being of Tarsis, signifies to spoil or rob one of his reward. Thus here it signifies in a borrowed notion, to beguile of the reward. And the medium by which they did it, was Pythagorean Philosophy. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pede inferens. These Gnostics having sucked in the Pythagorean infusions about Angels and Demon-worship, they thence coined many curious mystic speculations about these Philosophic Mysteries, which had v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a pretext or show of wisdom, which deceived the simpler sort of professors; but all this vain Philosophy was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a foolish deceitful wisd me, as hereafter. This gives us a sufficient general account of those monstrose Soul-deceits which ensued upon the spreading of Pagan Philosophy, and its infusions in the Churches of God. But to descend to Particulars.

§. 3. Another cursed Effect of vain Pagan Philosophy was Idolatric. It's granted that the Philosophers, the wisest of them, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, renounced the Mythologic Theology of the Poets, as also Politic in use amongst the Statesmen, Priests, and people, assuming a new Divinity or Religion of their own inventing, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology: which though it were less fabulous, and more suited to corrupt reason than either the Poetic or Politic Theology, yet was it no way less subject to Superstition and Idolatry: For though in this their Natural Theology they owned one eternal supreme God, yet they withal asserted an insinitie of Demons, or petty God's, which they made to be Mediators betwixt this one supreme God and Men. Thence Plato stiles them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made and visible God's: also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Idols and Images of the great God. Agen he says, they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made by, but under the great God. It's true he calls them also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , immortal; but then he tells us, they had only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a framed Immortality, at the pleasure of the great God. In brief, they were but certain Heroes or noble Personages deified after their Death, whom they supposed to have their chief residence in the Stars; whence they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , deastri. So Tully says of Julius Caesar, that he was turned into a Star, &c. As they presumed the chief God to have his main residence in the Sun, whom the Phoenicians called Moloch, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Grecians, Saturn, Apollo, Jupiter, as their phantasies inclined them; hence Julian 's Oration to the Sun, which he makes the supreme God: So these Demons they placed in Dignity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Co-rulers with the great God, as Plato, Polit. pag. 251. The Romans called them semi-God's, and Medioxumi, or middling God's, from their office; because they were to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God. Such were Romulus, Hercules, Aesculapius, Tyndarides, as Lud. Vives in August. Civ. l. 2. c. 16. Plutarch, in his Discourse of the cessation of Oracles, does greatly extol

But none gives us a more clear and full account of the origin, Nature, Office, and Worship of these Demons than Plato, whom we have elsewhere quoted to this purpose; to which we may add, what he mentions of them in his Cratylus, pag. 397. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Knowest thou therefore whom Hesiod makes these Demons to be? that he says they were men who lived in the first golden age. Then he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because they were wise and knowing men, he called them Demons. Whence he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Every good man dying gains a great fate and honor, and is made a Demon, according to the name of wisdom. Here Plato gives us a true account of the origin of these Demons; who were indeed at first men famose for Wisdom and Heroic Atchievements; of whom some think Joseph (whom the Egyptians worshipped as God under their Idol Apis, &c.) to be the first; others make Belus King of Tyre a Phoenician (distinct from the Assyrian Belus ) to be one of the first of these Demons; who were thence called by the Phoenicians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baalim. So Virgil tells us, That Belus or Baal was a deified Phoenician King. These Baalim (who were nothing else but the Souls of deceased Worthies deified) were brought into Israel by Jezebel, the daughter of Eth baal King of Tyre, which laid the foundation of the Jewish Idolatry, as hereafter. And that these Demons were not only Mediators, but also Objects of Worship, even amongst the Philosophers themselves, is evident, by what we find in Plato, Repub. 5.468, 469. Thus Plato, wherein we have the origin and sundry modes of this Demon-Worship. (1) As for the manner how these Demon-God's were worshipped, and as it were brought to the lure of men, when they had occasion to make use of them, it was transacted by Images, Statues, Pillars, &c. which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . These the Philosophers themselves made use of and worshipped; not that they looked upon them as their God's, but only as visible bodies, unto which they supposed their God's or Demons vouchsafed their presence and influence, answerable to Jeroboams Calves, which he erected at Dan and Bethel, supposing that God would have yielded his presence to them. We have this mystery laid open to us by Plotinus and Hermes Trismegistus, who tell us, Of which see August. Civit. lib. 8. c. 23. (2) Another way whereby they worshipped these their Demons, was by Religiose Sepulchers and Shrines: for there they hoped to find their Ghost-God's in a peculiar manner. And indeed it was not unusual for the Devil, their great Demon, to frequent Sepulchers and Tombes; as we find him in our Savior's time amongst the Tombes. And these Gentiles supposing some peculiar presences and influences of their Demons at their Sepulchers, hence therefore it was their custom to build Shrines and Temples at such places, where the bodies or ashes of their Ghost-Demons lay entombed; whence the Primitive Christians and Fathers upbraid the Gentiles, that their Temples were but the Sepulchers of dead men; which custom notwithstanding the Christians themselves, when Antichrist began to get head, took up, building their Churches by the Graves of some Saint. (3) Moreover in the worship of their Demons they used cuttings, and lancings of their flesh, as 1 King. 18.28. For their Demons being the Deified Ghosts of men deceased, they made use of these Funeral rites in the worship of them, in token that they were men deceased. Thence Deut. 14.1. and Lev. 19.28. God forbids his People this Funeral rite of cutting and lancing; because abused to Demon-Idolatry: yet did some transgress, as Jer. 41.5. (4) Agen, in the Demon-worship they had many other rites; as worshipping of Columns, Templing of Relics, Funeral-Orations, Festivals, Abstinences, sacred Vestments, &c. which were all assumed by Antichrist, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. as hereafter, C. 2. S. 3. §. 1, &c. We have the whole of this Demonworship set forth by Sacrifices to the dead, Psal. 106.28, compared with Numb. 25.2, 3. and Deut. 32.17. as Mede Diatr. 3. In short, it's evident both from the Pythagorean Schools, as also from what is mentioned of the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.16. that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demon worship and Superstition flourished most there where Philosphie flourished most, and that the former was but a Satanic effect of the later. Thus pregnant was Pagan Philosophy for the conception and improvement of Demon-worship; which was in some regard the worst of all Gentile Idolatry, in that creeping into the Churches of God, it caused the greatest Apostasy that ever was, (1) in the Jewish Church, which under Ahab and his successors fell to this Demon, or Baal -worship brought in by Jezebel. (2) In the Christian Churches under Antichrist, who brought in all these Demon-doctrines and worship, applying the same to his Saints, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. as hereafter, C. 2. c. 3.

And as Pagan Philosophy had this Demon-Idolatry contained formally in the very bowels of its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology; so had it also a great causal Influence upon all other both Poetic and Politic Idolatry. For, as we afore observed, all Idolatry had its origin from superstitious Admiration grounded on Philosophic Contemplations of those eminent qualities, hidden virtues and influences, or excellent Beauties and Glories that shone in the Creatures. So the Astronomers, by frequent contemplations of those Celestial Bodies, their excellent structure, Beauty, and Glory, their regular Motions, powerful Influences and Governments, were ravished into great Admiration of them, and thence were enticed to Idolatric Adoration, &c. So the Physiologist, or Natural Philosopher, observing many hidden qualities and mystic Impresses or characters of Divine Wisdom, Power, and Goodness in several partes of Nature, was so far ravished herewith, as that he adored the Creature instead of its Creator; which was frequent amongst the Egyptians, who, as Plutarch observes, adored every Creature wherein they perceived any Divine quality to sparkle. Thus likewise the Politicians idolised human Wisdom and Valor where-ever they found it in any eminent degree: as the Stoics adored Moral Virtue, and command of Passions, as their God, &c. Yea that this Philosophic contemplation gave the first origin to Superstition and Idolatry, is that which Plato long since observed, and makes mention of in his Cratylus: where he says,

This origination, which Plato gives to these Pagan God's and their worship, seems most true: For certain it is, that their first Idol-God's were the Celestial Bodies, called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the names of God) the Heaven, the Sun, &c. which the Scripture terms the Host of Heaven. And it is also generally confessed, that this Star-worship began amongst the Chaldeans, who were great Astronomers, called Zabii; whence this piece of Idolatry was called Zabaisme, as before, P. 2. Book 1. Ch. 4. And that Idolatry was indeed the product of Pagan Philosophy seems more than probable by what is mentioned, Rom. 1.20, &c. For the invisible things, &c. They contemplated the invisible Glories and Beauties of the Deity in his visible works. But v. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they became vain in their Philosophisings or reasonings. And he gives you the mode or manner of their vain reasonings, v. 23, And changed the Glory of God into an image, &c. i.e. they contemplated those eminent Divine qualities shining in the Creatures so long, til they fell to the adoring and Idolising of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , And changed. They changed the Glory of the incorruptible God in the coined image of a corruptible man, &c. i.e. For the glorious incorruptible God they worshipped the Idols of corruptible men, &c. Schmidius distinguisheth here between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to change somewhat into somewhat, whereby the subject, into which somewhat is transmuted, is noted; as ver. 26. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to change somewhat in somewhat, which notes the mode and medium of the change. So here, they changed the Glory of the incorruptible God, in the framed image of corruptible man, &c. i.e. whiles they worshipped the image of a corruptible man, or best, for the true and glorious God. Not that the wiser of them made these Creatures the ultimate object of their worship; no, that was too gross for such pretenders to Wisdom: but they represented, according to their phantasies, the glorise God under the figures and shapes of these vile creatures; to which they attributed the service and honor due to the great God. So Plutarch says of the Egyptians, That they worshipped not those several Creatures they met with simply as God's, but those Divine qualities they observed in those Creatures: as the Jews thought they worshipped Jehovah under their Golden Calf. Thus much for the influence Pagan Philosophy has on Idolatry. We might add to this Divination, which is but a piece of Idolatry, and was the effect of Pagan Philosophy, as before, Chap. 3. §. 7, 8, 9.

§. 4. Another monstrose Effect of vain Pagan Philosophy is Atheism, which may justly challenge the Philosophers for its Parents; and that upon sundry accounts and regards. 1. Pagan Philosophy had a mighty influence on Atheism, in that it was a door and inlet to Superstition and Idolatry. For there is (as has been observed) a very great cognation or affinity betwixt superstitious Idolatry and Atheism. Idolatry at first opened the door unto, and since has very much advanced Atheism: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Atheist believes there are no God's, and the superstitious person wisheth there were none. We have in what foregoes shown, that the Philosophers Natural Theology and Religion was but a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a superstitious Demon-fear or worship. This was the Religion of the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So v. 27. i.e. as being possessed with a dreadful apprehension of your Demon-God's, and so wholly addicted to a superstitious fear and worship of them. Al their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demon-fear and Religion, arose from slavish false apprehensions of an angry sin-revenging Deity, whom though they flatered with their lips, yet they hated in their hearts, and therefore really wished he were not. Thus did their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prepare the way to Atheism: yea not only so, but it opened an effectual door thereto by bringing in a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Polytheism or Multiplicity of God's. For he that has power to believe a plurality of God's, is the next door unto Atheism, or a belief that there is no God: To multiply the Deity is to destroy it, as Gaches l' Atheism consondu, pag. 5. This indeed proved too true by the event: for the first apparence that we find of Atheism, was when this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , superstitious Demon-fear or Religion, invented by the Philosophers most flourished in Grece; namely when those Sceptic wits, Democritus, Epicurus, &c. could not find any rational 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Apparences of reason, for those multitudes of Demon-God's which were brought into Grece, they set their wits on work to salve the Phenomena of nature without the supposition of these or any other Deities. Thus did Philosophic Polytheism, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , make way to Atheism.

2. Pagan Philosophy had also a formal Efficience on Atheism, in that it made the Creature an Independent, self-sufficient, prime Agent and Mover in natural Productions and Motions; and so left no room for, or necessity of a Deity. This indeed is an epidemic contagion, which has more or less infected every part of Pagan Philosophy, and laid open a broad gate to Atheism. It's confessed, true sane Philosophy, such as Adam had in Innocence, gives a full demonstration of the Deity from his visible works, Rom. 1.19, 20. Ay but Pagan vain Philosophy in all its contemplations on the Creature, was apt to leave out the Creator and acquiesce in the sensible objects it contemplated, as in the first moving influential cause. Whence that great observation of Sir Francis Bacon, That a little Philosophy makes men Atheists, though a great deal would cure them of Atheism. And this indeed Plato takes notice of, as the great crime of many Philosophers in his age, whom he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , mere sophisters; who, by reason of their Impiety, abused their Astronomic and other Philosophic Sciences unto Atheism. So Plato, Leg. 12. pag. 967. disputes against such impious Philosophers, who, from their Astronomic Philosophisings, conceiving that things depended not on the Providence of God, but on the necessary concatenation and connection of second causes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , became Atheists. Whereas, says he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , It is the Divine Mind that disposeth everything: for he that considereth these things not impiously nor foolishly, will never become an Atheist. But his and all other Pagan Philosophy was utterly void of such a serious solid consideration of the visible works of God. Al their vain Philosophisings were so much taken up in the admiration of those few rays of Divine Wisdom, Beauty, and Order, which they observed in the Creatures, as that they at first neglected, and then rejected the Creator of all, as one that was invisible and unknown to their carnal Minds. This was long since observed by Augustine, de Civit. l. 5. cap. 2.

But we shall a little run thorough the chief parts of Pagan Philosophy, and show how much each contributes to Atheism.

1. Pagan Physiologie, or Natural Philosophy strictly so termed, has not a little contributed to Atheism, in that those proud Physiologists, not understanding the true origin of the Universe, nor that Divine Providence which governs and moderates all Natural productions, and motions, assigned causes of things suitable to their own humors and inclinations; excluding the great God from having anything to do in the World. Thus Democritus and Epicurus reduced the first origin of the Universe to a fortuitous concurrence and casual combination of Atoms, excluding Divine Providence from having anything to do herein; which cursed piece of Philosophy has taken too much root amongst some new Philosophers. Aristotle, who endeavored to reduce all Effects to Mater and Form, asserted a first eternal Mater ingenerable and incorruptible; which he made to be the seminarie of all Productions; out of whose passive power all Forms (by I know not what kind of emanation) were educed. Which unintelligible opinion, though it were but some broken Tradition of the first Chaos, yet it laid a foundation for excluding all Divine efficience and concurrence in the production of things. Neither are there wanting some in this Christian World, who dare assert an Eternity of Mater, at least a possibility of the Worlds Eternity. As an Appendix to Natural Philosophy we may add Medicine, which has had a powerful influence on Atheism in this regard; because these proud Naturalists, observing by long experience many excellent qualities, sovereign virtues and Medicinal influences in several Minerals, Stones, Plants, Animals, &c. hence they would fain persuade themselves and the world, that the term of man's life was not fixed, but variable and determinable by their Art and Medicaments: which piece of Atheism continues to this very day very commun. 2. The Mathematic Sciences have had, and still have no little influence on Atheism: and that (1) more general; inasmuch as those profound Mathematicians, being wholly taken up in ocular and sensible Demonstrations, they expect the same in Divine Maters, rejecting Divine Authority and Testimony, though it be in some sense more certain and infallible than their Mathematic Demonstrations. To pass by other instances which are many, we need go no further than Hobs 's Leviathan for proof hereof. (2) But more particularly, Pagan Astronomy has had a powerful causality for the production of Atheism, in that it brought in a fatal kind of necessity and absolute dependence not only of Sublunary Bodies, but also of human affairs and things most contingent, on Celestial constellations and influences. Those Pagan Astronomers held for the most part (which some Judicial Astrologers still assert) an essential subordination of all Sublunary causes and effects to the Celestial. Particularly that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Good order, good Temperament, good nature, and good operation, as well moral as natural, in all human persons and affairs received measure and determination, according to, and by derived influences from, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Heavens. Which persuasion yet was more tolerable in those blind Heathens, who held the Stars to be God's, than in the Atheistic Astrologers of these days, who reduce the most contingent Effects and events of Providence to some Astrologic Figures, abstract Forms, Celestial Governements, insensible Influences, or such like Stoic Fate and Necessity, thereby to exclude Divine Providence from ordering and determining human affairs. 3. Neither was their Philosophy Politics less influential on this cursed root of Atheism. For the great Politicians of former as well as of later Ages have been ever apt to conceit, that the World is governed by no other Providence than that of State-Wisdom and Interest: They would fain persuade themselves and others, that all Mutations in States or private affairs do happen but from some politic cause, contrivement, and resolutions of men. This Politic Atheism seems to have had its birth and improvement from the Romans, (where the Pythagorean Philosophy flourished) and the flourishing of their Empire; who finding the success of their politic Contrivances and Resolutions, began to set the Crown of all their successes on the head of carnal Policy and Courage, excluding Divine Providence from sharing therein. Amongst these Politic Atheists we may well reckon Nebuchadnezzar, according to his own proud assumings, Dan. 4.30, Is not this great Babylon that I have built — by the might of my power. i.e. By my politic contrivances and power. For the honor of my Majesty. i.e. For the Advancement of my Name and Interest. Here we see how his proud Atheistic heart shuts God out as efficient and final cause, both of which he ascribes to himself. And how apt potent Princes and States are to follow proud Nebuchadnezzar, in making their own Wisdom and Power the sole efficient, as also their own Majesty, Grandeur and Glory, the sole End of all State-affairs, and Politic Undertakements, to the exclusion of Divine Providences, the experience of some late years as well as former Ages hath given us too great Demonstration. That which gives these Politic Atheists advantage is, that whereas in the Infant-state of the World God kept alive the Memorial of his Providence by Miraculose and amazing Operations thereof, he afterwards about the beginning of the Roman Empire, (which was the seat of Politic Atheism ) began to suspend those Miraculose Effects of his Power, employing more of Wisdom in governing the Politic World, the effects whereof are not so obvious to sense as those of his Power. This made these Politic Atheists defy their own carnal wisdom and resolutions, as the only Moderators of human affairs. And 'twere well if there were not too many such now-adaies. 4. But no part of Pagan Philosophy did more directly and efficaciously conduce to the production and improvement of Atheism, than their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contentiose Logic, which the Scripture calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 2 Tim. 2.14. 1 Tim. 6.4, 5. of which before. Indeed Eristic Logic and Atheism seem to have had their conception and birth from the same Philosophic womb, and so, as twins, to run parallel til Pagan Philosophy grew extinct. For in the Eleatic Schole, where this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contentiose Logic, received its formation and spirit under Zeno, Democritus and others, Philosophic Atheism received also its Conception and Birth, and that much about the same time. This appears in that Melissus, who was condisciple with Zeno the Eleatic under Xenophanes, seems to be the first that began 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to suspend his belief touching the God's; affirming, that nothing was to be determined concerning them, by reason of our dark and obscure knowledge. And Zeno himself held a multitude of Worlds, and the Souls origin from the Temperament of the sour Elements: which were both foundations of Atheism. But Leucippus, Zeno 's Disciple, who is styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Democritus, who was as to Physics Scholar to Leucippus, gave both of them a great advance to Atheism, by their Eristic Philosophisings about Atoms. For they asserted the origin of all things to be from the fortuitous casual conjunction and combination of an infinite number of Atoms; which opinion was greedily imbibed by Epicurus, and made use of by all as a medium to solve the Phenomena of nature, without any supposition of a Providence. This was the product of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Eristic Philosophising. And indeed nothing is more natural and commun, than by frequent contentiose disputes at length to grow Academics and Sceptics; so to disbelieve everything, even the Existence and Providence of God. And what a world of such Sceptic Atheists are there in this Age, who make it their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or work, to cavil at the Existence and Providence of God! whose folie and iniquity is by so much the greater, by how much the more credulous they are in maters more obscure. For the most incredulous of these Atheists, are as credulous in their kind as the most simple; why else do they so greedily assent to the Principes of Epicurus, or some moderne Philosopher, upon Reasons infinitely more sleight and trivial, than those which are offered to prove a Deity? and why are they so opiniatre and dogmatising as to the imposing their own Phenomena, without shadow of solid reason? Plato shall one day rise up in judgment against such Sceptic Atheists; who, in his Book 10 de Legib. from pag. 888, to 909, makes it his business to cure a young man laboring under this Epidemic disease of Atheism; proving, (1) That there is a God. (2) That this God takes care of human affairs, even the least. (3) That this God is most just, and therefore not to be flatered into favor by Prayers or Sacrifices. (4) That Atheism is the peste of human kind, of Families, of Communwealths; and therefore to be restrained by Penal Laws, Emprisonment, Banishment, and the like. Such are the evils of Atheism, which had its origin from vain Philosophy influenced by pride, as Psal. 10.4, Al his thoughts are there is no God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. These are the sceptic, politic, mischievous Philosophisings of his proud heart, that there is no God. Of the origin of Atheism from Philosophy, &c. also of its malign nature and influences, see Court Gent. Par. 4. B. 2. C. 2. §. 1. touching the Existence of God.

§. 5. We have laid down the evil Effects of Pagan Philosophy in general, as they regard both the Pagans themselves, as also the People of God. We now proceed to the sad evils which Pagan Philosophy infused into the Church of God, both Jewish and Christian. We shall begin with the Jewish Church: and here our main business will be to show that all the great Apostasies of the Jews had their foundation in Pagan Philosophy. To make our way clear hereto, we are to remember, that as the Pagan Philosophers traduced the choicest pieces of their Philosophy originally from the Jewish Church; so the Jews growing weary of their Sacred Oracles and Mysteries, thirsted after those very corrupt Derivations and streams of Pagan Wisdom and Mysteries, which were but dark Imitamens of, and broken Traditions from their Divine Philosophy. So vain and foolish were their imagination. 1. The great Errors and Apostasy of the Israelitic and Jewish Church, before the Babylonian Captivitie, lay in Idolatry, and particularly in that of their Baalim, or Demon-worship. It's likely these Apostatising Israelites and Jews had other vain Opinions and Heresies, besides those which related to their Idolatry, yet we scarce find any other taken notice of and recorded in Scripture. For the Spirit of God foreseeing that this Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demon-worship, would prove the great foundation of Apostasy both in the Jewish and Christian Church, he seems to pass by other vain opinions, and make it his business both by Prophetic Precautions, Threats, and Judgments, to strike at this. So Deut. 13. throughout that Chapter, the Lord gives severe Comminations and punishments to be inflicted on such as turn away to Idolatry; and more particularly Deut. 14.1. God gives a strict prohibition against Baalim, or Demon-worship, Ye shall not cut yourselves, &c. That these Funeral-rites were a part of that worship they gave to their Baalim is plain from 1 King. 18.28. Yet notwithstanding all Divine Comminations and Maledictions, how soon did the carnal Jews affect an imitation of their Idolatrous neighbors the Phoenicians in this Baal-worship, which was the same with the Grecian Demon-worship, and both but a Philosophic Imitamen of the Jewish Messias his Mysteries and Worship, as has been before once and again proved. The sum of all is this, The Philosophers had a Divinity of their own, (distinct from that of the Poets, which was fabulous, and that of the Statesmen, Priests and people, which was Politic) which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Natural Theology; wherein they, in imitation of the Jewish God and Messias, asserted (some of the wisest of them) one supreme sovereign God, and many other petty made God's, which the Phoenicians called Baalim, (from Belus a Phoenician King) Lord's, and the Grecians, Demons: whose office was to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God: whom the most of them conceited to have his residence in the Heavens, yea in the Body of the Sun, as the soul in the body, and therefore too remote, at least too sublime and pure to mingle with Sublunarie affairs; whence there could be no communion with him but by these Demons or Baal-God's, who were nothing else but the Souls of great Worthies deceased and deified. These the Apostle seems to hint, 1 Cor. 8.5, Lord's many. These Baalim were brought into Judea by Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal King of Tyre, (where Baal or Belus the first of these Baalim reigned) and proved the foundation of that great Israelitic and Jewish Apostasy. For no sooner were these Baalim, by Jezebels politic contrivement, brought into the Jewish Church, but presently they are according to, and in imitation of the Phoenicians Natural Theology, made as Mediators to the true God; and so they became as a counter-Messias, or Anti messias, excluding the true Messias. For we must know, that the Apostatizing Israelites did not wholly cast off the Worship of the true God; no, that were too gross for such a knowing professing people: only herein lay their Apostasy and Idolatry, that, in imitation of the Philosophers Natural Theology, they worshipped the true God with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demon-worship: they placed these Phoenician Baalim, as an Anti-messias, in the room of Christ. This Baal-worship is called the way of Ahab, because it was brought into Israel by Jezebel his Queen, and established by him according to 1 King. 16.31, 32. which caused a total Apostasy among them: For the true Prophets, who would not conform to this Baal-worship, were destroyed or removed; and others, who were willing to conform to Baals worship, put in their room; so 1 King. 18.22, Elijah says, that he only of the true Prophets remained, but Baals Prophets were four hundred and fifty men. And because these Baalim brought in by Jezebel were an Anti-messias, hence the Gnostics infusions, who revived this Doctrine of Demons and laid the foundation for Antichrist to build upon, is called the Doctrine of Jezebel, Rev. 2.20. And indeed Jezebel was an exact type and forerunner of the Antichristian Whore, who brought in her Saints and Saint-worship exactly conformable to Jezebel 's Baalim. As Mede on 2 Pet. 2.1. Diatrib. 3. Edit. 1. pag. 548. excellently shows us:

2. The Apostasy of the Jewish Church after the Babylonian Captivitie had in like manner its foundation in Pagan Philosophy. It's true the Jews after their Captivitie were professed enemies to Idolatry, for which they had been so severely punished; yet had they great Errors and Corruptions, which they sucked in together with the Grecian Philosophy. For look as the Grecians, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. received the chief Rudiments and Elements of their Philosophy from the Jewish Church; so the Jews, when they came to live under the Grecian Monarchy, began to symbolise with their new Lord's in Wisdom and Philosophy. We find little of Pagan Philosophy in use amongst the Jews before the Captivitie, save only some few pieces of the Mathematics, which we may presume they had from the Phoenicians or the Egyptians, or, as learned Dr Owen conceives, from the Chaldeans; and made use of in their Idolatrous Worship. But after the Captivitie, when they became subject to their Grecian Lord's, they soon drank in the Grecian Philosophy; which proved the corruption, yea subversion of their Divine Theology. This the pious and devote amongst them foresaw, and therefore in the time of the Hasmoneans, or Maccabees, there was a Decree made, That whosoever taught his Son the Grecian Philosophy should be accursed. Which notwithstanding could not prevent the inundation of Grecian Philosophy on the Jewish Church, to the infinite prejudice of their Sacred Theology, as it's well observed by Grotius on Col. 2.8, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,

It's confessed, that the Jews before the Captivitie had very much perverted their Doctrine, according to Esa. 47.10. Thy wisdom and knowledge hath perverted thee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. caused thee to turn aside. But after their return from Babylon there was an universal Reformation made by Ezra and others both as to Doctrine and Discipline, which continued til this new soundation of Apostasy was laid by the mixing Grecian Philosophy with their Doctrine. This is well observed by Owen, Theol. lib. 5. cap. 14.

Now the Corruptions that crept into the Jewish Theology by its commixture with the Grecian Philosophy, may be reduced to these three heads. (1) Their Cabalistic Mythology. (2) Their Pharisaic and Talmudic Dochrines and Traditions. (3) Their Eristic or contentiose Disputations. 1. As for the Jewish Cabala or Cabalistic Mythology, it seems to be exactly framed in imitation of the Grecian Mythology and Symbolic mode of Philosophising. It's true, the Jewish Church had even from its first Institution its choicest Mysteries delivered in Symbols, Parables, Enigmes, and other terrene shadows; whence we need no way dout, the Pagan Philosophers, Egyptians, Phoenicians and Grecians traduced their Mythologic and Enigmatic modes of Philosophising. These the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Governement, so far fell in love with, as that, despising their own Sacred Oracles and Mysteries, (by reason of their simplicity) they clothe them with a new Grecian habit, or fabulous garb, which they cal their Cabala, or mystic sense; by virtue whereof they in a short time grew as skillful in coming Fables as ever the Grecians were. This Jewish Cabala was so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to receive: for as the office of the Rabbi or Doctor was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to deliver; so that of the Disciple was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to receive: which sometimes also was expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to hear. Whence the Cabalistes were wont to express the Traditions of their Doctors by this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the wise said: answerably to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he said it, in the Pythagorean Schole. Reuchlin, de Art Cabalist. l. 3. p. 51. assures us,

The Papists make their Anagogic sense of Scripture correspondent to the Judaic Cabala. Some refer the Origin of this Cabalistic sense of Scripture to the Angel Raziel 's consolation given to Adam in Paradise after his Fal, as Reuchlin: others to Moses, as Johan. Picus Mirand. others to Ezra, as Paulus Fagius. But I conceive it no difficult task to demonstrate, that this Cabalistic Symbolic Explication of Scripture found no place in the Judaic Theology, 'til the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy was incorporated therewith. And indeed Johannes Picus, that noble Earl of Mirandula, and prodigiose Scholar, seems to grant this our Hypothesis, by acknowleging the affinity of the Jewish Cabala to the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy. So learned Reuchlin, de Art. Cabalist. pag. 22, 23. makes this Cabalistic Theology the same with the Pythagorean Doctrine. Hence also the Gnostics and Valentinians imbibed their Mystic Theology, as hereafter, §. 7. These Cabalistes making it their main study to comment on the Sacred Text, mingled, according to the Grecian Mode, so many Fables therewith, as that little of the Divine Character appeared: there was no Text so clear, so Historic, but they brought it under some Cabala, or mystic and allegoric sense; so that the Jewish Theology seemed more like to Pythagoras and Plato 's Philosophy, than to the Sacred Institutes of Moses and the Prophets. That the Hellenistic Jews generally followed the Symbolic, Allegoric Philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, is evident by the Writings of their chiefest Sophists, Philo Judaeus, and all such as were bred up at Alexandria, where the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy flourished. So Eusebius Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. He greatly affected the Platonic and Pythagorean Philosophy, speaking of Philo Jud us. But the Scripture gives us a sufficient account touching these Philosophic Fables, which had been foisted into the Jewish Theology by the Cabalistes. So 1 Tim. 1.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He treats here, That many of these Fables were Pythagorean and Platonic is evident. Which we may presume these Grecian Philosophers at first took up in imitation of Jewish Mysteries, and then the Jews took them up again at second hand from the Philosophers. The like 1 Tim. 4.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He understandes, says Grotius, the Doctrine of Metempseuchosis, which was the foundation of this abstinence. So Tit. 1.14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. says Grotius, Of which see what precedes, B. 1. ch. 4. §. 1. See more of this Judaic Cabala, Hottinger. Thesaur. Philolog. l. 1. c. 3. Sect. 5. p. 437, &c.

2. The Jewish Theology had in its Declension, besides the Cabala, or Mystic Explication of Scripture, a Talmud or system of Traditions, which they pretend were at first delivered by God unto Moses on the Mount, to be handed down by Joshua and his Successors unto Posterity. This they cal 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Oral Law, which they equalise unto, yea prefer before the Scriptures. For they say, (just as the Papists of their Traditions)

See more of this, Hotting. Thesaur. Philolog. l. 2. c. 3. S. 3. p. 560, &c. This Oral Law the Pharisees made the rule of their will-worship, as Mark 7.3-13. These in after-times they compiled into their Falmuds; on which the Rabbin's have spent vast Commentaries. But to give the true origin of these Pharisaic Rabbinic Traditions, they were indeed but corrupt imitations of Pythagorean Philosophy and Mysteries. For as the Pythagoreans received their Mysteries and Discipline by Tradition originally from the Jews, so the Jews when they came under the Grecian yoke reassume many of these Pythagorean Dogmas and Institutes, and coin many more in imitation of their Pythagorean Preceptors. That many of those Traditions mentioned in the New Testament were Pythagorean as well as Jewish is evident: particularly Mark 7.3, 5. the Pharisees cal them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , supposing them to be traduced down from Moses by Oral Tradition; but Christ calls them ver. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. of the Pythagorean Philosophers, as Col. 2.22, 23. Agen Christ calls them, Mark 7.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . by which also he seems to strike at the Pythagoreans, according to Col. 2.8, 20, 21. That the Rabbinic Pharisaic Dogmas of Freewil, &c. were of Philosophic Origin shall be (as already it has been) proved.

3. Al those Eristic and vain disputes amongst the Jews had also their origin from Grecian Philosophy. So Tit. 3.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i.e. says Grotius,

thence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. e. says Grotius, contentions arising from the differing interpretation of the Law. The Jews at Crete labored under the same disease with those of Ephesus, 2 Tim. 2.23. The Jewish Doctors never knew what belonged to such Eristic contentiose disputes before they were made drunken with Grecian Philosophy. Lastly, the later Jews are thought to receive much of their corruption from the Stoic Philosophy: so Heinsius, 2 de Sat. Horat. says, That an egg is not more like an egg, than the Paradoxes of the Rabbin's to the Paradoxes of the Stoics. Yet Maimonides, and Ibn Tibbon follow Aristotle for the most part according to the Arabic Versions. For these later Jews mingling with the Saracens have received their Philosophy from them, as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 10.

§. 6. As the Pagan Philosophic had a very poisonous pestilentiose influence on the Jewish Church, so has it been not less perniciose to the Christian Churches both primitive and later. This the Spirit of God foresaw, and therefore he abounds in his Divine Premonitions and cautions against admitting this vain Philosophy into the Churches of Christ, so as to give any occasion for its mixture with the great Doctrines of Faith. We have given several Scriptures to make this good, and shall at present only add that, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17, 18, 23. v. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , put them in remembrance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. frequently inculcate this on thy hearers, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , obtesting or adjuring them before the Lord. It notes the most solemn Adjuration. And to what? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that they strive not about words; i.e. according to the custom of the vain Philosophers, who had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , strifes about words. In opposition whereto he exhorts Timothic, v. 15. To study, that he approve himself to God, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rightly dividing the word of truth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , properly signifies to divide accurately: but here it is taken Metaphorically, as by the Seventy, Prov. 3.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Prov. 11.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Seventy elsewhere render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Grotius and others take the Metaphor from the accurate Section and division of the Sacrifices; which the Levites, according to a certain solemn rite, accurately divided. But our learned N. Fuller, Miscel. l. 3. c. 16. makes it to be a Metaphoric allusion to the Section of the Law, communly understood by all. For, the Verses of the Scripture were styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , segmenta, or particles. Whence they who gave up themselves to the study of the Scriptures, were styled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they who divided the Law. Thus Paul exhorts Timothy, (who was from his infance instituted in the Scriptures, and therefore well understood the import of this phrase) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , accurately to divide the word of truth: which he opposeth to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. striving about words, v. 14. So v. 16. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , shun. There is a great elegance in the original, which signifies primarily to circumclude, or shut up, thence to shun or avoid; because we are wont to shut up what we fear and would avoid, as Lions, Bears, &c. The same word is used Tit. 3.9. Then he adds the mater he was to avoid; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , profane and vain babblings; i.e. says Grotius,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies (1) Aclamor about vain maters: or (2) Avain clamor; or clamor of vain words, such as agree not with the form of sound Doctrine. So Chrysostom understands it here, of such new forms of speech, or unheard of terms, which were not used in the Churches. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the same import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 14. and takes in all Philosophic discourses or disputes; which in maters Divine without a Divine Revelation are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , profane and vain babblings. For, adds he, they will increase unto more ungodliness. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i.e. such vain Philosophisings, though they seem to have some ressemblance to Divine Truth, and but little error in them, yet will they in the issue determine in the foulest Heresies and Abominations, even in Antichristianism. Thence it follows, v. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their Philosophic discourse or Ratiocination: for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify as well as word. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , will eat as doth a Cancer. The word we translate Cancer signifies properly a Gangrene, which is somewhat like, though different from a Cancer. That phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , will eat, has a peculiar significance in it: for we know a Gangrene mightily spreads and feeds upon the sound flesh: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Lev. 13.22. Whence the Greeks derive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to eat; as Hesychius. It properly signifies the mortification of some carnose part, by reason of an inflammation; so that if there be not some opportune remedy immediately applied, or the part cut off, the Gangrene eats farther and farther on the adjacent parts, until the whole man perish. Such a venomous and dissusive influence has vain Philosophy on the minds of men, yea on whole Churches. This (adds Grotius ) he affirms, Of whom is Hymenaeus and Philctus: v. 18. who concerning the truth have erred, saying the Resurrection is past already. These Pythagorizing Gnostics, by their Philosophic Allegories, endeavored to make void the Doctrine of the Gospel touching the Resurrection. The Philosophers, both Pythagorcans and Platonistes, as they called a wicked life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , death; so a reformed life was by them termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Resurrection, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a new birth: and these sensual Gnoslics, that they might the more freely enjoy their lusts without fear of a future judgment, would needs persuade themselves and others, that the Resurrection, of which the Gospel speaks so plainly, was already past; intending thereby the Philosophers symbolic allegoric Resurrection. Then the Apostle concludes, v. 23. foolish and unlearned questions avoid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 foolish, i.e. because they no way tend to true Wisdom: all these Philosophic Allegories and Questions are but a mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , foolish wisdom. See the like, 1 Tim. 1.4, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unlearned. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 uncorrigable, impudent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Prov. 8.5. sometimes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prov. 15.13. as also sometimes for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prov. 17.22. Paul here (says Grotius ) understandes immodest Questions. For the Greeks express 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are of the same import. Knowing that they gender to strife, as Tit. 3.9. The Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Grotius. By all which it is evident, that this Gnostic Gangrene had its rise from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy. And indeed that the Philosophers were the great Heresiarchs, or founders of all those great Errors and Heresies, which like a Gangrene insested the Christian Theology and Churches, was a commun received persuasion amongst the Fathers and Primitive Christians: the truth whereof will appear evident by an examen of Particulars, and discovery how all the great Errors brought into the Christian Church, both before and after the rise of Antichrist, had their origin from Pagan Philosophy.

§. 7. The first great Heresy, which as a Gangrene did overspread and consume much of the beauty, glory, and vigor of the Primitive Churches, was that of the Gnostics, which had taken a considerable rooting in the Apostles days, as is gathered from the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy; also from the Epistles of Peter, and Jude; all which seem sul of severe admonitions and invectives against these poisonous Infusions of the Gnostics; which the Spirit of God did the more abundantly caution the Churches against, because he foresaw they would open an effectual door to Antichrist, and his Exaltation in the Temple of God. Theodoret, Eusebius, and Nicephorus make this Heresy of the Gnostics to arise from Saturninus, Basilides, and Carpocrates, about An. 137. But others refer the origin of this Heresy to the Apostles times, as in what follows. Now that these Gnostic Infusions were but the corrupt offspring of Pagan Philosophy is generally acknowledged by the Learned, and will be very apparent by a brief consideration of Particulars. 1. As to the origination of their Name, they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Gnostics, from their own assumings and pretensions to an extraordinary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , knowledge, which indeed was but spurious and false Science, as the Apostle upbraids them, 1 Tim. 6.20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of science falsely so called.

I will not positively affirm, that the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Gnostics, was given to, or assumed by them in the Apostles days, though Grotius and Hammond favor this sentiment; because some learned men contradict it: but this I believe, that the Gnostic Infusions and Errors were very much diffused through some of the Primitive Churches in the Apostles days; and therefore oft struck at in their Epistles, as it will appear by what follows, out of Irenaeus Disciple of Polycarp, who lived in the second Century, and professedly wrote against the Gnostics, and Valentinus their Sectator. Yea Eusebius and Photios tell us, that Irenaeus 's five Books against the Gnostics, and Valentinians, had this title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a reviction of knowledge falsely so called. That these Gnostics had dissused much of their poison in the Apostles times, is affirmed by Ignatius in his Epistle to Philadelph. if genuine.

2. As to their Doctrine; these Pythagorizing Gnostics pretended unto a very mystic, sublime, and spiritual Theologic, answerable to their name. So Jude v. 19. These be they that separate themselves. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. says Grotius,

Not having the Spirit; i.e. they boast of very great spiritual Inspirations, but indeed they are but Diabolic Infusions; not from the Spirit. That this Mystic Theology of the Gnostics was indeed the issue of vain Pagan Philosophy, together with some Jewish Observances, is a general persuasion of the Learned, Grotius and others. Irenaeus and Epiphanius tell us, that the Gnostics had the Images of Plato and Pythagoras, which they joined with the Image of Christ: This indeed holds true as to all their Mystic Theology, which was but a composition of Platonic and Pythagoric Philosophemes, persumed with some Judaic and Christian Dogmas. So Hammond on Col. 2.8. With Philosophy and vain deceit. Paraph. The like he adds v. 10. of which hereafter. But to treat more distinctly of the origin of this Mystic Theologic taken up by the Gnostics, as a medium for symbolising with the Gentiles, we must know, that it was partly Mythologic and fabulous; partly Symbolic and Enigmatic; and wholly Allegoric. (1) As for the Mythologic and fabulous part of the Gnostics Mystic Theology, it seems to be derived from the Mythologic Philosophers and Poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, Amiphanes, Philistion, and Pherecydes, who writ of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Genealogy of the God's; whence the Gnostics borrowed their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Conjunctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joined to another begets a third: as out of night and silence (say they) comes forth Chaos, &c. which indeed was the same with the Theology of Orpheus, and the rest of these Theologistes. So 1 Tim. 1.4. That they give not heed to fables and endless genealogies. Though indeed all their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Mystic Theology, was but a mere Mythologic Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or fabulous Wisdom, taken up in imitation of the Orphic Mystic Theology, or Genealogy of the God's, &c. as hereafter. (2) Neither was this Gnostic Theology only Mythologic, but also Symbolic, Enigmatic and Allegoric, in imitation of the Pythagoric and Platonic Philosophy, as it may appear by the following Discourse of its parts.

1. A great and principal part of the Gnostics Mystic Theology comprehended the Doctrine of their Aeones, their Origin, Genealogy, and Office, which they took up in imitation of the Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas and Demons, applying the same to the Angels. So Irenaeus, adverse. Haeres. lib. 2. cap. 19. where he opens this mystery to us, showing how these Gnostics framed their Aeones in imitation of the ancient Poets and Philosophers, Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, &c.

He tells us, that these Reveries were framed out of the Platonic Ideas, &c. Tertullian, libro de anima, says, That the heretic seeds of the Gnostics shined in the Platonic Ideas. Which he calls in the same place, The heretic Sacraments of Ideas. And more fully, lib. de Praescript. cap. 7. Tertullian assures us, And as the Pythagoric and Platonic Ideas contributed much to these Gnostic Aeones, so also their Doctrines of Demons. Thus Grotius and Hammond out of him seem to make those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Doctrines of Demons, mentioned 1 Tim. 4.1. to be the character of the Gnostics Theologic, which so far as the Gnostics were types and forerunners of Antichrist his Demon-Doctrines and Apostasy, we may safely grant. Though, I conceive, that Prophetic character primarily refers to the Antichristian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which was but an imitamen of the Philosophers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Demon-worship, as hereafter: yet we may also take in the Gnostic Aeones, as forerunners of Antichrists Saints, and Imitamens of the Philosophers Demons. And indeed these Gnostic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Aeones, as to their Origin and Office, seem much the same with the Pythagorean and Platonic Demons. For these Gnostics looked on their Aeones as middling-God's, or Mediators; which our Apostle seems to strike at Col. 2.10. Ye are complete in him which is the Head of all principality and power. i.e. (says Hammond in his Paraphrase) By which it is plain, that these Gnostics made their Aeones, as Mediators, answerable to the Philosophers Demons, and Antichrists Saints; which were all erected as Mediators in the room of Christ. Therefore v. 18. we find mention of a Voluntarie humility and worship, which these Pythagorizing Gnostics gave unto their Angelic Powers or Aeones; which ver. 19. is styled a not holding the Head: i.e. (says Hammond in his Paraphr.) The Apostle seems the more invective against these Gnostic A ones and Mediators, because they were but the fore-runners of Antichrist and his Demons or Saints. This seems to be the meaning of that Scripture, '1 Joh. 2.18. Ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists. The Syriac renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a false Christ. Such indeed were these Gnostic Aeones, as the Pythagorean Demons, whence they sprang, and both the Parents and precursors of the great Antichrist and his Demon Saints. I know Grotius, (and so Hammond who follows him) out of his too great favor for the Roman Antichrist, restrains this and other Prophetic discoveries of Antichrist to some Pseudochrist, or Antichrist started up in the Apostles times; such as Barchochebas amongst the Jews, Apollonius Tyanaeus amongst the Pagans, and Simon Magus amongst the Gnostics: but this is too narrow a conceit to find room in any true Christian heart. Yet thus much we may allow him, and all other Cassandrian Patrones of the Roman Antichrist, that these holy Penmen, in their Prophetic discoveries of the great Antichrist, might have an eye on those Pagan, Jewish, and Gnostic Antichrists of their time, as fore-runners and Ideas of the great Roman Antichrist. And indeed 'tis our safest course to interpret Scripture in its largest sense.

But as to the origin of these Gnostic Aeones, they were taken up in imitation of the Grecian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Generation of the God's, begun by Sanchoniathon the Phoenician Mythologist, who was followed herein by Orpheus, Hesiod, and Pherecydes, who was of Phoenician extract, and spent a main part of his Philosophisings in the explaining this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Genealogy of the God's: from whom we may presume Pythagoras his Scholar learned the same, as also from the Orphic Theologistes, with whom he much conversed. Now the Gnostics apply the whole of this Pagan 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Generation of the God's, to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Aeones, or Angelic Powers; which the Apostle seems to strike at, 1 Tim. 1.4. Neither give heed to Fables and endless Genealogies, which minister questions, &c. i. e. (says Hammond in his Paraphrase )

The like in his note on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . See Iren. l. 2. c. 19.

2. These Pythagorizing Gnostics abounded much in Will-worship, and Superstitiose Ceremonies, in imitation of Pythagorean Institutes and Demon-worship. This the Apostle seems to intimate, Col. 2.16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat and drink, &c. As the Gnostics did. Then he adds, v. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of Angels, &c. i.e. (says Hammond )

Which the Gnostics were guilty of. Thence v. 20, 21, 22. he mentions sundry Pythagorean Institutes which these Gnostics assumed. And then ver. 23. he concludes, Which things have indeed a show of wisdom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a pretext or vain umbrage of Pythagorean wisdom, &c. In Will-worship. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i.e. according to the Thracian, Orphic, and Pythagorean Institutes, which abounded in Will worship, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Demon-fear. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Religiose Rites and Worship, which Plutarch deduceth from the Thracians, among whom the Orphic Mysteries prevailed. Whence it is oft used to signify Superstition and superstitious worship, as Col. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the superstitious worship of Angels. So Hesychius interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a superstitious person. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies primarily, a worship invented and instituted by the will of man. So it's taken materially and passively for any worship that receives its original Institution from the will of man, not the will of God. Thence Hesychius explicates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Will-worship: and Phavorinus expounds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he worships according to his own will, what seems good to him. And because all such Will worship is in Divine estimation superstition, hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here rendered by the old Latin, Ambrose, and Erasmus, Superstition, q. Supra statutum. Such was the superstitious Will-worship of the Gnostics, which they invented in imitation of the Philosophic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Demon-worship, as hereafter, C. 2. S. 3. §. 10.

3. More particularly these Gnostics affected Celibate, and forbad Marriage, in imitation of the Pythagoreans. So Theodoret saith, that Saturnius, a Ringleader amongst the Gnostics, was the first amongst Christians that affirmed Marriage to be the work of the Devil: and Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 3. says, this was generally the Doctrine of the Gnostics. So Hammond on 1 Tim. 4.3. Forbidding to marie.

Hence,

4. These Pythagorizing Gnostics enjoined Abstinence from the flesh of Bestes, and several other meats, as Col. 2.21, 22. Touch not, taste not, handle not; which were Pythagorean Injunctions assumed by these Gnostics, as before. So Hammond on 1 Tim. 4.3. Commanding to abstain from meats, &c. See Theodoret and Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 3. of the Gnostic Abstinences.

5. The Gnostics also, in imitation of the Pythagoreans, much addicted themselves to Divination, Sorcerie, and lying wonders. This was that which Simon Magus, the Father of the Gnostics, endeavored to render himself famose by, who would sain have purchased the gist of doing Miracles from the Apostles; but when that could not be, he gives up himself to the Devil for a purchase of the same; which, as the Ancients generally report, he grew famose for both amongst the Heathens and Gnostic Gospellers. Insomuch that Hammond and Grotius would fain restrain Antichrists lying wonders, 2 Thes. 2.9. to Simon Magus, or suchlike.

6. These carnal Gnostics, notwithstanding their pretensions to spiritual Mysteries, professed and practiced monstrose Sensuality and uncleannesses. These seem struck at 2 Pet. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , lasciviose ways. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Selga, was a Town in Pisidia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , where men lived luxuriosely, and polluted themselves by mutual uncleannesses. Whence unclean persons were termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , eminently selgites, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being here augmentative, as the Etymologist, Soudas, and Bochart. Whence Pliny, Nat. Hist. l. 15. c. 7. makes mention of Selitic Oil, which these Selgites invented, to fortify their spirits and nerves, debilitated by luxury and uncleanness. Schmidius and others give a contrary character of these Selgites; yet all agree in this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies great luxury and libidinose uncleanness, which the Gnostics were guilty of. For, says Grotius, they gave their Philtra, or love-charms, and counted lasciviose deeds amongst things indifferent. So Jude 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in your love-festes; which these sensual Gnostics converted into fuel for their uncleanness. The Nicolaitans, Rev. 2.15. seem to be of this Gnostic Sect. He that has a mind to hear more of their monstrose wickedness may consult Epiphanius and Irenaeus, who have laid them open.

7. These Gnostics had, in imitation of the Pythagorean Purifications, their Expiations. So Grotius on 2 Tim. 4.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

The Gnostics held also free-will, as Jansen informs us.

8. Lastly, to lay a sure foundation for their wickedness, these Gnostics denied the Resurrection, turning all the Scriptures that tended to prove the Resurrection into mere Allegories. So Hymenaeus and Philetus, who were of this Gnostic sect, 2 Tim. 2.18. Saying the Resurrection is past already. i.e. They turned the Scripture-relation of the Resurrection into a mere Allegoric 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in imitation of the Pythagorean and Platonic Resurrections, as Grotius. Touching Pythagoras 's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and its ressemblance to the Gnostic, see Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. C. 2. §. 8. These were the noxious Infusions of the Pythagorizing Gnostics, who were herein but fore-runners of the Roman Antichrist, as we shall fully demonstrate, Chap. 2.

§. 8. As Pagan Philosophy laid the foundation of the Gnostic Heresy, so also of the great fundamental Errors, which have been ever since broached and revived in the Churches of Christ. And indeed herein we may not excuse the Greek Fathers, who being many of them brought up in the Schole of Alexandria, and other Academies, where the Grecanic Philosophy flourished, drank in therewith many Philosophic Errors and Infusions, which proved not a little prejudicial to the simplicity of the Christian Theology. Thus Justin Martyr, having his spirit deeply drenched in Platonic Philosophy, even to some degree of Intemperance, (1) he presumed, That Plato's Dogmas were not aliene from the Doctrine of Christ, as Apol. 1. (2) Hence he asserted, That such as lived according to reason, albeit Pagans, as Socrates, Heraclitus, and such-like, might be saved. (3) He held, in imitation of the Philosophers Demons, that God committed the care of human affairs, and sublunary things to Angels, as Apol. 1. p. 44. (4) He was too much a Patron of Moral free-will, in corrupt nature, as Apol. 2. Thus also Clemens Alexandrinus, so termed because brought up at Alexandria in Egypt, having been educated in Philosophic, which then greatly flourished in the Schole of Alexandria, he therewith imbibed many Errors, which he mixed with his Christian Theology. As (1) He held, That Christ assumed flesh, thereby to demonstrate unto men their sufficient forces to obey God's Commandments: whence also he asserted, That obedience and inobedience was in our power; as Strom. 2. Likewise, That the precepts of God are such as may be, or not be observed by us, as Strom. 4. Yea Strom. 2. he saith, That Faith also is in our power, because infidelity. Which Pelagian Infusions he imbibed from the Stoic Philosophy, wherein his spirit was drenched. Yet Strom. 3. he assertes efficacious Grace for the production of all Moral good. And Strom. 2. he owns the Infusion of faith by God, which he makes to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (2) He asserted, That those who were before Christ, and lived honestly, were made just by the Law, and by Philosophic, yet that they wanted faith in Christ; whence that in Hel they expected the coming of Christ and his Apostles, by whose Preaching there they were converted to believe in Christ, and so at length saved. Again, That none were perfectly saved by Christ before his coming, as Strom. 5.6. (3) He sometimes assertes Justification by Works: as in Protreptico, he saith, Men might purchase Salvation by their own works: sometimes he joines Faith and Works together, as Strom. 5, & 6. (4) He held with the Stoics, That perfection in Virtue was attainable in this life, Strom. 6, 7. (5) He calls Martyrie the purgation of sin. Strom. 4. But none imbibed more Philosophic Errors than Origen, as in what follows. How much Philosophy corrupted the Fathers, has been taken notice of by many Reformers; as by Ames, Bellarm. Enerv. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1.

The like Tilenus, Syntagm. part. 2. Disp. 16. Thes. 31. Thus Tilenus, who afterward himself fell into the same snare as to Free-will, &c.

This in a more peculiar manner concerns the Greek Fathers, such as were brought up in the Schole of Alexandria, specially ' Origen, who being Scholar to Ammonius, that great Master of Platonic Philosophy, (whom some reckon to be a Christian) follows his Masters steps in endeavoring to reform Platonic Philosophy, and reduce it to the form of Christian Theology; wherein he came infinitely short of his design: for he did by these his vain attempts, but the more sophisticate and adulterate Divine Theology; not only by his many Platonic Allegories, but also by those several Philosophic terms and errors which he mixed with the Doctrines of Faith, namely his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or freewill, his Pre-existence of Souls, &c.

1. The Pelagian Errors came from Origen. Jansen, August. De Haeres. Pelagian, Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 13, &c. gives us a particular and large account, how all the Pelagian Dogmas were formed out of Origen 's Philosophic Contemplations. (1)

and his Books 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Jansen. c. 17. p. 153. gives this as the root of all Origen's Errors, namely the Ubertie and Fecunditie of his Wit too much immersed in vain Philosophy, as hereafter, §. 10. and C. 2. Sect. 1. §. 4.

2. Origen gave also a great foundation and improvement to 'the Arian Heresy. (1) By asserting that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Word, Joh. 1.1. is taken only Metaphorically, and Ideally, according to the Platonic mode, as in what immediately follows §. 9. (2) He held also, That the Son of God saw not the Father, because he was a creature made, not borne the Son of God: that the Son, who is the Image of the Invisible God, compared with the Father, was not Truth, i.e. True God. That God the Father was an incomprehensible Light; but Christ, if compared with the Father, was a very poor splendor, which yet with us, by reason of our imbecility, may seem very great. That the Son was not Bonity itself, but a certain air or image of Bonity, so that he could not be termed absolutely good, but only with an additament, A good Pastor, or the like. As Hieronym. Epist. ad Avitum. (3) He said also, That the Holy Spirit was the third in Dignity and honor after the Father and Son, yea inferior to the Son, as Hicronym. ad Avitum. Who also in Epist. ad Pammachium, saith, That he spoke il of the Son, but worse of the Holy Spirit. (4) He held, That the Father contained all things, the Son was only in Rational Creatures, and the Holy Spirit only in Believers, as Athanasius, Quaest. 71. ad Antiochum, relates. These notions about the Trimtie he imbibed from that Platonic Philosophy then taught in the Schole of Alexandria, wherein he was instructed; which acknowledged a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Trinity; namely, [1] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Father; whom they made to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the supreme Being. [2] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Mind, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Reason; whom they made inferior to the first. And [3] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the mundane Spirit; which they made inferior to both the former. And hence Origen traduced his Trinity, which gave the original Exemplar to Arianism. Whence Epiphanius, in Epist. ad Joannem Hierosolymitanum, calls Origen, the Father of Arius: and Hieronymus Epist. ad Pammachium, stiles him, the Ocean and Fountain of Arius. And Socrates, l. 4. c. 21. with others, related, that the Arians frequently used Testimonies taken out of Origen's Books. See P. 4. B. 2. C. 6. §. 4.

3. Origen by his Platonic Philosophemes, gave a great advance to the whole System of Papism, or Antichristianism. (1) He gave the first lines to all Mystic Theology, by turning all Scriptures, even the most plain into Allegories, according to the Platonic mode, of which more hereafter, Chap. 2 Sect. 1. §. 1. (2) He was the first Founder of Monastic Life, Abstinences, and Austerities. [1] He emaseulated himself, i.e. extinguished virilitie, thereby to preserve Chastity. [2] He understood those Precepts of our Lord, against having two coats, shoes, and making provision for the morrow, in a literal sense, as belonging to all Christians; and thence affected voluntary Poverty, as the Monks of Egypt his Successors. [3] He abstained from necessary food, as the Pythagoreans, and Popish Monks; whereby he endangered his health. [4] He affected superstitious sanctity and severities, abstaining from necessary sleep, lying on the ground, &c. as Monks. (3) He held human merits, and justisication by works, placing Mans Satisfactions, Tears, Contrition, and other good works, as the causes of Remission of Sins. So in his Hom. 24. on Numbers, and 24, and 23, on Joshua, and Hom. 1. in Ezech. (4) He asserted, with the Papists, Perfection in this life, namely, that Saints may extinguish all though foam of sin in this life, and so satisfy the Law. Of which see Lib. 1. in Job, Hom. 8. and Hieron. ad Ctesiph. adverse. Pelagianos. (5) He was the first that introduced Purgatory, from the Platonic Schole at Alexandria, into the Church of God. Plato 's notions of Purgatory see in what follows, Chap. 2. S. 3. §. 11. And Origen in imitation hereof held, That some sins were purged out here, but others passed with us into the next life, where they were by the torment of sire purged out. Of which see his Hom. 8. in Leviticus. Hom. 2, & 3. in Psal. & Hom. 14. in Jeremiah.

4. There were many other great Errors asserted and introduced by Origen, from that Platonic Schole at Alexandria, and its corrupt Infusions. As (1) he held the pre-existence of Souls. Thus Plato in his Timaeus, and elsewhere he saith, Thut all Souls were produced at once, and distributed into the Stars, &c. So Nicephorus, lib. 5. c. 23. August. lib. 2. de Civit. Dei. c. 23. as Epiphanius, Hieronymus and Soudas relate, that Origen held, Human souls to have been before bodies, and that for their sins they were chained to bodies: which was a great Philosopheme among the Platonistes. (2) Hieronymus, Epist. ad Avitum, & Apol. 2. adversus Ruffinum, assures us, that he held, in imitation of Pythagoras and Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Transmigration of Souls from one Body into another. (3) He held, That the Devils and souls of the wicked should be at last saved, and that after long punishments they should be associated to the good Angels. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , l. 1. c. 6, 8. Hom. 9. in Jerem. which also is related by Theophilus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus and Augustinus. So lib. 2. contra Celsum, he saith, That the soul of Christ divested of its body converted many souls. (4) He denied the Resurrection of the flesh, affirming, that our Bodies after the Resurrection should be round, aereous, and not of the same substance they now are. Thus de Resurrect. l. 4. & Expos. in Psal. 1. as Hieron. ad Pammachium.

How many and great the Errors of Origen were, which he imbibed from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophic in the Alexandrine Schole, is more fully explicated by Hieronymus, in Epistolis ad Avitum, and Pammachium, and Oceanum, Tom. 2. Oper. p. 190. Also in Apolog. adversus Ruffinum. These his Venimous Errors began first to be espoused by the Monks of Egypt, who drank in the same with much greediness, and diffused them throughout the whole mass of their Mystic Theology, which gave great contestes among the Churches of those times, as Baronius has well observed on the year 256. Alexander, Eusebius, Didymus, and others, studiosely endeavored the defense of Origen; but Methodius, Eustachius, Apollinarius, Anastasius, Theophilus, Hieronymus, Athanasius, Augustinus, and many other of the Fathers; and more particularly the Constantinopolitan Council, An. 551. condemned Origen of many Pestilential and prodigiose Errors, imbibed from Ethnic Philosophers. Cluverus in Apocalypse. Tom. 2. p. 315, &c. applies that character, Rev. 8.10, 11. And there fell a great Star from Heaven, burning as it were a lamp, &c. unto Origen; who, as Severus Sulpitius observes, in what he did well came short of none after the Apostles; but in what he erred, none was worse. That this Texte, Revel. 8.10, 11. pointes out Origen, Cluverus proves, (1) from the time of this third Trumpet, which answers exactly to Origen. (2) From the several parts of the character: [1] He burned as a lamp, which notes his spiritual gifts, as Mat. 5.15. Joh. 5.35. [2] Yet he fell from Heaven; i. e. from his spiritual celestial Light, into miserable terrene darknesses of Ethnic Philosophy. [3] He fell upon the third part of the rivers and fountains of waters; i.e. on the People and Ecclesiastic Assemblies, which were corrupted by him. [4] And his name was wormwood, namely by reason of the extreme bitterness of his Dogmas and superstitious severities.

But to conclude Origen's Character, the original springs of these his monstrose Errors seem these. (1) The natural Luxuriance of his exorbitant fantasy, which recreated itself in the Allegoric mode of the Platonistes. (2) His despising the simplicity of the Scriptures, and Christian Theology. (3) His too great confidence in his own parts, and presuming himself to be wiser than others. (4) His affectation of new Termes and Modes of interpreting Scripture. (5) But most of all his insolent abuse of Divine Mysteries and Truths, by reducing the same to Platonic Philosophemes. Hence basil, Hom. 3. Hexaem. severely redargues Origen 's Allegoric Mode of Theologising: and elsewhere he terms it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a fabulous figment. Greg. Nazianzen, Orat. 42. stiles Origen 's way of commenting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , worthy of a conjector of Dreams, in allusion to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Artemidorus, and Apollonius Attalus, as before, L. 1. C. 3. §. 8. Greg. Nyssenus, in Cant. Praesat. & l. de ho. opat. c. 18. disputes sharply against the Deliries or sick Dreams of Origen. Cyril Alexandrin. in Act. Council. C P. stigmatiseth Origen with the character of Antichrist: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Origen has started up in the midst of the true Church, as the Abomination of Desolation. Epiphanius, in haeres. 64. hath writ severely against Origen 's Errors, whom he terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , self-willed sophist, or one tenacious of his own sentiments in wisdom. And he terms his Doctrine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Absurditie and perniciose Doctrine in many parts of saith, &c. Whence the Greek Theologues in the fifth Oecumenic Council anathematised him for his Errors. Of which see more, Vincentius Lyrinensis, lib. adverse. Haeres. c. 23. How much these Primitive Churches were infested by Errors imbibed from Ethnic Philosophy, specially those of Origen and the Schole of Alexandria, has been well observed by that great French Divine Morelius, in his Discipline de l' Eglise, liv. 2. chap. 6. pag. 101.

Agen, liv. 3. chap. 14. pag. 260. Morelius adds,

We find this mystery of iniquity excellently laid open by Owen, Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. where he shows us, how this Pagan Philosophy at first crept in amongst the Fathers, to the great prejudice of Christian Theology.

And as many of the Fathers thus corrupted the Doctrine of the Gospel by Philosophic Notions and Infusions; so in like manner the Worship of the Gospel was by their assuming Philosophic terms and rites greatly corrupted. Pythagoras, Plato, and other of the Philosophers had, in imitation of the Jewish Church, their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. And the Greek Fathers in imitation of these Philosophic Rites, cal their Sacraments and other Mysteries by the same Names; yea assume many of the same Rites to clothe Christ's Mysteries withal. Thus the spurious Dionysius Areopagita calls the Eucharist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Casaub. Exer. 16. c. 43. assures us, that when the first Christians cal their Sacraments Teletas, &c. these and the like Names were transferred from the Sacreds of the Pagans. The Grecians called the Deification of the Heroes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hence among the Fathers, specially such as were Popishly inclined, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is attributed to Saints. But of this more fully in what follows of Antichristian Rites, Ch. 2. S. 3. §. 11.

§. 9. But to descend to particulars. 1. Al those hell bred, black Errors, which struck at the Deity of Christ, had their foundation in Pagan Philosophy. Such were the opinions of Samosatemus, Arius, &c. As for the Heresy of Samosatenus and its traduction from Pagan Philosophy, we find a good account in Melancthon, Chron. lib. 3. of the state of the Church under Valerius and Aurelianus:

This Heresy of Samosatenus denying the Divinity of Christ was revived by Arius, and that from the very same foundation of Platonic Philosophy, yea in the very same Schole of Alexandria. This is well explicated by Aquinas, Sum. part. 1. Q. 32. A. 1. So again in what follows, Q. 34. Art. 1. Aquinas assures us, That Origen laid the foundation of Arianism, by affirming, That the Word in Divine 'maters, signified only Metaphorically, not properly. That Arius also had his Infusions from the Platonistes in this Schole of Alexandria is evident: For Arius was a Presbyter in this Church, and Student in this Schole, where the Pythagorcan and Platonic Philosophy was at this time wholly in request, (for Aristotle came not in play til afterward) which the learned Christians Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, &c. made use of as a medium to illustrate and prove the great mysteries of Faith touching the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , word, mentioned, Joh. 1.1. hoping by such symbolisings, and claiming kindred with these Philosophic notions and traditions (originally Jewish ) touching the Platonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they might gain very much credit and interest amongst these Platonic Sophistes. Hence these learned Fathers Clemens and Origen made it their business to lay open the cognation betwixt Pagan Philosophy and the Mysteries of the Gospel; proving, that Philosophy was but a reflex beam, or broken derivation and tradition of Sacred Revelation. Which design and undertaking had been of excellent use, had these learned Fathers withal discovered the Vanity and Corruptions of Pagan Philosophy as then constituted: but this they were so far from undertaking, as that they assumed a considerable part of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy, both Mater and Form, and mixed it with their Sacred Theology; and so out of all framed an Image like that of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 2.31, 32. And amongst other Platonic Mysteries, that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word, on which Ammonius and Plotinus had much commented, was taken and applied to the Divine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Word, explicated by John; which gave occasion and foundation to many Philosophic debates and contestes in the Schole and Church of Alexandria; as also to the Heresy of Arius, as it had done to that of Samosetanus before. This is well taken notice of by that great French Reformer Morelius, Discipl. liv. 2. chap. 4. pag. 87, 88. The same may be applied to the Photinian Heresy, which was the same with the Arian and Samosatenan. Of which see Melanchthon, Lib. 3. of the Churches conflict after Constantine. We have before touched on this ( Chap. 3. §. 2, 3. of Book 1.) out of Justinian, who acquaintes us, that these Philosophic Notions about the Platonic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which supposed a real difference in nature betwixt the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Word, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Soul of the World, gave occasion to the Arian Heresy. See Justinian in 1 Joh. 1.1. and Origen 's influence on Arianism in what precedes, §. 8.

§. 10. Another great fundamental Error, which received spirit and life from Pagan Philosophy, is Pelagianism; which strikes diametrically at the free efficacious Grace of Christ, (as Arianism at his Divinity) and contains in it much of the spirit of Antichrist. We have before in what was laid down touching the Vanity of Pagan Ethics, B. 1. C. 2. §. 4. proved, that the Philosophers generally asserted a Moral power, or Free will, in all men to perform virtuose actions. They had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , right Reason; their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , good nature; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , free-will; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , things in our power, and seeds of virtue, which they made the spring of all their good works. These notions the Greek Fathers, specially Origen, (who was bred up amongst the Philosophers in the Schole of Alexandria ) sucked in with too much greediness, who made them the foundation of his Exhortations to good works, which he cried up without end or measure; and to awaken Christians more effectually hereto, he took up this Philosophic principe, That it was in the power of men's free-will to perform the same. This laid the foundation for the Pelagian Heresy, as we have before observed out of Morelius, and we find this excellently opened to us by Jansen, in his Augustinus, Tom. 1. lib. 6 cap. 13, &c.

Which he does, (1) From Origen 's asserting an Indifference of Free will. (2) From his supposing the Law of Nature sufficient to guide us to live well, &c. (3) From his pleading for Merits, and perfect Righteousness, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (4) From his overthrowing the Doctrine of free Election, Predestination, &c. (5) From his denying or lessening Original Sin and Grace, as it appeareth by his Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, specially on Chap. 5. as also his Book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And then he adds cap. 18. that the whole of this Heresy had its foundation in the Pythagorean, Stoic, and Peripatetic Philosophy. He also acquaints that the Origenists, or Monks that followed Origen and his Doctrine in Egypt and Palestine, aspiring after a Monkish Perfection and Religiose life embraced these Infusions of Origen, from whom the Massilienses and Pelagians traduced their Heresy. Hieronymus Adversus Pelag. ad Ctesiphontem, assures us, That the Doctrine of Pelagius was but a branch of Origen 's. And the same Hieronymus, Apolog. 1. adversus Ruffin. saith that Origen held, That God chose men, not that they might be holy, but for their foreseen sanctity and holiness: which made way for that great Pelagian Error, touching Election from the prevision of good Works. More touching the Traduction of Pelagianism from Origen 's Dogmas, see what precedes §. 8.

That Philosophy was the cause of Pelagianism also, Godeau, that great French Historian in the Life of Augustine, Liv. 2. Chap. 2. p. 200. demonstrates thus,

Thence one being asked why Pelagianism did spring up in all Ages, answered, because there were Pelagianae sibrae, certain Pelagian sibres, or small venes of Pelagianism in the hearts of all.

Jansen likewise tells us, Tom. 1. lib. 7. cap. 17. That the Greek Fathers, out of too great opinion of Origen and his Commentaries, sucked in from him the same opinions about Free-will; which Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theophylact were too guilty of Origen 's opinion for Free-will see in his Philocalia, cap. 21, 23, 25, 26, &c. This may serve as a reason why Pelagius found so much favor from the Greek Fathers in the Council of Dispolis, An. 415. That Pelagius himself received much of his Heresy from these Origenistic Monks seated in Egypt, with whom he had conversation whilst in those parts, may hereafter appear, when we come to treat more fully of Pelagianism revived by the Schoolmen. It sufficeth at present to show, what foundation was laid for the Pelagian Heresy by the Greek Fathers, specially those of the Alexandrine Schole; who out of a vain design to gain reputation to the Christian Theology contempered some of the purer and more reformed parts of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophy therewith, to the great prejudice, yea corruption thereof, which Antichrist afterwards makes use of for the exaltation of his throne, and introduction of his Mystical, Scholastic, Canonic Theology, as it follows, C. 2. S. 1. §. 1, &c.

But to give a Summarie account of the rise and progress of Pelagian Dogmas, Bradwardine in his Preface to his never-enough to be admired Book De Causa Dei, against the Pelagians, tells us, that the lapsed Angels were the first Founders of this Sect, who depending on their mutable Free-will, though then Morally holy, fell from their Dependence on Divine Grace, into that miserable servitude of sin they are now chained under. The same Error Augustine, Aquinas, and other Antipelagian Schoolmen make to be the cause of Adam 's Fal. And if his Moral Free-will when void of Sin could not preserve him from falling into sin and misery, when he depended thereon, how is it possible that corrupt Free-will in his lapsed posterity should raise them up to a state of Union and Communion with God, from whom they are now, by reason of the spiritual death and servitude of Sin, so far distant? Bradwardine also makes Pelagianism to have been avouched and owned by Cain, Nimrod, Nebuchadnezzar, and other forerunners of Antichrist. That it was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Pharisees is most evident both from Sacred Scriptures, as Luk 18.9, 11. and elsewhere, as also by the general consent of such as have written of the Pharisees, Drusius, &c. In the Primitive Christian Churches this Pelagian Infusion was diffused among the Gnostics, and other legal carnal Christians, even in the Apostles days; as seems evident by their Epistles, which elsewhere, if the Lord please, we shall make apparent. But the principal founder of this Pelagian Placite in the Primitive times was Origen, as Jansen has incomparably well demonstrated in his History of Pelagianism. From Origen and his Sectators the Monks of Egypt, Pelagius, the reproach of our ancient Britain's, imbibed his venomous Infusions, which proved the vital spirits of Antichrist that man of sin.

To give check and confusion to these proud sentiments of that Pelagian Antichristian party God raised up Augustine for the succur of his poor bleeding Church, against the most pestiferous Heresy that ever infested it. He was a person of prodigiose natural acumen and Capacitie: he had an ample vast soul, filled with Divine Lights and Heats: he was indeed the Restaurator of the ancient Faith in this point, and Doctor of Grace, being indeed an infatigable and invincible champion of Free-grace against Free-will: He penetrated all the secrets of the Pelagians, and opened their Vanity: he entered by the conduct of God's Spirit into the very bowels of corrupt Nature, and anatomised all its subtle Recesses and Diverticules: He descended into the darknesses of the blind mind, and discovered its venomous influences on human Acts: He also manifested the feeblesses and impotence of the corrupt Will as to what is spiritually good: He made a perfect Anatomy of the old Adam, dissecting the small fibres thereof. And this Pelagian Heresy, which may well be styled the Heresy of corrupt Nature, the daughter and mother of Pride, did but the more inflame his zeal for Divine Grace, and increase his profound Humility: and whereas the pride of man's spirit takes great satisfaction in such flesh-pleasing notions, his incomparable Humility led him to a more implacable enmity against them: and being fortified with the armor of Divine Light and Grace, he confounded the Fautors of Pelagianism, and Patrones of corrupt Free-will, discovered their puerile ignorant Sophismes, and impudent Blasphemies; as also contemned their reproaches and calumnies. He explicated his Hypotheses with claritie, and demonstrated them with invincible force, specially in his two last pieces; those he writ against the Semi-pelagians, of the Predestination of Saints, and of the gift of Perseverance. We have an incomparable System of all his choifest sentiments about Grace collected by that great Patron of Free-Grace, and Impugnator of Free-will, Jansen, in his Augustinus; where also we find an excellent account of Augustine 's Life, and Zele against the Pelagians: the like in Godeau, La Vie de St. Augustine. And because some of late have thought Augustine too warm and passionate in his Zele against the Pelagians, I shall give an abbreviate Idea or character of his spirit and zeal for God, which is more copiosely and lively delineated by Godeau, that great French Historian, in the forementioned History of Augustine's Life. Augustine was a wonder of nature for Parts, and a miracle of Grace for Piety. It were easy to find admirable Parallels between those two great men, Paul and Augustine, which Godeau calls the ancient and new Apostle of Jesus Christ. Augustine observed in Paul an admirable Fidelitie, a celeste Eloquence, which was by so much the more capable to prevail, by how much the less human. He also observed in him a singular adresse to manage Spirits, an incomparable claritie to explicate Mysteries, a singular prudence to distribute Divine Verities according to the capacity of his Disciples, a marvelous judgment in his counsels, a profound intelligence to discover the secrets of men's hearts; a perfect charity for sinners, and yet an amorous vehemence against Sin. Libertines were constrained to admire in Augustine an example, which they were not willing to imitate. He studied more to become pious than learned, and to purify his heart from carnal Affections, than to enrich his Understanding with new Sciences. He thought he ought to grow in virtue according to the measure he grew in dignity. He was the Master of all by his Doctrine and Exemples; but by his Humility, charitable and prudent Conduct, the Servant of all. The Son of God chose him to defend the principal foundation of Christian Religion. Other Doctors had particular lights for the defending diverse Truths, but he had extraordinary claritie for the defense of the prime Truth and Grace. If it be the nature of Science to pusse up, then one might think such an eminent Science as Augustine had should greatly puff him up; but the malignity of Science was never so perfectly extinguished as in him: and he is yet more admirable for the profundity of his Humility, than for the sublimity of his Doctrine: he searched not for the praise of men. We might copy out all Augustine 's Books, if we would report all the humble Sentiments which he hath couched touching himself, in a manner that is not affected, and wherein one cannot accuse him, that he searched for Glory in a seeming contempt thereof; he had no difficulty to confess his ignorance in many things, which men believed he could instruct others in. He thus speaks: I profess I am of the number of those which write in profiting, and profit in writing. With what Sentiments of grief, with what sincerity, with what simplicity, with what diligence, with what confusion doth he in his Confessions speak of the Errors of his spirit, of his foolish imaginations, of his extravagant thoughts of Divine Verities? with what freedom doth he open his heart, that we may read all the disorders of his passions? we may cal these Confessions of his the triumph of Grace. Augustine had in his house an Assemblie of Ministers with whom he lived in commun; he forgot nothing to bring them to perfection; he had for all a love truly Paternal: he counseled them in their douts, supported them in their infirmities, fortified them in their seeblesses, accommodated himself to their ignorances. He had a great natural tenderness of love towards his friends, which Grace formed into a Divine love.

After Augustine, when Pelagianism, by the growth of Antichristianism was come to a perfect stature, God raised up many great Reformers, specially Bradwardine and Wiclef, to oppose the same. Many also among the Dominicans, as Aquinas, Ariminensis, Alvarez, &c. have put forth great efforts to pul down this Idol of Pelagianism. But none have been more bold and successful in the Roman Church, for the overthrowing this proud Pelagian Idol, than pious and great Corn. Jansen, and his Sectators; whereof we have given a large relation in our Idea of Jansenisme. And we shall here only add, that it is, or ought to be the great wonder of pious souls, that in this Age, wherein so many Professors of the Reformed Religion have turned their backs on the Doctrine of Free-Grace, and imbibed so many Pelagian Infusions, which are the very vital spirits and heart of Antichristianism, God has raised up, even in the bosom of Antichrist, Jansen and his Sectators, who, in vindication of Augustine 's Doctrine, have approved themselves such stout Champions and Assertors of Free-Grace, against all Pelagian Dogmas. O! what mater of Admiration will this be unto all Eternity?