CHAP. I. The Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie, from its Causes.
The Causes of vain Philosophie; (1.) Ignorance, Act. 17.27. [...]. 2 Pet. 1.9. [...]. (2.) Human Inventions, Col. 2.8. [...], &c. [...]. ver. 20, [...], ver. 22, [...]. (3.) Curiositie, Col. 2.18. [...]. Act. 17.21, [...]. 1 Cor. 15.32, [...]. The sundry workings of this Curiositie. (4.) Spiritual Pride. Col. 2.18, [...]. 1 Cor. 8.1, [...], &c. The Effects of Philosophie Pride. 1 Tim. 3.6, [...]. Psal. 10.4, [...]. (5.) Car­nal Presumption. Col. 2.18, [...]. Hab. 2.4, Affected ignorance, the effect of carnal Confidence. Socrates's sense of his [Page 2]ignorance. (6.) [...], or contentious Logic. 1 Tim. 6.3, 4. [...]. The verbal contentiose amongst the Philosophers. The effects of these [...], Envie, Strife, Atheisme, &c. 1 Tim. 6.5, [...]. ver. 20, [...]. (7.) Opiniatretie and Dogmatising. Col. 2.20, [...], its origine and vanitie. (8.) Carnal Policie, Psal. 119.113, 118, 163. (9.) Judicial hardnesse, Rom. 1.18, 21, 22, 28, [...]. (10.) Idolatric inclination. (11.) Fabulose imitation.

§. 1. HAving in the former Part contemplated Philosophie in its origine and pro­gresse,Vain Philoso­phie from ig­norance. we are now to take view of it in its degenerate, corrupt and deform'd Idea or visage: For though it were in its origine a weak imperfect reflexion of that gloriose Divine Revelation, which shone from the Sun of Righte­ousnesse on the Jewish Church; yet falling on proud, carnal, indisposed hearts, it did but harden them the more: So that, Holding the truth in unrighteousnesse, they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened: for professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish, as Rom. 1.18, 21, 22. Now to penetrate fully the Cor­ruptions and Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie, we shal consider it, (1.) In its Causes. (2.) In its Mater and Parts. (3.) In its Forme and Proprieties. (4.) In its Effects.

We shal begin with the Vanitie of Philosophie, as considered in its Causes. And the first prolific seminal cause of al the Va­nitie and corruption of Philosophie, was the innate congenite darknesse, or the native ignorance of the natural understanding. 1 Cor. 2.14, The natural man, i. e. Nature in its highest Phi­losophic elevation. By [...], the Animal or natural man, we are to understand, not only the brutish, sensual man; but man under the highest raisures of natural or moral endow­ments, so far as he is void of the Spirit of God, and opposite to the spiritual man, ver. 15. Thus Chrysostome interprets this [...], to be [...], who lives after the flesh, not having [Page 3]his mind illuminated by the Spirit, but clothed only with a natural human intelligence, which the creator hath more or lesse invested the souls of al with. This Dr. Reynolds, in his Conc. ad Clerum, has large­ly proved. These first Sophists or Philosophers, finding them­selves in the dark as to the origine and first principes of the Universe; but much more, as to the sublime Mysteries of Di­vinitie; they considered how they might reduce their [...], those dark Notices and Remains of natural light, unto a more perfect contemplation of things in their true and genuine Ideas. And in order hereto, that they might the better fo­ment and emprove these few commun Principes, contemplative and active, they under-took many tedious Travels and Labors; they went far and near, to the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chalde­ans, but principally to the Hebrews, who were scattered amongst al these Nations; from whom they received immediately, or by the mediation of those neighboring Nations, some fragments and broken traditions of the first origine of things; their Connexions, Causalities, Effects, &c. Also of the first Eternal Being, his Per­fections, Operations, and Modes of worship, &c. which forrein heavenly Plants of Divine Revelation, they endeavored to trans­plant into the Garden of their natural Understandings and Phi­losophie; hoping thereby to cultivate and elevate their own na­tural Principes. But these Divine Mysteries being too big for their natural Acumen, they soon degenerated into vain imagi­nations. We find al this set forth to the life by Paul, in his Discourse to the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.27.Act. 17.27. [...]. [...], If happily they might, by grop­ing after him, find him, i. e. like blind men, &c. [...], primarily and properly signifies, to touch, as they who play on a Music Instrument. But thence, in a more laxe notion, it notes, to grope with the hand, as blind men grope for the Wal: and thence metaphorically, as applied to the mind, it importeth the dark inquiries of blind nature after God and things Super­natural. This is excellently illustrated, 2 Pet. 1.9, But he that wanteth these things, is blind, and cannot see afar off. [...],2 Pet. 1.9. [...]. i. e. not able to open his eyes: Or as Beza, Not able to see far. So Aristotle defines [...], i. e. (according to Bu­daeus) Myopes are such, who from their birth see things next them, but things remote they cannot see. Or as Beza, [...], [Page 4] because they alwaies blink with their eyes. Thus learned Bochart, in his elaborate Book De Animalibus Sacris, part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 31. Where having layd down three interpretations of the word [...], he addes a fourth, which he closeth with: ‘I prefer, saies he, the fourth interpretation of them who render [...] to shut the eyes, to twinkle, to blink with the eyes. So Hesychius, [...]. So Isa. 6.10. Matt. 13.15. Act. 28.27, [...], they twinkled with their eyes. Thus also the simple [...] is often taken: so that [...], implies no other than [...], to shut the eyes, as Isa. 33.15. Therefore this [...], is he who is blind, because he voluntarily shuts his eyes that he may not see, or who seems to see, what he un­willingly beholds. Such are by Job 24.13, called [...] Rebels against the light, John 3.20.’ This fully agrees to these Gentile Philosophers,Rom. 1.18. who are said, Rom. 1.18, To hold the truth in unrighteousnesse: i. e. They had some [...], commun no­tions of a Deitie, which they cultivated by studiose Contempla­tion of the invisible perfections of God in his visible workes, as ver. 19; and farther, by some broken Tradition; borrowed from the Church of God. Yet al this while, the truth being captivated by their dark minds, they could not see afar off: they had only a purblind light, or as Plato cals it, [...], a night-day knowledge of Divine things, which rendered them only skilful in coining vain imaginations, &c. They may be said to hold the truth in unrighteousnesse, on a twofold ac­count. (1.) As by their unrighteousnesse they captivated the Truth: Their unrighteous lusts were too strong for Truth. Or (2.) As they did captivate Truth unrighteously, against al equi­tie 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 al rules of equitie, un­righteously captivate Truth, that so it might not disturbe them in their wicked practices.

§. 2. A Second Cause of the Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie,2. Human In­ventions. was the human Figments and Inventions of their own, which they mixed with those broken Traditions, they received originally from the Jewish Church; whence the whole of their Philoso­phie, according to Divine estimation, is judged to be at best but human Invention and Tradition. This is fully laid down, [Page 5] Col. 2.8, Through philosophie and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, &c.Col. 2.8. The Apostle seems to strike primarily at the Pytha­gorean Philosophie, as it appears by the following, vers. 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, which were Pythagorean Doctrines. Thence Grotius, and Hammond out of him, understand this Discourse of the Gnostic Theologie, composed for the most part of Pytha­gorean Principes. Now here the Apostle exhorces them First, That no man make a prey of them through Philosophie. What the proper import of [...] is, we shal hereafter shew. He saies, [...]. Grotius observes, that here is the figure [...], one and the same thing signified by two expressions: For [...], by Philosophie and vain deceit, availeth as much, as if he had said, [...], by the vain deceit of Philosophie. Thence the A­postle proves, that it was vain Philosophie, from its Causes, (which is the highest kind of demonstration) [...], according to the tradition of men. ‘Very right: (addes Grotius) for that which these Greek Philosophers taught, proceded, [...], for the most part, from their human ingenie, or own invention. But what true account can we have of God, and of his Decrees, unlesse we are taught of God? Hence therefore those perpetual and inexplicable dissentions amongst the Philosophers: Hence also their industrious labor and stu­die, in things that were neither in themselves certain, nor yet rendred men better. [...], according to the in­stitution, which came not from Heaven; but from this world: and thence is partly false, partly imperfect.’ [...] properly sig­nifies the Elements, which the Philosophers suppose to be the first principes of Natural bodies. Thence in Philosophie the word was used to signifie the first principes, or rudiments of any Science, which have an analogie with the natural elements. So that by rudiments, or elements of this world, is evidently meant those principe, of Philosophie, which had their main origine from the world; that is, the invention of man, though ground­ed on some Jewish traditions. So it follows, [...], and not according to Christ: i. e. saies Grotius, Not such rudiments or institutions, which were brought by Christ from Heaven. 'Tis true, much of their Philosophie, its first Rudiments and Elements, descended originally from Heaven by Christ. For, as it hath been proved, the chief principes of al Philosophie were but [Page 6]corrupt traductions, or broken traditions derived originally from Gods sacred Oracles: Ay, but in as much as the manner of traduction, or conveighance was but human, not according to Gods 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 Philosophie but Tradi­tions of men, worldly rudiments, which were partly false, partly imperfect; but wholly vain and uselesse as to Divine Institu­tion and Instruction of men, in the saving knowledge of God in Christ. Not that the Apostle condemnes al Philosophie 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 rendred both vain and uselesse. This our A­postle over and again inculcates,Col. 2.20. vers. 20.21, 22, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ to the rudiments of the world, &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 dye here, is taken in the better part, as Rom. 6.2.Gal. 4.3, 9. [...], Rudiments, are every institution, as Gal. 4.3, 9. Where you'l see the reason, why they are called [...], Rudiments of the world; namely, because they were commun to the Jews with the Gentiles. For there was nothing in these Rites peculiar to the Jews, yea they rather came by Gods 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 Philosophie, into their Theolo­gie. This further appears by what follows, ver. 20, [...]; Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject unto ordinances? ‘ [...], saies Grotius, signifies here, Why do you suffer your selves to be thus taught, as though your life were to be composed according to the exemple, not of Christ, but of the World? Or, as Schmidius, Why do you bind your selves, ad [...], to the Dogmes, Rites, and Institutes of [Page 7] men?’ [...], as it is wel known, is a Philosophic terme, and signifies to impose a Dogme, or Doctrine, as [...], to impose a Law. The Pythagoreans had their [...], Dogmes, imposed on al their Sect; so that [...], he said it, was a Law to them. Now, saies the Apostle, Why do you suffer these Pythagorean Dogmes to be imposed on your Consciences, in­stead of Christs Laws? Why do you subject your Consciences to these worldly Rudiments, or Pythagorean Ordinances, which are vain and uselesse, in point of salvation; as to maters of Faith and worship, &c? Then our Apostle procedes to lay down some of these Pythagorean Dogmes or Ordinances, ver. 21,Col. 2.21. [...]. That these are no Mosaic Ordinances, is affirm­ed by Tertullian. ‘It seems to me (saith Grotius) that he useth words commun, which comprehend both the Jews and the Phi­losophers, principally the Pythagorist, &c.’ Then it follows,Col. 2.22. ver. 22, [...], according to the commandements and Doctrines of men. This, saies Grotius, ought to be referred to the remoter, namely to that [...], or­dinances, ver. 20, which were the inventions of men, not of God. [...], are such things as are commanded by mens Laws: [...], are the Injunctions or Dogmes of the Philosophers. So that we see the sum of our Apostles Discourse, and scope in these forecited places, is, to shew the vanitie and deceit of this Pythagorean Philosophie, which these Gnostics (pretenders to wis­dome) had foisted into their mystic Divinitie. And this he doth fully demonstrate from its main cause; namely, that al these Pythagoric Principes (which these foolish Gnostics so much doted on) were but mens Traditions and worldly Rudi­ments, as ver. 8, or Dogmes, Mandates and Doctrines of men; as ver. 20, 22: i. e. Though they might have some origine Idea in, and Tradition from Gods sacred Oracles; yet, in as much as this Tradition was only human, broken and corrupt, and no way apprehended, much lesse rightly improved, but rather a­bused to vanitie, pride and idolatrie, by these foolish Sophists; hence the whole of their Philosophie, 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 [Page 8]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 glasse 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 knowlege of Divine Mysteries, &c.

§. 3. Another Cause of the corruption and vanitie of Philo­sophie, Curiositie and affectation of Novitie. Col. 2.18. was Curiositie, and affectation of Novitie. This is more than hinted in that of the Apostle, Col. 2.18, [...], i. e. (saies Grotius) Penetrating into those things, which he hath not seen or known; claiming a privilege of discoursing concern­ing things unknown or hidden. [...], in the Glossarie, sig­nifies to dive or pry into. It is placed for the Hebrew [...] Psal. 19.51. They preferred Angels to what Offices they pleased, coyning Names for them, distributing them into Classes, &c. Schmidius renders [...], Invading, or proudly intruding on things he hath not seen. [...], properly signifies, to place the foot on somewhat; and thence sometimes, proudly to un­dertake a mater beyond a mans capacitie. Our Apostle here strikes immediately at the Pythagorising Gnostics, their proud and curiose speculations, concerning the Pythagorean Aeones or Angels; whose Natures, Proprieties, Orders and Offices, they so busily, but vainly pryed into: As after them, the Popish Monkes and Scholemen, who exactly follow the Gnostics and Py­thagoreans herein; and so are without dout struck at here, by this Apostolic charge. This curiose 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 so­brietie and modestie; in so much, that being, as it were, drunk­en with their own curiose conceits and speculations, they grew extreme vain in al their Imaginations and Philosophie. This sin of curiositie, 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 encountred by certain Philosophers, Epicureans and Stoics, who ver. 20, seem very inquisitive to know what Pauls new Doctrine meant; and ver. 21, Luke gives us the root of al [Page 9]their Vain Philosophisings, namely, their Curiositie,Act 17.21. who spent their time in nothing else but some new thing. [...], i. e. they were wholly busied, or, they counted their time in nothing else wel 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. 15.32,1 Cor. 15.32. Awake to righteousnesse, &c. [...] (saies Beza) to awake, properly belongs to persons Drunken, who at length after sleep grow sober. He speaks here of the sobrietie of the mind, to which he exhortes them to returne, who had been, as it were, drunken with their many and curiose speculations. This itch of Curiositie is that which has ever proved noxious (yea, perniciose where it prevails) not only to Pagan Philoso­phie, but also to Schole-Divinitie; and 'tis like to prove as de­structive to Sacred Philologie or Scripture-Criticisme, (accord­ing to the Prophetic fears of Pious Ʋsher) if Critics awake not to righteousnesse. This peccant humor of Curiositie, as Aquinas has wel observed in 2a 2ae, Quaes. 167. is not directly opposed to a thorow disquisition and knowlege of Truth, but to the irregular Appetite thereof, or Studies therein; which Irregu­laritie may be occasioned several waies. As (1.) when our Curiositie leads us to the studie of Truth only upon some low­er motive or base ends; namely, to feed our Pride, or grati­fie Lust. (2.) When our very Appetite or desires and stu­dies after knowlege 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 waies. [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 lesse useful, and neglect substantials or maters of moment, &c. [3.] When al 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 rendred their Philosophie exceding vain and degenerate: and the Schole-men have herein followed, if not out-gone them.Spiritual Pride, the Cause of Vain Philoso­phie.

§. 4. Another great Mother-root of the Vanitie of Philosophie, was Spiritual Pride, which attended and influenced al the Dis­quisitions [Page 10]and Contemplations of those Pagan Philosophers. This is sufficiently expressed by our Apostle,Col. 2.18. in his forecited caution to the Colossians, Chap. 2. ver. 18. [...], vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. [...] (saies Grotius) here is spoken of human Knowlege, not reveled by God. So [...] is taken, Matt. 16.17. This knowlege swels them like to the wind. The word [...] 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 persues his great undertaking begun ver. 8, to prove this Gnostic Theologie, composed for the most part of Pythagorean Philosophie, to be vain and deceitful. He had shewed, in the former part of the Verse, the Vanitie 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 Va­nitie of their Philosophie; and that was their Pride. Vainly puffed up, i. e. swollen with Pride, as an emty Bubble or Blad­der ful of nothing but Wind; which al procedes originally from their fleshly mind, i. e. as Grotius wel observes, their hu­man knowlege or Philosophie; 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 origine: When the proud fleshly mind is the source, proud fleshly self wil be the center or end of al our contemplations.1. Cor. 8.1. We have the like a­natomie of Vain Philosophie, 1 Cor. 8.1, 2. Ver. 1, Knowledge puffeth up, but Charitie edifieth. [...]. He doth, as some conceive, here also strike at those Pythagorising Gnostics, who were carnal Gospellers, but yet pretended to an high spi­ritual [...], or Knowlege; whence they were called [...], Gnostics: which is the same with [...], Sophists or Wise men; whose pretended Wisdome or Theologie was nothing else but a degenerate composition of Judaisme and Pythagorean Philosophie; which puffed them up with a proud, vain, windy conceit of, I know not what, Mystic knowlege. Thence saith the Apostle, Knowledge puffeth up, 1 Cor. 8.2. &c. So it follows, Vers. 2, If any man thinketh he knoweth any thing, &c. [...], i. e. saies 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 Philosophie. [...] here notes one [Page 11]that fondly conceits, presumes, or arrogantly persuades himself, that he knows something: It importes a proud self flaterie and groundlesse presumtion of what he hath not indeed. So it follows, [...], He does in no wise know any thing as he ought to know it. i. e. He is ignorant of the principal thing. That 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 al is this, That conceited, windy, emty, speculative Knowlege or Philosophie does but puffe up the mind, and sil it with Pride, Vanitie and Ostentation; which is but conceited Ignorance. And this was an Epidemic Disease and Ʋniversal Contagion, which tainted al Pagan Philosophie and Philosophers, though some had more skil than others to concele their Pride and Vanities under modest Titles and Habits, as Pythagoras, Socrates, and Diogenes the Cy­nic, &c. Yea this original sin of Pride and Vanitie so much reigned amongst these first Philosophers, as that they themselves could easily discerne 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, saies he, trampled upon Plato's Bed (where he Philosophised) saying, [...], I tread upon Plato's vain studie. To whom Plato replies, [...], O Diogenes, how much Pride dost thou discover, in seeming not to be proud (but to tread on others Pride)? So Antisthenes, seeing the Vessel wherein Plato's Vomit lay, said, [...], I see Plato's Choler, but I don't see his Pride; meaning that Plato's Pride was too deeply rooted to be vomited up. This Spiritual Pride was an universal contagion which infected al the Philo­sophers: Whence, saies Minutius Faelix, We contemne the proud looks of the Philosophers, whom we know to be Corrupters, and Adul­terers, and Tyrants, and yet alwaies eloquent against their own vices. We Christians) who boast not of our wisdome by habit, but keep it in our mind, do not speak, but live great things. Now the Pride of these Pagan Philosophers rendred their Philosophie and Imaginations vain in these particulars.Pride brings al Divine my­steries to the measure of car­nal Reason

1. In that they endeavoured to measure things Reveled and Divine (concerning which they had received some broken no­tices by Jewish Traditions) by their corrupt, proud, and vain [Page 12]understandings. Thence, saies Minutius Faelix, It is a piece of the greatest sacrilege to seek that on the ground which thou ought­est to find above. And indeed there is nothing in the World, that hath been a greater enemy to Gods Word, or Divine Re­velation, than proud and vain Philosophie: which, albeit it re­ceived the first rudiments and elements of al 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 curiose searches into sacred Mysteries, to compre­hend and reduce the same to the measure of its proud con­ceivings. ‘This, saies Calvin, is the greatest arrogance, not to allow God his secret Reasons, which our Reasons can't fa­dome.’

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

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

4. That which rendred the proud Philosophers so vain in their Disquisitions and Inquiries,Pride exposed Philosophers to the Divine Curse. was the peculiar curse of God upon them for their Pride. This was observed by some of the so­berest amongst themselves. For Chilo (as Diogenes Laertius) being asked, what Jupiter did? Answered, [...], He casts down the high things, and lifts up the low. This is more fully expressed by the Spirit of God, 1 Tim. 3.6.1 Tim. 3.6, Where [...], the novice in Christs Schole is dehorted from Pride, [...], lest being lifted up, or waxing mad, [Page 13][So Physitians cal [...], one that labors under a Frenzy.] he fals 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 Philosophie to determine in Atheisme, Blasphemie, Idolatrie and Sensualitie. Pride turned Philosophie into a seminary of 'Blasphemie, A­theisme, Idola­trie, Sensuali­tie. For God leaving them in judgement to their own proud Ima­ginations, they fel first into doutful Disputations, thence into Sceptic Conclusions, and at last arrived unto Atheisme, Blasphe­mie and Sensualitie: for their Scepticisme ended in Epicurisme, as we shal after shew. And al proceded from the Pride of their hearts, according to that prophetic saying of the Psalmist, Ps. 10.4, The wicked through the pride of his countenance. Psal. 10.4. [...] the Particle [...] here is causal, denoting the cause of al their A­theisme to be Pride. The Countenance is here put as that which is the Index of the heart. The Thargum reads it, [...], his spirit. God is not in al his thoughts, or al his thoughts are, that there is no God. This is the effect of al his proud vain Philo­sophie, to believe there is no God. It is certain, that Atheisme was the effect of proud Philosophie, as hereafter.

It's a good observation of Senault, that sober Jansenist: ‘There is no one but knows, that Pride hath alwaies accom­panied the Sect of the Stoics, who to elevate man, have aba­sed God; and who oft have made their Wise-man more bles­sed than their Jupiter.’ What greater Pride can there be than this, for a man to say, unlesse he be lest to his own corrupt wil, he wil do nothing? Which was the case of the Stoics, and most Philosophers, who walked in the sparkes of their own fire, pleased themselves in their own abilities, both Contemplative and Active, but had not the least regard to Gods glorie. It was wel observed by Austin, That they who wil ascend to God, must descend in self-abasement and humilitie. The further from Pride, the nearer to God: He that ascends in himself, descends and fals from God. Pride and Vain-glorie are the prime ele­ments of vain Philosophie; whereas sacred and sound Philoso­phie is sounded in Humilitie. Ships that are heaviest loden, fail lowest: So a Mind laden with sound Philosophie is most humble.

§. 5. The Vanitie of Philosophie sprang much from the car­nal presumptions or confidences of these Philosophers in their own wisdome or conceited ignorance.Carnal confi­dence another cause of vain Philosophie. This was another Master-Vice, which originally sprang from the forementioned Pride of their hearts, and had a potent influence on the Vanitie of their Phi­losophie. This also is implied in Paul's Anatomie of the Pytha­gorising Gnostics, Col. 2.18. Vainly puffed up. Hab. 2.4. their proud vain Philosophie, Col. 2.18, Vain­ly puffed up by their fleshly mind, i. e. by carnal presumtion and confidence on their own fleshly human wisdome. 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 wisdome and strength;Affected igno­rance the effect of carnal pre­sumtion. which indeed turnes the best human Knowlege into the worst ignorance: Whence, saies Seneca, (de Tranquil.) I think many might have attained to wisdome, if they had not thought they had already attained to it. Therefore we are un­willing to learne, because we conceit our selves already learned. If thou desirest to learne, or know any thing with profit, learne 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 it self into a fond presumtion of its own knowlege; and so to aquiesce therein. It's rare, that such as are wise in their own conceit, have so much humilitie as to suffer themselves to be taught by others. Whence it is accounted by wise-men better to have little of knowlege with humilitie, and a teachable heart, than treasures of Sciences with vain self-complacence and confidence. For affected Ignorance is usually the fruit of such presumtuous confidence: When ever a man leanes on his own understanding, he usually fals into some con­ceited Follie, or vain Imaginations. This Aristotle, Rhet. l. 2. c. 14. makes the cause why young men, or Novices, so often fal into foolish, indeliberate actions: [...], Young men thinke they know althings, and thence are strong in confidences. And as this is usually the crime of Novices in Phi­losophie, so was it generally of al the Pagan Philosophers; and so the root of much Vanitie in their Philosophie. Man indeed naturally affects a kind of Divinitie: he would fain (with his first Parent Adam) be a God to himself, and thence he makes an Idol of his own wisdome, which is an high piece of Idola­trie, and therefore provokes the great God, to leave such to al manner of foolish conceits, and vanitie of Imagination. That [Page 15]this was a main cause of those vain Pagan Philosophisings, is excellently laid open by Owen, Theolog. l. 1. c. 7. ‘The Philo­sophers, saies he, being instructed by the advantage of some Revelation in the workes of Creation and Providence, with some notices of the Power and Divinitie of God, endeavor­ed with al their might to promote their [...], their own commun principes; and this gave origine to Philosophie, &c.’ These their endeavors being grounded only on the presumtion of their own wisdome 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:Socrates's sense of his depen­dances on God for light. [...], Thou knowest that errors in practice come from this ignorance, that men thinke they know what they know not, &c. Then he addes, 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, [...], Know thy self. This Plato, in his Charmides, ingenuously confesseth; Many have erred from their scope, [...], by trusting to their own opinion without judgement. 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 knowlege and strength. We seem to know althings, but indeed we are ignorant of every thing. It is an absurd thing to Philosophise of things we know not: When any attemtes a thing above his strength, he greatly erres. Thus Plato, out of what he had learnt from his Master Socrates. So agen in his Legib. 5. Plato discoursing of [...], self-love; From this, saie he, procedes this great error, that al men estime their ignorance to be wisdome, [...], whence knowing nothing, we thinke we know althings. Thence (addes he) not permitting our selves to be taught what we are ignorant of, we fal into great errors. We have indeed a great saying of Plato, in his Epinom. pag. 980. shewing, That we can get no true knowlege of God, but by dependence on, and prayer to him. His words are, [...], Trusting in the Gods, pray unto them, that thou maiest have right notions of the Gods. Thus it shal be, if God as a Guide shal shew us the way; only help thou with thy Prayers. Had Plato really practised what he here teacheth of Faith, [Page 16]Dependence, and Prayer to the true God, it's probable his Phi­losophie had not been so vain as it is. Lastly, Plato, Legib. 4, tels us, That he who is humble and modest wil adhere to Divine Justice: [...], &c. But he that is lifted up in his own proud confidences, [...], 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 some bodie, yet at last he is sufficiently punished by Divine Justice, &c. Which indeed was Plato's own case, as wel as the rest of the Philosophers, whose presumtuous confidences in their own wisdome and reason proved the bane of their Philosophie; as it proved also with the Jews, Rom. 2.17, 18, 19, 20.

§. 6. The Vanitie of Philosophie received a great founda­tion and improvement from their vain [...],The Vanitie of Philosophie from its vain contentions. or Litigations about words and trifles. For we must know, that the [...], That vain contentiose, mode of disputing, so much adored by the 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 [...], 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 Dogmes; which Paul does most professedly set himself to beat down, as that which he, by a Prophetic inspiration, foresaw would prove a mighty Engine to promote Antichrist's throne; as in­deed it did, when the Schole-Divinitie, which is wholly com­posed of vain Disputations, came in fashion. Therefore Paul laies in many precautions against this vain [...], or Li­tigiose Dialectic Sophistrie, hatcht in the Pythagorean and Elea­atic Scholes, and foisted into the Christian Theologie 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 Timothie, who, as sup­posed, was very much infested by those Pythagorising Gnostics. So,1 Tim. 6.3. 1 Tim. 6.3, [...], If any one bring in any other Doctrine: Which was the designe of the Pythagorising Gno­stics, who abounded at Ephesus, where Timothie had his resi­dence, and endeavored to compose a new Mystic Theologie, out of Judaisme and Pythagorean Philosophie, tempered with [Page 17]some Christian Dogmes. Thence it follows, and consent not to wholesome words; [...], saies Grotius, answereth to [...], which is a Temple-Phrase, belonging to such as approche to the Altar, as Lev. 9.7: as if our Apostle had said, These Gospel-Dogmes are sacred things, and ought to be handled with as much reverence as the Jewish Sacreds were. They are indeed [...], wholesome words, without any corrupt or poisonous mixtures; not like the Gnostic Infusions, composed of the venimous ingredients of Rabbinical Fables and Pythagorean Philosophie. And to the Doctrine according unto godlinesse; [...], and, is here as oft elsewhere exegetic: For the words of Christ truely are a Doctrine tending unto godlinesse, whereas those Pythagorean Gnostic contentions tended only to profanenesse and licentiousnesse. [...], i. e. which is both agreable and conducible unto godlinesse, as Tit. 1.1. Then it follows ver. 4. He is proud knowing nothing. i. e. He is as an emty vessel fil­led with nothing but airy speculations,1 Tim. 6.4. which conduce nothing to true godlinesse, (as before §. 4, 5;) But doting about que­stions; [...], 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, [...] i. e. saies Grotius, There were many disputations amongst the Philosophers merely about words: namely Aristotle and Plato cal such things as conduce to the wel-being of the Bodie and Life, Goods: The Stoic wil not have them called so, but [...], Conducibles. The Platonist and Aristotelian, say, A wise man hath mercy: Illud semper egerunt sectae us (que) ab initio originis suae, ut quocun (que) modo a cateris distarent: unde quod uni pla­cuit alteri dis­plicuit: Om­nia pugna­bant adversis frontibus. Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 7. c. 13. The Stoic wil not allow that he hath mercy, but that he spareth. The great­est part of the Stoic Disputations, saies Cicero, is spent about words. What more vitiose than to intend a controversie merely about Words? We may adde to these the [...], in the Pythagoric and Eleatic Scholes, the [...], the probationatory, or problematic disputes in the old Acade­mie begun by Socrates and Plato: Also Aristotle's Dialectic Di­sputations, with al the sharpe contentions in the New Academies, and by the Sceptics, &c. which were al but so many [...], or needlesse strifes about words. See more of this in Plutarch, [...], concerning the various placites, or opinions of Philosophers.

Whence follows Envy, The effects of these verbal Disputes, Strifes, Rail­ings, &c. Strife, Railings, evil Surmisings: These, saies Grotius, were frequent amongst Philosophers. [...], Envy, was the natural product of their [...], or strife about words. What Envyings and Emulations were there betwixt the Italic and Ionic Sect, the Pythagoreans and Eleatics, the Platonics and the Peripatetics, with the other Sects. Hence follows, [...], Strife, or Contention: Such was their [...], Contentiose Logic, in the Eleatic and Megaric Scholes, which was frequently at­tended with railings; [...], Blasphemings of each others reputation: al which ended in Evil surmisings. [...], i. e. saies Grotius, evil opinions or vain Philosophie: For [...] is here put for [...], to think. Such were the opinions of Di­agoras, who held there was no God: Of Epicurus, who assert­ed that God regarded not human affairs; which also seemeth to be the opinion of Aristotle, [...]. Such al­so were the opinions of the New Academics and Sceptics, who held nothing to be knowable or perceptible; nothing to be in it self shameful, &c. Such were the fruits of this vain [...], which we find excellently set forth by Plato in his Repub. 7. from pag. 532, to 539; where discoursing professedly of Dia­lectic Disputes or Logic, and having opened the nature of it, that it is [...] & [...], wherein we procede from some low­er Hypothesis, to the first Principes, &c. he procedes to shew the Qualities of a good Logician, and evil fruits of contentiose Litigations. And his general direction is, That men studie not Logic before they are Thirtie years aged: for, saies he, young men engaging in Dialectic Disputes, abuse this Art to contradicti­ons each of other; and so sometimes overcomming, and sometimes being overcome, at last they come to believe nothing: whereas elder Persons, seeking not childlike glorie but truth, are more moderate and grave; but young men [...], &c. being al­waies used to contradictions, affect, like little Dogs, mutually to overcome each other. 1 Tim. 6.5. Thus Plato. It follows 1 Tim. 6.5, Per­verse Disputings, [...]. ‘Some Copies read it, [...], which to Grotius seems the truest. [...] is properly a Philosophic terme, and signifies their more solemne Disputa­tions: Whence Gellius cals the very place where they dis­puted [...]. Paul addes [...], which usually in composi­tion signifies perverse or not right,’ as in [...] so Jam. 1.22, [...], deceiving themselves with [Page 19]a Paralogisme or false dangerous reasoning and dispute. Hence [...] properly signifies a perverse and inane Disputation or Exercitation, a curiose, jejune concertation. It's rendred here by the Syriac, [...], and the conflict of the Sons of Man: Or, and the mutual attrition; for those Sophists mutually brought down each other, and by their Scab infected each other. Chry­sostome, and Theophylact out of him, render it confrications: For those vain Sophists mutually rubbed each other, like scab­bed Sheep, and by their Philosophic confrications or rubbings mutually infected each other. Thence it follows, [...], i. e. having their minds altogether averse from pie­tie, which is the greatest corruption. Such were these Pythago­rising Gnostics, who albeit they pretended to a sublime mysti­cal [...] or knowlege, yet were they professed enemies to Pi­etie, being indeed guilty of unheard-of uncleannesses and wick­ednesses. So it follows, [...], i. e. destitute of al true saving practic knowlege, notwithstanding al their Pytha­goric Dogmes and Institutes. [...], i. e. making use of the Christian Religion only as a blind, or politic medium to promove their gain and cover over their sen­sual designes: Their godlinesse lies in gain, here lies their Re­ligion or measure of good and evil: whereas, saith he, ver. 6,Vers. 6. Godlinesse with contentement 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 Godlinesse, i. e. They by their perverse Philosophic Disputations wrested the Scripture and Religion, so as to make al subserve their private Gain: These Nazian­zone stiles [...], such as Hucstered and made Morehandise of Christ. But the Apostle assures us, That godli­nesse is the best gain, i. e. it brings the best profit to mens souls. Thus we see how Paul does here anatomise this Philosophic [...] or contentiose Logic, as the pregnant cause of their Phi­losophic Emulations, Contentions, Railings, Evil opinions, and al manner of vain Philosophisings. And indeed nothing more na­tural than that such perverse Disputings should determine in Scepticisme and Atheisme, as Jansenius hath wel 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, 1 Tim. 6.20. keep that which [Page 20]is committed to thy trust, [...] being a decomposite of [...], & [...], signifies a Depositum committed to the trust of another. This Depositum, which Timo­thy was so charily to keep, was the great Doctrine of the Gospel; which he cals a Depositum, because it is committed by Christ to his Ministers in charge. So 2 Tim. 1.14, we find the word [...] used in the same sense, 1 Tim. 1.18. 2 Tim. 2.2. So in the Book called Musar the precepts of the Law are called a Depositum, as some observe. Thence it follows, avoiding profane and vain bablings, [...], according to the Glossarie, is the same with [...] vain speech. [...] here is either a clamor about vain maters, or of vain words; such as agree not with the forme of sound Doctrine. Chrysostome understands it of novel words and formes of speech introduced. Theophylact here renders it [...], vain discourse or Disputation; which is therefore vain, because it's mater, forme, concomitants and effects were al vain and fruitlesse: It was conversant only about vain maters, Ge­nealogies of the Aeones, &c. and it tended only to vain ends, vain glorie, &c. Further, he saies these bablings were [...], not only vain but profane, i. e. they being foisted into sacred Theologie, not by Gods appointment, but from their own in­ventions, merely to symbolise with Pagar. Philosophers, &c. they were thence profane. It follows, [...], and oppo­sitions. The Greeks interpret [...] by [...], Contradicti­ons. Much of the glorie of these vain Disputers lay in their facultie 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 al other Sects. Thus were they involved in perpetual contra­dictions; and the fruit of al these Litigations was no other than a false Science or vain Philosophie. So it follows, [...], of Science falsly so called: i. e. Of spinose, fri­volous questions, such as assume the name of Science, but de­serve not the same. ‘You see here (saies Grotius) how an­cient the name of Gnostics was; which these Philosophers mingling with the Christian Churches assumed to themselves, despising al others as rude and ignorant, but boasting of their knowlege falsely so termed. Clement Alex. saies, this Epistle was upon this account rejected by the Gnostics; because they saw [Page 21]themselves herein described to the life. [...], As Pride and vain Opinion hath hurt Philoso­phie, so false, or falsely so called Knowlege, hath spoiled their Knowlege.’ Thence he produceth this Text. True Knowlege is that which profiteth to eternal life. Whence ver. 21 he addes, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith: 2 Tim. 6.21. [...]. i. e. These Pythagorising Gnostics, being swollen with proud conceits, and presumtuose confidences of their own pretended Knowlege and contentiose Philosophie, have deserted the true Orthodoxe Christian Faith. Paul gives us much the same account in 2 Tim. 2.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23. touching these Gnostic [...] or vain Disputes, of which in the following Chapter. At present we may take notice that our Apostle, though he strike immediately at the Gnostics who abounded then at Ephesus, yet in them he does propheticly strike through the Schole-Divines, who have, by their vain Aristote­lic [...], rendred not onely Philosophic but Divinitie also vain and uselesse.

§. 7. Another cause of the Vanitie of al Philosophie, Opiniatrctie and a Dogma­tising hum or, its origine and and vanitie. was the Opiniatretie and Dogmatising humor of the Philosophers. This indeed hath an intimate and causal connexion with the fore­mentioned vain Disputation. For Self-love produceth in us al a fond conceit of, and regard unto our own Phaenomena and Principes: The contradiction of others is as fuel to feed this self-flatering opinion of our own conceived notions. This Self-love or flaterie being engaged to maintain what it hath under­taken, sets the wits on work to contrive, studie and dispute for the defence of its espoused persuasion: And the effect of al is a fixed Opiniatretie or abounding in our own sense, and stiffe adherence to our own judgements; so that in this case mens stiffenesse in adhereing 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 wil be either stronger or weaker, according to the force of those Reasons on which our Opinions are grounded: so that if we cannot shew some pro­per motive or particular reason, as strong as the Opinion we e­spouse, it is apparent that the said Opinion is founded on assec­tionate [Page 22] Opiniatretie rather than on grounded Reason. This was the general fate of those Greek Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans, with whom [...] he said it, had the force of a first Principe or the most binding Reason. They gene­rally affected [...], to be slaves to their own Hypo­thesis, rather than [...], to sacrifice to truth. Ari­stotle gives us a good character of a Philosopher, that he should be a slave to truth, [...], to the abandoning his own persuasions: which is quite contrary to this philosophic humor of Dogmatising Opiniatretie, which makes men to abandon Truth for the preservation of their own Phaenomena. This seems struck at by the Apostle in that Col. 2.20,Col. 2.20. Why are ye subject to ordinances? [...], i. e. Why do you suffer your selves to be imposed on by those Pythagorean Gnostics, who would fain bring you under the yoke and bondage of their Pythagorean Dogmes, ver. 21, 22. [...] among the Graecians signified primarilie a placit, or confirmed, establisht opinion of any Sect; and thence an Institute, Edict, Decree. Whence [...] primarilie importes to give a sentence, to impose an opinion, or tenaciously to adhere to an opinion. Thence it is opposed to [...], to suspend assent, or to hesitate: which kind of Suspension and Hesitation the Academics and Sceptics affected. It was a great question amongst the Philosophers, whether those of the Old Academie, namely Plato and his followers, might be said [...] and it is generally concluded in the affirmative. Yea some would bring in those of the New Academie, who seemed most averse from this humor, under this mode of Dogmatising or Opiniatretie: For, say they, their stiffe and tenacious ad­hereing 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 stiffe in re­nouncing those [...], commun notions of a Deitie so deeply engraven on human nature, (for their Sceptisme deter­mined in Atheisme) which is an hellish piece of Opiniatretie or Dogmatising.

§. 8. Another poisonous root which infected and tainted al Pagan Philosophie,Carnal policie of Philosophers. was the carnal policie of their Philosophers; [Page 23]which appeared many waies. (1.) In their conceling the Au­thors and origine of those Scriptural Traditions they borrowed from the Jews. (2.) In their clothing these Jewish Traditions with a Grecian fabulose Garbe, thereby to make them seem their own. (3.) In conceling their own Ignorance of those Jewish Dogmes, on which they so boldly Philosophised under mysti­cal, unintelligible Termes and Fables, like Apollo's Oracles, &c. (4.) In converting al their traditional and invented Philosophie, to a subservience to their carnal Interest or superstitiose Idola­trical designes, &c. These and such-like were the branches of their Carnal Policie, which rendred their Philosophie so vain and uselesse. We find this Philosophic craft wel described in the Platonic definitions: [...], Craft is an affection whereby he that hath it is enabled to designe and promove his private end. Psal. 112.113. But we have it more fully unbowelled by the Spirit of God, specially Psal. 119.113, I hate vain thoughts. [...] French: les Discours, i. e. the vain and fraudulent Discourses of carnal sapience, contrary to the simplicitie of Faith and that obedience due to God. So a­gen, ver. 118, for their tromperie is falsehood, [...],Ver. 118. i. e. their cautelose Artifices, on which they trust, shal in the end deceive themselves, they being not able by al their cun­ning to avoid thy judgement: or, they are to thee abominable, in as much as in al their train and politic wiles there is nothing but fraud. So agen, vers. 128, Therefore I approve as right [...] al thy commandements of al things, but I hate every false way, i. e. al Carnal Policie and shifts. The like ver. 163, I hate and abhorre lying, i. e. politic craft, &c. And the A­postle seems to strike directly at this Carnal Policie of the Greek Philosophers, 1 Cor. 2.6, Not the wisdome of this world, nor of the Princes of this world, that come to nought. 1 Cor. 2.6. Grotius and De­odate understand this last clause of false reason of state, or po­litic prudence of the worlds Grandees, which directly opposeth the Kingdome of Christ, Matt. 11.25. 1 Cor. 2.2. And we need not dout, but that the Apostle here takes in the world­ly wisdome and politic prudence not only of Statesmen, but also of the Philosophers who passed for Princes and Rulers of this World, specially the Pythagoreans, who were great Statesmen and Politicians as wel as Philosophers. This Carnal Policie was the great engine of the Gnostics, those sensual professors, who, [Page 24]to symbolise and keep fair both with Jews and Gentiles, com­posed a politic and flesh-pleasing Theologie of worldly Rudi­ments and Elements, partly Pythagorean and partly Jewish, as before on Col. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, wherein Antichrist and his Adherents (as in other Institutes) have exactly followed them, as hereafter.

§. 9. The great judicial Cause, which rendred al Pagan Phi­losophie vain and cursed,Judiciarie blindnesse and hardnesse. was Judiciarie Hardnesse of heart and Blindnesse of mind; or Gods delivering those Pagan Philosophers up to spiritual Occecation, Blindnesse and Hardnesse of heart. This was the effect of al the former causes, and a great cause of al their vain Philosophie, as we find it fully laid down by the Apostle,Rom. 1.18, 21, 22, 28. Rom. 1.18, 21, &c. Vers. 18, he saies, The wrath of God was reveled from heaven, against such as hold the truth in unrighteousnesse. We must know, the Apostle in these Ver­ses discourseth of the Gentile [...] or Philosophers, as ver. 22. And I conceive principally of the Pythagoreans, who were of the Italic Sect, and therefore flourished at Rome. Now of these Paul saies, That the wrath of God was reveled against them, because they held the truth in unrighteousnesse, i. e. what-e­ver knowlege of Divine truth they had acquired either from Jewish Tradition, or from the Improvements of their own com­mun Principes, by which they were capacitated to contemplate the invisible perfections of God in the visible creatures, it was al captivated by, and made subservient to their lusts; whence God gave them up to their own vain Imaginations and foolish hearts, as vers. 21, Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, i. e. Their knowlege was not active. Neither were thankeful, i. e. They ascribed not the glorie and praise of their Philosophic contemplations unto God, they owned not him as the Sun of righteousnesse, whence al these rayes of human knowlege sprang: but they attributed al their Philosophic attainments to their own parts, Sagacitie and Disquisitions; and so improved al for the greatening and advancing of themselves, their Idol­wisdome, &c. Whence it follows: [...], They waxed vain in their Discourses, Reasonings or Philosophisings: For [...] is a Philosophie terme, the manner of Disputing amongst the Ancients both Jews and Grecians be­ing by Dialogues. The meaning is, al their Philosophic reason­ings and disputes proved by Gods secret judicial dereliction and [Page 25]permission of them vain, yea cursed. And thence it follows, [...]. i. e. (saies Grotius) Such as the sin was, such was the punishment. They shook off the light of Reason and God took away the remainders, as Eph. 4.18. So vers. 22, Professing themselves wise. [...] i. e. glorying in their wisdome. [...], they were made fools: God in his righte­ous judgement befooling them. Which is more fully explained, vers. 28, as they did not like, &c. Here is an elegant Parano­masia or allusion in the words, [...] & [...] they repro­bate or reject God in their knowledge, and God gives them up to a reprobate or drossy mind. So we read of [...], reprobate money, i. e. drossy, &c. Justly does God leave such to a reprobate mind who reprobate him.

10. We might mention also,Idolatrical in­clination. as another fruitful womb of vain Philosophie amongst the Pagans, the universal Inclina­tion of al, more or lesse, unto Idolatrie and Superstition, as Rom. 1.23, 24, 25, 26, which is, Act. 17.18, applied to their Phi­losophers, [...] but of this more in the effects of vain Philosophie, B. 2. Chap. 1.

11. Lastly,Fabulous Imi­tation. Mythologic or fabulose imitation of Divine Truths and Mysteries might also be mentioned, as that which had a great influential causalitie on the vanitie of the Pythagorean, as of al other Philosophic: Of which we have already largely treated in the causes of Mythologic Philosophie, Part. 2. B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, &c.

CHAP. II. The Vanitie of Philosophie from its Mater, Parts, &c.
(1.) The Vanitie of the [...], or contentiose Logic, &c. Rom. 1.21. [...], Phil. 2.14. 1 Tim. 1.6. Aristotle's Lo­gic, how it became so Eristic by the Arabians and Scholemen. A general consent of the learned against Eristic Logic, 1 Cor. 14.20. (2.) The vanitie of Physiologie, 1 Cor. 1.20, [...], what. Rom. 1.20. 1 Cor. 2.6. Physiologie the cause of idolatrie, Rom. 21.23, &c. (3.) The vanitie of the Ma­thematics, its influence on Idolatrie and Atheisme. (4.) The vanitie of Ethics, Eph. 5.6. 1 Cor. 1.20. [...]. The Defects of Ethics, [1.] as to its mater. [2.] As to its ends amongst the Romans and Stoics. [3.] As to its Rule, which was [...]. [4.] As to its principe, which was [...], Free­wil, or [...], Good-nature, or seeds of Virtue. Socrates op­posed that Stoic Principe, [...], &c. This Philosophic Free-wil the root of Pelagianisme: No moral virtue but what is supernatural, against the Scholemen. The defects of Philosophic Ethics, as to supernatural principes, Faith, Love, &c. [5.] The Vanitie of their Politics, 1 Cor. 1.20, both comparatively and absolutely, as the root of Atheisme and Idolatrie, &c.

§. 1. WE have hitherto only considered the vanitie of Phi­losophie in its Causes and Roots; The vanitie and corruption of [...], or Logic. we shal now pro­cede to demonstrate the said vanitie of Philosophie from its own essential Idea or Nature, Parts, and Proprieties. The es­sential Idea, Nature, and parts of Philosophie (as of o­ther things) consist in its Mater and Forme; both of which have great mixture of vanitie in them. As for the mater of Philo­sophie, it contains Naturals, Morals, and Supernaturals. Na­tural Philosophie comprehends Logic, Physics, and Mathematics. Concerning Logic, we have no ful mention of the Pythagoreans being much versed herein; yet are we not without some con­cluding, though indirect Arguments of their skil herein. For Porphyrie tels us, That Pythagoras had, besides his [...], also [...], a plain and familiar way of Philosophising. And we have already shewn, how that Parmenides and Zeno the E­leatics [Page 27](who belonged to the Italic Sect) did much Pythago­rise, as in other points, so likewise, as we may presume, in this of Logic, of which they are thought to be the first In­ventors, at least great promotors; as it appears by their [...], that contentiose mode of Disputing, for which Zeno hath been so famose ever since. As for the vanitie of this ancient Dialectic or Logic mode of Philosophising, it hath been already in part demonstrated in the foregoing Chapter, §. 6. But in as much as I find the Spirit of God so much in invectives a­gainst this piece of vain Philosophie, (foreseeing that it would prove, as abused by Scholastic Divines, a main engine to pul down the Kingdome of Christ, and settle Antichrist upon his Throne;) I shal follow the sacred method herein, by endeavors to give farther demonstration of the vanitie of this [...], contentiose Logic, thereby, if it may be, to open in any degree a dore to some more useful kind of Logic in the Scholes of Christ. And lest I should be thought singular herein, I shal follow the steps of Lud. Vives, Grotius, Jansenius, yea of the Philosophers themselves, in opening the vanitie of this contentiose Logic. We find the Apostle accusing the Sophists, (and I conceive particularly the Pythagoreans) of a vanitie in their reasonings, Rom. 1.21. [...], They became vain in their disputes. Rom. 1, 21. For the way of Disputation in the Old Aca­demie was by Dialogues; which mode, I presume, they tradu­ced from the Jewish Scholes. And thus Grotius understands these reasonings here: ‘As the Academics disputed for and a­gainst every thing.’ Thus is truth lost by altercation, Jer. 11.5, by great Essays to act the greatest trifles; such as are not only unprofitable, but damnable to themselves and others, Esa. 41.29. We find the same word used, Phil. 2.14. Disputings. Phil. 2.14. ‘ [...], saith Grotius, here seems to be bitter railings about maters no way belonging to godlinesse, of which there were many amongst the Philosophers, specially the Aristotelics, where­of there were many in Macedon, where Philippi stood.’ So 1 Tim. 1.6, Paul mentions some who had turned aside,1 Tim. 1.6. [...], i. e. to unprofitable dissertation or disputation. They who use such are called [...], Tit. 1.10. This, 1 Tim. 6.4, he termes [...], as ver. 20, [...], which he opposeth to sound Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.6. We find al this fully laid open and confirmed, 2 Tim. 2.14, &c. [...]. i. e. be thine [Page 28]Auditors dayly remembrancer of this. The Hebrew expresse it by [...]. Paul chargeth him to inculcate this continually on his hearers; yea to charge them as before the Lord, [...], That they strive not about words to no profit. That this [...] is the same with the Philosophers [...],1 Tim. 6.4, 20. Contentiose Logic, we have proved from 1 Tim. 6.4, 20, Chap. 1. §. 6. He is the more warme in his exhortation against this [...], because it was not only unprofitable, but destru­ctive to their Christian Faith and Communion. So it follows, [...], to the subversion of the hearers. ‘For, saies Grotius, the hearers by such strifes are divided into par­ties: they lose mutual love. It answers to [...], E­version, is in the Glossarie, Subversion, Destruction.’ This Paul gives as a good Antidote against the contagiose infusions of the Pythagorising Gnostics, who by their [...], and strife about words insinuated much of their poisonous Doctrine, as the Scholemen after them their Antichristian Dogmes. Our Apostle inculcates this caution, ver. 16, calling these strifes, [...], which he saies, ver. 17, eat like a gangrene; and ver. 23, foolish and unlearned questions which gender to strife, &c. of which hereafter. This [...], Eristic Logic, began, as we have once and agen hinted, in the Italic and Eleatic Scholes, and was improved by those of the Megaric Sect, Euclid, &c. It was also of some use in the Old Academie, The origine of this Eristic Le­gic. passing under the notion of [...] and of great use amongst the New Academies and Sceptics. But none gave so great an advance and perfection to this Dialectic litigiose mode of Philosopising, as A­ristotle; who having naturally a mighty Logical Acumen, and the same much improved by study and artificial disputes, made it his businesse to carp at al such opinions of his predecessors, as were not parallel with his artificial Scheme or Method of Phi­lophising. He spared not his own Master Plato, nor any other whose Dogmes were not commensurate with his Phaenomena. And foreseeing that posteritie might with the same censorious Rod strike at him, with which he had struck at his foregoers; to prevent the same, he reduced his Philosophie to the most acurate Method, his Logical head could invent; and withal frames a Logic answerable thereto; which he intended not only as a Key or Organ to open the way to his Philosophie, but also as a Shield or Buckler to preserve the same from such blows [Page 29]or objections which posteritie might offer against it. And in­deed (as Learned Owen hath observed in his Praefat. Theolog.) Aristotle, in the whole of his Philosophie, seems to design and studie more how to defend himself from the objections of others, than to evince truth; which rendred his followers more skilful in hatching intricate controversies, subtile nice distinctions, and wrangling Sophistrie, than true solid Philosophie. But yet to give Aristotle his due, I think it may be made evident, that he was not the main Author of this Sophistic kind of Dispu­tation, which now reigns in our Scholes, but rather the Ara­bians, Aristotle's Lo­gic sophistica­ted by the Ara­bians and Scholemen. Averroes, Avincenna, his Commentators; who, being wholly unacquainted with the Greek Tongue, were fain to de­pend upon the versions of Aristotle, which being very imper­fect, left them under great darknesse and ignorance touching Aristotle's mind and sense; whence there sprang a world of unintelligible Termes and Distinctions, with as many Sophistic Disputes and Controversies. These the Scholemen (more barba­rous than the Arabians) greedily licked up (as the Minor Poets Homers vomit) and incorporated with their Theologie; which filled the Universities of France, (where this Schole Di­vinitie was first broached) and England (which had continual recourse to Paris for Learning) with nothing but vain [...], or strifes about words, instead of solid Philosophie and Divinitie; far worse than what was to be found in the Pagan Scholes: Which vain itch of Disputation hath proved the Scab of the Church, as Erasmus, Ludovicus Vives, Sir Thomas More, the Lord Bacon, Sir Henry Wotton, Jansenius and Owen, with other Learned men have wel observed. Yea,A general con­sent against E­ristic Logic. the vanities of this Dia­lectic Sophistrie was observed and decried by many of the old Philosophers. Both the Sect of the Cynics and Stoics (as Dio­genes Laertius observes) took away Dialectic Philosophie as vain, holding that our end is, [...], 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 judgement against this [...], &c. It seems to me that there should be no controversie 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 [Page 30] Calvin, who affirmes, ‘That whoever does pertinaciously strive about words, soments some secret Poison.’ But in this age none hath more amply, fully, and learnedly opened the vanitie of this Sophistic, Eristic mode of Disputation, so much Idolised by the Scholemen, than Jansenius, in his August. Tom. 2. Lib. Proaem. Cap. 28, and elsewhere; with Owen, in his Praefat. to his Theolog. also, Lib. 6. Cap. 7. Pag. 512 unto 520. I have insist­ed the longer on the vanitie and corruption of Sophistic Logic, because it hath been, and stil is greatly abused and noxious in some of our reformed Universities, to the corrupting the minds of many wel-disposed young Students. I must confesse my self 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 ruine, not only of my Studies, but Soul. Thou'lt therefore, Reader, pardon this invective against the corruption of vain Logic; which designes not the utter Rejection, but Reformation of Logic in Reformed Scholes. We shal conclude this Digression with the Apostles Exhortation, 1 Cor. 14.20, Brethren, be not children in understanding. 1 Cor. 14.20. ‘'Tis, saies Grotius, the propertie of Children to make an ostentation in things unprofitable.’ But in under­standing be men, [...], i. e. like persons adult, Eph. 4.13, who are ashamed to play as Children with baubles and Rattles.

§. 2. The vanitie of Pagan Philosophie discovered it self much in their Physics, The Vanitie of their Physics. which are at best darke and cloudy, but for the most part fabulose, 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 Philosophie of Plants, Animals, &c. which being but imper­fectly traduced unto, and more imperfectly understood by these blind Philosophers, they turned al these Jewish Traditions of the origine of the Universe, of the first principes of Bodies, of Plants, of Animals, &c. into mere Fables, or unintelligible Spe­culations and Controversies. This vanitie of their Physics our Apostle seems to strike at (inclusively if not exclusively) 1 Cor. 1.20,1 Cor. 1, 20. Where is the disputer of this world? [...]: ‘This (saies Grotius) strikes at the Inquisitor or searcher into the natures of things, which the Hebrews cal [...] of this world, i. e. the Physiologist. This studie they are wont to [Page 31]cal [...], which properly answers unto [...], Disputation: So Baruch, 3.23, &c. [...], are Physio­logists. The Apostle Paul chooseth to cal him [...], a Dis­puter, rather than [...] an Inquisitor, (as Baruch) because their Physic questions were wont to be ventilated or agitated by many Disputations, which is [...].’ Hence the Syriac Version renders it, [...], Investigator; and the Arabic by a word that signifies Scrutator: Because such Physiologists spent their whole time in acute Researches and Inquisitions into the Bowels of nature, which afforded infinite vain Disputes. And indeed their Physics did abound with almost as much [...], or Verbal, Captiose, Sophistic Questions and Controversies, as their [...], or Logic: which made the Cynics, as also the Stoics (who symbolised much in this as in other points) to re­ject Physics or Natural Philosophie as wel 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 Philosophie. The like is reported of Padre Paul, that great Venetian, who finding the vanitie of contemplative Philosophie, converted his studies to Active, or Moralitie. But it follows in the same verse 20, Hath not God made foolish the wisdome of this world? [...], from [...] a Fool or Mad­man, 1 Cor. 1.20. answering to the Hebrew [...], 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 al those pompose contemplations of these proud Philosophists (who have pried into the Bowels of Nature for hidden Philosophie) to appear to be foolish and vain? in that they have not as yet, by al their Natural Philosophie, attained to any true notion and discoverie of the first Principe or God of nature, which is the chief end of al natural as wel as other Philosophie? So it follows vers. 21: For after that in the wis­dome of God the World by wisdome knew not God. [...], ‘The wisdome of God (saies Grotius) he here cals, That know­lege of God,’ which results from the contemplation of Natures Bowels. This answers to that Rom. 1.20,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 al their natural Inqui­sitions, [Page 32]come to any serious reverential acknowlegement of. So much is implied in [...], as it is used in the same sense, Joh. 1.10, and answereth to [...], Rom. 1.21. Al their 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 al their Natural Wisdome was but folie, because it reached not its first Principe and last end. Therefore it follows, It pleased God by the foolishnesse of preaching to save them that be­lieve. 1 Cor. 1.20. i. e. Our Gospel, which seems folie to these Sophists, or Naturalists, has availed more to the knowlege of God, than al 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 al the vain Contemplations and Philosophie of these proud Naturalists. We find the like encomium of Gospel-light and depression of Natu­ral Philosophie,1 Cor. 2.6. 1 Cor. 2.6, Howbeit we speak wisdome among them that are perfect: Yet not the wisdome of this world. [...], i. e. (faies Grotius) not that Physic or Natural Philosophie, of which above Chap. 1.20, &c. This great vanitie and folie, which attended the Natural Contemplations or Philosophie of these Pa­gan Physiologists, proceded not from any defect in the objective wisdome, or light of Nature, but from the subject; the dark­nesse, pride,Rom. 1.21. lusts, and vanitie of their hearts, as Rom. 1.20, 21. The visible works of God have as wel since, as before the Fal, sensible images, or visible gloriose Ideas of the invisible glories of God, his Wisdome, Power, and Goodnesse 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 darknesse lay in her eyes), could but go up and down groping after God, by their Physic contempla­tions, as Act. 17.27.Natural Phi­losophie the cause of Idola­trie. Yea, the most sharp-sighted of these Hea­then Philosophers, though by the Divine assistance of some influenti­al raies of commun illumination, they espied some vestigia or ob­scure impresses of Gods gloriose Wisdome, Power and Goodnesse 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,Rom. 1.21, 23. (according to Rom. 1.21.) as that they changed the glorie of this incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, &c. Rom. 1.21, 23. [Page 33] 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 grosse Idolatrie was peculiar to the Mythologic Poetic Theologie: But the great Idolatrie of these foolish sophists was, that where they espied any eminent Divine Qualitie 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 caled [...], Natural Theologie, we rather, Idolatrie, which was the fruit of their Natural Philosophie; of which more hereafter.

§. 3. What hath been discovered of the vanitie,The vanitie of the Mathema­tics. yea Idola­trie of the Physiologists, is applicable to the Mathematicians, both Pythagorean, as wel as other. Indeed the Mathematics seem to be the soundest, the most pleasant, and most useful piece of their Natural Philosophie; yet it hath not been exemt from much corruption and vanitie. 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 gloriose Celestial bodies, fel first into deep admiration of them,Astronomie the cause of Ido­latrie. their excellent composure and perfection, their excellent virtues and powerful influences on al 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 gloriose creatures, was so far from having such an influence, as that it drew their Idol-framing hearts to set down and terminate their Adoration on these creatures, the Sun, Moon and Stars, &c. And this Idolising these Celestial crea­tures as Gods opened also a dore to their Judicial Astrologie, 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 fel into this piece of Idolatrie or Star-wor­ship, and that from their Astronomic observations and admira­tions of these Celestial Bodies; as we have afore shewn in the origine of the Chaldean Philosophie, from Job. 31.26, 27. P. 2. B. 1. C. 4. §. 3, 4. Of which more hereafter.

2. Another great Corruption which attended their studie of the Mathematics, 2. Of A­theisme. was, that it determined in Atheisme, and that two manner of ways; (1) Indirectly and Consequentially, in that it brought them first into Polytheisme, or belief of many Gods; which had this fate attending it, that at last it led them to Atheisme, to believe there was no God: for Polytheisme naturally degenerates into Atheisme. (2) But the studie of the Mathematics has this more direct influence on blind proud hearts to lead them into Atheisme, in that Mathematicians being wholly ver­sed in Demonstrations, and those for the most part ocular and most evident, they cannot bring their proud minds to stoop or assent to any thing, no not to Divine Revelation, without a Demonstration. This made Aristotle, who had a Mathematic head, to reject al the Oriental Traditions which his Ancestors Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato had gathered up, touching the origine of things and Divine maters; and rather to believe an Eternitie 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 Testi­monie 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 foolishnesse, 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 authoritie, &c. they reject al Divine Revelations, yea al true and found notions of a Deitie and of the Creation, with inclinations rather to believe the Worlds Eternitie, 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 procede to shew the vanitie and corruption of Moral Philosophie,The Vanitie of Moral Philoso­phie. as wel amongst the Pythagorean as other [Page 35]Philosophers. Moral Philosophie (as has been mentioned) regards either single persons, and so it's stiled 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 Scholes. As for Ethics, it's true, the Pythago­reans with the other Philosophers had their [...], Ethic sentences, or Symbolic characters, answering to, and, as I presume, traduced from the [...] Proverbial 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 vanitie 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 Phi­losophie to a naked familiar dresse was Socrates, who yet was excedeing defective both in his precepts and practice of Mora­litie; for Incest, Fornication and Sodomie, were things not only allowed, but the later of them practised by him, if he be not belied, on his Minion Alcibiades: and Plato brings in Socrates expressing great affection to Alcibiades, telling him that he loved him for himself, &c. which argued an extreme affection towards him. Grotius informs us, that this sin of Sodomie was generally allowed by the Philosophers. So on Ephes. 5.6,Ephes. 5.6. Let no man de­ceive you with vain words. [...], i. e. with vain Reasonings or Philosophie. ‘He notes here (saies Grotius) the Philosophers, who taught there was no sin in Incest, and [...], Sodomie; and who commended [...], communitie of Wifes, (which Plato did) and who thought that it was lawful for buyers and sellers to circumvent each other.’ Whence the Apostle exhorts them, Ver. 15, To walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise; Ver. 15. [...]. He does (saies Grotius) by a witty Pa­ronomasia or allusion cal the Philosophers (those proud Sophists) [...], 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, Ver. 14. and Christ shal give thee light. Al their Moral Philosophie was but a dreaming, dead, shadowy light; 'twas Christ only that gave them the true [...], or light. So 1 Cor. 1.20. [...],1 Cor. 1.20. &c. Where is the wise? ‘ [...], saith Grotius, amongst the Greeks, as [...] amongst the Hebrews, were, by way of ex­cellence, [Page 36]such as delivered Moral precepts, as those seven Wise-men so famose in Grece, and after them Socrates with others. The meaning is, shew me the Philosophers and Philolo­gists, who have reduced so many persons to such Probitie and Moralitie, as we have done by the preaching of the Crosse. Their Disciples are but few in comparison of ours; and they continue Fornicators, if not some somewhat worse: They con­tinue [...], emty vessels silled with nothing but vain opinion and ostentation, as Timon said; they remain proud, litigious cursers, &c.’ So Grotius on 1 Cor. 2.14. The Greek Philosophers were Fornicators, corruptors of youth, hun­ters of Vain-glorie, cursers, envious, &c. Thence saith, Minutius Faelix, ‘We contemne the proud looks of the Philosophers, whom we have known to be corruptors of youth (or Sodomists) and Adulterers, and Tyrants, and alwaies eloquent against their own vices.’ And indeed it was just with God to leave the wisest and best of their Moralists to fal into sins against nature, who abused their natural light unto so much pride, presumti­on and vain ostentation. Yea take Moral Philosophic in its high­est elevation and refinement, as seated amongst the Stoics, and we shal find it a very poor imperfect vain shadow, if compa­red with those precepts of Moralitie contained in the Word of God.The defect of Ethics as to its mater. For first if we consider the mater of al their Philosophic Moralitie, it was verie narrow and far short of those Moral duties taught us in the Word of God. (1) The Philosopher's [...], right Reason, which they made the measure and rule of their Moralitie, being but crooked and depraved, allowed them many sins, as Incest, Fornication, Sodomie before mention­ed, which Gods Law forbids. So Grotius on 1 Cor. 5.2, tels us, that both the Cynics and Stoics judged Incest amongst their [...], things indifferent. (2) Neither did it give any convi­ction or prohibition of the first motions or ebullitions of Origi­nal Sin. (3) Neither did their Right Reason back its precepts with such forcible promises, motives and threats, from future happinesse or punishment, as the Word of God doth.

2.Pagan Ethics vain as to its end. Neither were the Ethics of the Stoics and other Mora­lists defective, and so vain in the mater and duties only, but also in the principes, forme, and manner of Moralitie: For (1) The soul and spirit of al Moralitie is placed, and that by the Philo­sophers themselves, in the End. For, say they, such as the forme [Page 37]is in Naturals, such is the end in Morals and Spirituals; such as the Principe is in Demonstration, such is the end in Action: Or, the end has the same place in Actives, as the Principe has in Spe­culatives. The persection of every thing is measured by its end, which is the terme of al actions, as the forme is of productions. Now it is most certain, that the chief, yea the only supreme End of al Moralitie (as wel as of Divinitie) can be no other than the glorifying and enjoying of God; as Augustin long since, and Jan­senius out of him hath demonstrated, Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 17. pag. 208. And how far these proud Moralists were from this End is ap­parent to al that are versed in their Ethics. the Romans end vain-glory. 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-glorie; arising from the splendor, lustre, or shine of their glittering heroic and seemingly virtuose actions, which rendred al their good works but splendid sins, as Augustin. (2) The Stoics and Peripatetics seem a little more noble and refined in their ends,The Stoics end to live virtu­ose. proposing it as their main design, [...], to live accor­ding to virtue; or, to desire virtue for virtues sake. But what was the virtue they aspired unto? it was a virtue spun out of the bowels of their own free-wil: so that they stil make Self the objective mater of their felicitie: they deify and idolife Self, their own home-spun Virtues. Whence Augustin pronounceth universally of these Stoics, ‘That they lived according to the flesh no lesse than the sensual Epicureans;’ for (saith he) to live according to the flesh is to live according to a mans Self, his own Virtues, &c. as Jans. Aug. Tom. 2. l. 4. cap. 14.

2. Hence follows another great spring of vanitie and corrup­tion in al their Philosophic Moralitie; in that,The Moralists make self the first efficient of al good. as they made Self the great standard, measure, and last end, so also the first influential and effective principe of al their good works. They acted al not only for, but also from Self their great God, or Idol, as Nebuchadnezar, Dan. 4.30, BY the might of my power, and FOR the honour of my Majestie. He makes himself his first prin­cipe and last end, which is the highest Idolatrie. So these proud Moralists they al made self as the last end, so the first spring of Moralitie. For (1) They al supposed those [...],1. Their [...] is their rule. commun principes, which some called [...], presumtions, or presuppo­sitions of natural light remaining in their corrupt understandings, [Page 38]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 stiled by the Platonists, as also by the Stoics, [...], right reason. Though indeed Plato now and then seems a little modest in acknowlegeing his ignorance, yet generally they supposed an [...], a right reason, which if wel improved might bring them to the [...], or top of their Moralitie. This right reason was in a more particular manner the Stoics (who passe for the greatest Moralists) Diana or God­desse, as we find it excellently observed by Jansenius, in his Au­gust. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 205. ‘The Stoics (saies he) and al other, who thought the offices of Virtue were to be desired for their own honestie and pulchritude, made human reason, to which they thought this was most consentaneous, Judge; and they would that she as Mistresse and Queen should governe al; to whom, as holding the chief supremacie over the other parts of the Soul, al should be obedient. For hence it is they so often crack, that the duties of Virtue are therefore honest and desirable, because they are consentaneous to right reason: But in this mode of desiring Virtue there lies hid the greatest Pride; for that which terminates their appetite is their very Reason, as she is the Queen and Emperesse, and utmost rule of a good life. Whence it comes to passe, that whosoever de­sireth Virtue in this manner adores his own Reason as the Princesse which he serves, which without al peradventure is the worshipping, and honoring, and taking complacence in him­self.’ Here we may see whence the Scholemen 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 Scholemen herein came much short of many of the more modest Philosophers, namely Socrates and Plato, who make frequent acknowlegements of the imperfection of their Natural light, and therefore by their [...] seem to understand the objective Divine light, or Law of God,The Heathen Moralists as­sert a freewil, or seeds of virtue. 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, [Page 39]or Moral Free-wil, which if wel 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 [...], a Good-nature; The Ari­stotelics [...], Free-wil; The Stoics, the seeds of virtue. And none abounded more in this Idolising of their own Free-wil than the Stoics, whose [...], first truth, or according to the Christians Philosophic, [...], first lye, was, That it was in the power of a mans own Free-wil to make himself virtuose or wicked, happy or miserable; yea a God if he pleased. So Diogenes Laertius in the life of Zeno tels us, the Stoics held [...], &c. That virtue was teach­able, because good men are made of bad. Agen (saies he) because reason is given to reasonable creatures, [...], To live rightly according to reason happens to men naturally. He also tels us, that the Cynics held the same principe, [...], that virtue was teachable. Plutarch has a Book thus titled, [...], that virtue is a thing teachable. Yet we must confesse 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,Socrates a­gainst Free-wil. [...], I have often sought if there were any Preceptors of virtue; and doing al I can, I can find none. Whence he concludes, [...], Virtue comes not from nature, neither is it teach­able, but [...], by a Divine fate it is produced, without the active concurrence of the mind in those where it is. Thus So­crates in Plato's Meno, [...] pag. 99. whereby it seems he had some apprehension of the insufficience of corrupt nature, or Free-wil, 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 losse. Timaeus Locrus the Pythagorean, from whom Plato borrowed the main Ideas of his Physics, asserted seeds of Virtue in corrupt nature. Thus pag. 103, [...], The Principes of these Virtues are from nature, but the middle and end from diligence, with the benefit of Philosophic institution, [Page 40]which nourish and corroborate virtue, as exercices do the bodie, &c. This Philosophic Dogme of a Moral [...], good nature, free-wil, or seminal virtue implanted in corrupt nature is excel­lently opened to us by Jansenius, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256. ‘This Dogme, saies he, which asserteth seeds of Virtue to be implanted in men naturally, we admonish that it sprang from the Gentile Philosophie. For the Philosophers, when they observed that there flourished in every mans nature a certain judgement concerning the honestie of many Acts, and a remorse of Conscience following their pravities, &c. they at­tributed to the human mind seeds of al virtues; which would by good culture and exercitation bud forth and grow up unto ripe Virtue! Hear Tullie attributing the Elements of the more refined Peripatetic and Stoic Virtue to nature it self, Tul. lib. 5. de finibus: Nature brought in the Elements of virtue — but it only began virtue and nothing more.’ It's true, (as Jansenius before wel observes) if we consider Virtue only in regard of its office, dutie, 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 bodie of Moralitie, or Virtue; it is the Principes specially the End, that is the soul, which spirits and informes eve­ry good act, and renders it truly virtuose: in which regard to suppose with the Philosophers any seeds of virtue in corrupt nature, is to suppose a contradiction, or an opposite in an appo­site, i.e. pure nature in corrupt. From this Philosophic Dogme of the seeds of virtue in human nature, the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, Cassianus, This Doctrine of the seeds of virtue or free-wil the root of Pelagianisme. &c. drew their Doctrine of Free-wil, which Augustin does so greatly inveigh against. This opinion has been since espoused by the Scholemen, who finding themselves oppo­sed herein by al Christian Catholics, they invented this new stra­tageme or blind to salve their Phaenomena, namely by distinguish­ing Virtues into Natural or Moral and Supernatural or Divine. Whereas indeed there can be no Virtue truly Moral, but what is also Supernatural or Divine; No moral or natural virtue but what is divine and supernatural. for according to their own Schole-maxime, Bonum constat ex causis integris, malum ex quo­libet defectu, Good must have al its causes, but evil ariseth from any defect. We find this piece of Scholastic vanitie or cor­ruption [Page 41]fully laid open by Jansenius, August. Tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 12. pag. 256. ‘On those seeds of Virtue the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians first founded their Heresie; which afterwards the Scholemen brought into the Christian Scholes, to no smal prejudice of Scholastic Doctrine. For these Heretics affirmed, That from these Philosophic Seeds true Virtues might, by the alone power of the human wil, spring; which the Schole­men perceiving to be manifestly repugnant to the most con­stant Catholic Doctrine, they framed a double man in one man, a double Charitie, double Virtues, double Workes; the one Natural, the other Supernatural, of which in the whole Doctrine of Augustin, &c. there cannot be found the least Vestigium. As if those very Virtues, which the Philoso­phers and Scholemen cal Natural, would not have been called by Augustin Vices.’ That there is no Virtue natural, or truly moral, but what is supernatural, see Court Gent. Part 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 4. Indeed herein the vanitie and corrupti­on of the Pelagians and Scholemen excedes that of the Philo­sophers:The Pelagians worse than Philosophers. for these having no Divine Revelation to measure Vir­tue by, but only some dark glimmering of Nature's light, could not attain unto any entire or true Idea and notion there­of, as to its principe and spiritual qualitie, and therefore no won­der if these poor Philosophers, who by reason of their dark­nesse accounted the picture, shadow, or mater of a good acti­on to be Virtue, supposed an [...], or some seminal dispositi­ons to the mater of Virtue to be Virtue. But as for the Pe­lagians and Scholemen, who have a clear rule to judge of Mo­ral good by, and also confesse, that every good action must consist of al its causes; for such to allow of any seeds of Virtue, or Moral Free-wil in corrupt Nature, is a piece of pride and vanitie far beyond that of the Philosophers.

3. Hence follow many other Essential defects in al the Phi­losophic Ethics of the Pagan Moralists.3. Other Es­sential defects as to the Prin­cipes of their Morals. (1) We find no one precept in al their Rules of Moralitie, pressing men to spiritual povertie, self-emtinesse, &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. 'Tis true, Socrates bids his Friend, [...], [Page 42] depend on God, and pray for assistance to performe 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 al 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 mention'd.

§. 6.The Vanitie of Philosophic Politics. 1 Cor. 1.20. A second part of Moral Philosophie is Politics, where­in the Philosophers were not a little vain and corrupt. So 1 Cor. 1.20, [...]; Where is the Scribe? [...], (saies Groti­us) according to the Hebrew [...] in the Hellenistic manner of speaking, signifies him that is skilled in the Law or Historie. So in Baruc. 3.23, &c. [...], are such as have skil in the Law or Historie. 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 Privie Counsellers, or persons constituted in some Office of trust. Thus [...] Officers, Exod. 5.6, is rendred by the Seventy [...],Ezr. 4.8. Scribes. So Ezra 4.8, [...], Scribe, notes civil Dignitie and Office; whence it is rendred 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 ful ac­count of the Vanitie of al Philosophic Politics, or Civil Wis­dome, 1 Cor. 2.6,1 Cor. 2.6. [...], Nor the wis­dome of the Princes of this world. He means (saies Grotius) Po­litic Wisdome, to which belongs Jurisprudence, or skil in Laws and Histories. As if he had said, Take notice, that al these proud Monarchs, notwithstanding al their Politic Laws & Govern­ment, are come to nought, or spoiled of al their Politic Designes and Interess. For this seems the proper import of [...], that come to nought. [...] is said (1) Of that which has lost its efficacitie, as Luk. 13.7. (2) Of that which is abolisht and made void. Politic Philosophie has lost its spirits and efficace. [Page 43]So Grotius. The Empires that now are shal perish, as wel as those figured by Daniel's Image, Dan. 2.44, &c. 1.1. Their imper­fection in com­parison of Di­vine Politics. The Va­nitie of al Human Politics discovers it self 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 [...], which Laertius saies 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 al these Human Politics, both Philosophic, or Con­templative and Active, if compared with Divine seem but sha­dows,The imperfe­ction of Hu­man Politics. 1. As to their origine and extent. very imperfect, yea vain: for (1) 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 wel, [...], Al things are most evident to such as consider particulars, but they who pronounce uni­versally, deceiving deceive themselves. So Trajan in his directions to Plinie, saies, That nothing could be constituted universally as a certain forme. (3) Hence it follows, that al their general Laws and Politic Precepts, whether Ideal or Practic, were liable to a world of Exceptions, Restrictions, Limitations and Alterations: for their best Idea of Politics was but [...], for the most part, not universally true and good; because particu­lars, the object thereof, are infinite. Hence, saies Aristotle, Rhet. l. 1. c. 8. [...], no Art considers (or comprehends) particulars, because infinite: which is most true of al 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 [Page 44]Idea, or general Rules of Politics, discovered much vanitie and imperfection; besides the many Exceptions they were fain to admit: and after al their most possible exactnesse in their Po­litic Constitutions, they were forced to have recourse to their [...], the Law of Equitie, or Court of Chancerie, 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, Ʋniversal, Ade­quate Rule of al Politics, as wel as Ecclesiastics, as we have co­piosely proved,Philosophle Po­litics vain. Idea Theolog. l. 1. c. 8. 2 These Human Philo­sophic Politics are not only imperfect and vain comparatively in regard of Divine Politics, but likewise in themselves, in regard of that Corruption, both inherent and subsequent, which attends them.1. As to their End. As (1) in regard of their End, in that they made their carnal Interest the only measure of Good and Evil, without the least respect to Divine Interest,2. As to their Mater. or Glorie, 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, So­domie, Drunkenesse,3. As to their effects. &c. (3) But the greatest Corruption in their Human Politics was in regard of their sad effects many waies.1. Atheisme. [1] In that al their Politics were the mother and nurse of Atheisme: For (1) they made Religion subserve their Po­litic Interests and Constitutions. So Owen Theol l. 1. c. 8. ‘These Law-givers, in framing their Politic Theologie, had scarce any thing else in their aime, but how they might so temper Reli­gion, that thence there might not arise any disturbance or evil in the Civil state.’ Such was Numa's Politic Religion with the rest. (2) Their Politics were the mother and nurse of A­theisme, in that these great Politicians attributed the good or il successe of Human affaires to their Politic wisdome or contrivan­ces. In which regard they made their Human Prudence their God, or great Idol, unto which al the great occurrences and dispositions of Providence must stoop, which opened the dore to Atheisme, 2. Idolatrie. and shut God out of the World. [2] The Philoso­phic Politics opened the dore also to Idolatrie: for these Politi­cians had their [...], a Politic Religion, which out of compliance with the peoples Idolatrie humor proved a great nurse to Idolatrie, as hereafter.

CHAP. III. The Vanitie of Metaphysics, or Natural Theologie, and Divination.
The Pythagorean Philosophic Theologie of al most vain. (1) In regard of God: [1] They understood not their own notions of God; [2] Nor the Trinitie; [3] Nor their Ideas. (2) The vanitie of their Theologie as to the Divine [...], Word, and Demon-Doctrines. Col. 2.8, 9. [...], i.e. really, essentially, perfectly. Col. 2.10, 18, 19, largely opened. (3) The vanitie of their Daemon-worship. (4) Also of their notions about the Soul. (5) The hellish corruption of their Magic and Divination, which they took up in imitation of the Jewish modes of Revelation. Their Art of Divination part of their Doctrines of Demons. 1 Tim. 4.1. Apollo their great God of Divination, his Origine and Temple at Delphus, &c. The nature of Divination out of Plato, (1) Its origine, Divine afflation. (2) Its instruments, at first Poets, then Philosophers. (3) This mode of Divination usually extatic. (4) Also by Enthusiasme. (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 Vanitie of Philosophie in Na­turals and Morals, we now procede to the Vanitie of its Metaphysics, or Supernatural Philosophie, which contains Natural Theologie, and Divination. As for the Pagan [...],The Corruption of Natural Theologie. Natural Theologie, there was none more famose than that of the Pythagoreans, which came the nearest of any to the Scrip­ture Theologie, and yet was neverthelesse corrupt. Yea indeed there seems to be this peculiar curse on the Pythagorean Natural Theologie, that though it came the nearest of any to Divine Theologie, yet was it the most corrupt of al both in it self, as also in its effects. For none more devoted to Superstition and Idolatrie than the Pythagoreans; none greater Heresiarches, or founders of Heresie in the Christian Church than they. This we may look upon as procedeing from a particular curse of God [Page 46]upon this, as on al 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 wel as with the rest of the Philosophers; who finding themselves fallen from that Natural Theologie their first Parents were possessed withal, and which their natures stil retained some Physical and more remote capa­citie unto, they studied al wayes 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 [...], commun principes, on these rudiments or foun­dations received from the Jewish Church, to erect a new frame or bodie of Natural Divinitie, in lieu of that which they found themselves deprived of. Which designe of theirs proved alto­gether abortive; yea so far were these blind Philosophers from reaching their End of attaining a new edition of that Natural Theologie they had lost by the Fal, as that al their attemts and studies in order hereto serve only the more effectually to envelop and entangle them in grosser ignorance, Atheisme, Superstiti­on, and Idolatrie. This has been excellently opened to us by Owen, Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 7. where having laid open the de­signe of the new Platonists, after the breaking forth of the Gospel to reforme Philosophie, so as to make it a Vicarious Natural Theologie, he addes the same of the Pythagorean Phi­losophie: ‘Al that ancient Wisdome (saith he) of Pythagoras consisted in a way for the Institution of Religion. I confesse the whole of that Philosophie savored of Idolatrie superstition; which yet retained some obscure Images and Characters of the Truth. The event therefore answered not this famose attemt; yea by these undertakings Natural Theologie was more corrupted rather than repaired.’ Such were the miserable effects of their proud and vain attemts, by which hoping and endeavoring to restore themselves to their ancient inheritance of Natural Theo­logie, founded on the Covenant of Workes, and possessed by their first Parents in the Golden age of Innocence, they fel into grea­ter bondage of Superstition and Idolatrie. But to treat more particularly of the corruption of this Philosophic Natural Theo­logie, we shal 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 Theologie, it was God the first Eternal Being, The corruption of Natural Theologie as to its ultimate object, God. and last end of althings. 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 shal Demon­strate Part. 4. B. 2. Yet these their Metaphysic notions of God were not without great mixture of vanitie and corruption. For (1) few or none understood their own Philosophic notions touching God, their [...],The Philoso­phers under­stood not their own notions of God; nor how he was the Au­thor of Eternal Life. &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 Saturne 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 gloriose Creature, and therefore God. The wisest of them knew not where to find, or what to make of this God, on which they thus Philosophised. They only groped after him, as Act. 17.27.1 Cor. 1.21. So 1 Cor. 1.21, For after that in the wisdome of God the world by wisdome knew not God: i.e. By al their Metaphysic wisdome, whether Traditional or acquired from the improvement of their Natural Principes, they could not come to any right Idea or true notion of God, what he was and where to be found. 'Tis true they had some general speculations of him as the first Be­ing, self Being, infinite, eternal, and most simple Being, &c. yet they knew him not as the Author and Object of Eternal Life, as Joh. 17.3. whence al their knowlege of him proved altoge­ther vain and unprofitable. This Grotius makes the import of Paul's declamation against the vain deceit of Philosophie, (prin­cipally the Pythagoreans,) Col. 2.8. [...], take diligent heed, Col. 2.8. look wel to it. It notes, that men are very prone to fal into this snare, and therefore ought to take the more heed. That no one spoil you. [...], is interpreted by Hesychius [...], that [Page]no one strip you naked. Vain Philosophie strips men naked of their best Robes, namely the Righteosenesse of Christ, and saving Knowlege of God. [...], is a Militarie notion, deduced by Critics from [...], a prey, or spoil taken in War, (from [...] to spoil) and [...] to lead. Whence it primarily notes, to lead or carry away by an armed power in an hostile manner. Thus many Pythagorising Gnostics seduced and led captive many carnal pro­fessors, and stript them naked of their Christian Doctrines, by vain Philosophie. [...]. He useth (saith Grotius) the Greek word Philosophie, because it was received; but it truly deceived men: for either it did not promise Eternal Life, or else it shewed not the true and certain way which lea­deth thither. So that in truth al their fine-spun Metaphysic Con­templations of God the first Eternal and al-sufficient Being, were as to them altogether vain and uselesse; because they had no regard to God as the Author, Object, Mater and Way to Eter­nal Life,2. They had no true knowlege of the Trinitie. which they were wholly ignorant of. (2) Much lesse had these Pagan Philosophers any true notions of the Trinitie. This great Mysterie of Trinitie in Ʋnitie, and Ʋnitie in Trinitie was altogether hid from them. I shal not denie, but that these blind Heathens, specially the wiser of them, might have some very dark and imperfect Traditions concerning a Trinitie: whence some conceive that great Oriental maxime,How far they had notices of a Trinitie. which Py­thagoras brought with him into Grece touching God, that he was [...], One and many, was but some broken Jewish Tra­dition of the Trinitie. We may grant also that the Platonists had some weak corrupt Traditions of three [...], Hypostases, or Persons, which they called [...], Trinitie; whereof the first was by them named [...], Self-being; [...], the good, and [...], the Father: The second Person they called, [...], the Mind; [...], the Word; and [...], the begotten; also [...], the framer: The third, [...], the Soul of the World. These and such-like poor dim notices of a Trinitie, 'tis likely Pythagoras and Plato after him traduced originally from the Jews, if not immediately, yet mediately by the Phenicians and Egyptians. Of which see more fully, Philos. General. p. 1. l. 3. c. 4. Sect. 1, §. 13. But yet that neither the Grecian, Egyptian, or Phenician Philosophers had any true or sound notion of the Trinitie, I think, wil be sufficiently evident to any sober mind, that shal consider what a world of fables and contradictions [Page 49]they mixed with these broken discoveries they had received of a Trinitie. 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 satisfie their inquisitive humor, they would catch at every shadow of Oriental Jewish Antiquitie, though they under­stood nothing thereof. This seems the true account of their Phi­losophic Speculations about the Trinitie, which is confirmed by Justinian, on 1 Joh. 1.1, &c. Sect. 52, 53, 54.That these Phi­losophic notions about [...], &c gace oc­casion to the Arian Here­sic, see B. 2. Chap 1. Sect. [...]. where having mentioned the many Metaphysic Contemplations of the Pagan Philosophers about [...], he concludes thus: ‘Truly many things have been taken out of Moses his Law by the Philo­sophers and Poets, but depraved, changed, and wrested, as we learn out of Augustin, de Civit. Dei, l. 8. cap. 11. & lib. 18. c. 37. In which manner also perhaps they corrupted such noti­ons as referred to the origine of the Divine [...], Word; and taught that those Persons differed in nature, who are on­ly distinguished in Hypostasis: and so the first Mind they cal­led Good it self; the second, the Opisicer or Framer of the World; the third, the Soul of the World. From which error some suppose the Arian Impietie to have sprang. Which things being thus, it seems most likely, that these Philosophers, by a certain mag­nitude of ingenie and assiduous studie and diligence, might come to know something of God; which yet was mixed with many errors: neither yet could they attain in any measure to the Mysterie of the Trinitie, or the Eternal Production of the Divine Word.’ The like account I find in Serranus, on Plato's Epist. 6. pag. 323. where Plato speaking of God in these words: God the Imperator of al things that are, or that shal be; and the Fa­ther of this Principal Cause: [Et illius Principis Causae Patrem.] ‘These words, saies Serranus, some of our Writers understand as if Plato hereby hinted to us the Mysterie of the Trinitie: so also they understand [...] in his Epimon. But away with these madnesses! Plato truly might speak many things, which he traduced from the Phenician Doctrine, but understood not; yea it is not likely that the Phenicians or Egyptians, who were the conservators of these Platonic, [...], ineffable Doctrines, understood so great a Mysterie as this of the Trinitie.’ I find [Page 50]something also in Sanchoniathon's fragments much like this pas­sage of Plato: (which confirmes what has been quoted out of Ser­ranus) [...], according to these was there be­gotten a certain Eliun. That Eliun is the same with the Scrip­ture [...] Elohim God, or [...] Elion the Most High, is plain; though Sanchoniathon's Fables touching this Eliun argue he un­derstood not what he said. This may suffice to prove, that al those Metaphysic Contemplations, which peradventure had their origine from some shadowie dark Jewish notices touching the Trinitie, as managed by the Philosophers, were but vain corrupt and unintelligible notions; yea, that they gave foundation to the Arian Heresie, which was hatched in the Schole of Alexandria, where this Pythagorean Platonic Philosophie then flourished, as we shal prove,Their vanitie as to the Di­vine Ideas and Decrees. B. 2. c. 1. §. 9. (3) What we have mention­ed of the Trinitie holds also true to prove the vanitie 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 Eternitie, Simplicitie, Immutabilitie, absolute Soveraintie and Independence of these Divine Ideas; to the shame and consusion of the Pelagians, Scholemen, and Arminians; as we shal 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 vanitie and corruption in themselves, and of much more dangerous influence in the Christian Scholes: for much of the Gnostic Infusions in the primitive Churches, as also of the Monkish Mystic Divinitie, and the Scholastic corrupt specula­tions about the Decrees of God, received their origine from these Pythagorean and Platonic Ideas, as it may appear hereafter, B. 2.

§. 3.The vanitie of the Philoso­phers Natural Theologie as to its mediate Object. As the Pagan Philosophic Theologie 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 waies, by which the soul was to be raised up to the knowlege, worship, and enjoyment of this first Eternal Being. 'Tis true, the light of Nature, and those visible Ideas of Gods Wisdome, Power, and Goodnesse impressed on the Book of the Creatures, together with those imperfect [Page 51]notices traduced from the Jewish Church, gave these Natural Theologists some glimmering notions of the Deitie, his Perfe­ctions and Operations: but as for Christ the mediate Object, or Mediator betwixt God and Man, Him they seem to have been altogether strangers unto. It's granted they had some fabulose Traditions touching their Sheepherd-God Pan; touching Mi­nerva the Goddesse of Wisdome, her being produced out of Jupiter's brain; touching Silenus, &c. which some conceive to be but corrupt imitations of and reflexions from the Jewish Messias, his Name and Offices; who is in Scripture called a Sheepherd, Shilo, the Wisdome of God, &c. But yet the many Fables which they mixt with these Traditions, (perhaps originally Jewish) ar­gue their stupid ignorance of Christ the Savior of the World. We shal hereafter B. 2. C. 1. §. 5. and C. 2. §. 2. §. 3. shew how that al the Phenician Baalim, and Grecian Demons, were but Idolatrie 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 al their Demon-contemplations and worship did but leave them under greater darknesse and distance as to the true Mediator. For this was the great designe of Satan,Al their De­mon-Doctrines vain and cor­rupt. by these Idol-Demons or Mediators (which he fat up in oppositi­on to, though in imitation of Christ) to shut the dore against Christ, that so he might detain those blind Sophists in ignorance of, and estrangement from him the way of Life. 'Tis true, these Gentile-Philosophers, the wiser of them, Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato, (who having conversed abroad in the Oriental parts, seem to have had some more awakened thoughts touching the Fal and lost condition of Mankind by reason of Sin) could not but conclude a necessitie 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; conveighing mens sacrifices, supplications, and worship to God; and God's Divine commands, Gifts, and other vouchsafements to men; by which means there was a Communion maintained betwixt the supreme God and Men. This was the substance of that [...], Natural Theologie, brought in by the Philo­sophers, in distinction from (if not opposition to) [...] the fabulose Theologie of the Poets; as also to the [...], Politic Theologie of Statesmen, Priest and People. This Natural [Page 52]Theologie of the Philosophers, specially of the Pythagoreans and Platonists, which comprehended this Doctrine of Demons, was not lesse injuriose to Christ, than the fabulose Theologie of the Poets, or the Politic of the Statesmen: For look as in the Christian Church Antichrist sits in the Temple of God, as a counter-Christ; so amongst these Pagans, their Demons were a kind of Gentile-Antichrist, or counter-Messias. Yea, which is more, al Antichrists Apostasie to Saint worship; al his Images, Shrines, Reliques, Canonifations, Invocations, Intercessions, Satis­factions of Saints, with al his Festivals, Abstinences, &c. were al 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 wil appear in its place, B. 2. C. 2. §. 3, &c. which is a sufficient de­monstration of the monstrose vanitie and corruption of this Na­tural Theologie, which these vain Sophists so much prided them­selves in, as that whereby they hoped and endeavored to restore that Natural Theologie they lost in their first Parents. But at present it shal suffice us to discover, how this piece of their Metaphysic Philosophie, or Natural Theologie, 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 shal have recourse to that great Chapter, wherein Paul seems professedly to set himself against the vanitie of the Pythagorean and other Philosophie.Col. 2.3. Col. 2.3, he tels them, That in Christ were hid al the treasures of wisdome, &c. [...], are hid; the similitude seems to be taken from a Chest, wherein men lay up their money, to be taken forth as occasion may serve. Thus the LXX, Dan. 11.43. [...], in the hidden trea­sures of Gold. What infinite hidden Treasures of Wisdome are there in Christ! The Wisdome of Christ is compared to Trea­sures, Prov. 8.10, 11, 19. Whence Paul addes, V. 4. And this I say, Ver. 4. lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. [...] answers to the Hebraic [...] and [...], for which the LXX place [...]. It signifies primarily, by false Ratioci­nations, which yet have the color and tincture of truth, to circum­vent the simple; by sophistic reason to impose on others; by a cap­tiose fallaciose syllogisme to deceive. Thence [...] is, by He­sychius, made Synonymous and equipollent to [...], Deceit; and [...] to [...]. The Apostles mind seems this: Let no Py­thagorising Judaising Christians plunder you of your Christian [Page 53]Wisdome and Theologie, by the enticing heart-bewitching no­tions of vain Philosophie. Grotius observes, that there were, even in those dawnings of Christianitie, sowen in Phrygia the Seeds of the Phrygian Heresie, composed of Judaic and Pytha­goric Dogmes, mixed with Christian Theologie; and those that would not espouse this Heresie were stiled by these Sectaries carnal and illiterate. Whence Vers. 8. he exhortes,Ver. 8. that None spoil them of Christs treasures of Wisdome, through Philosophie and vain deceit, after the tradition of men. i.e. (saies Hammond in his Paraphrase on these words,) ‘And take care that no bodie plunder you of al that you have, your Principes of Christian Knowlege, by that vain, emtie, frothie, pretended knowlege and wisdome which the Gnostics talk of, 1 Tim. 1.4. 1 Tim. 6.20. taken out of the Heathen Pythagorcan Philosophie, to­gether with the observances of the Mosaic Law, and very di­stant and contrarie to Christian Divinitie, &c.’ It's evident, he opposeth the vain Philosophie of these Pythagorising Gnostics to those Treasures of Wisdome 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 al the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily. [...], bodily; i.e. (1) really, Ver. 9. [...]. 1. Really. and that [1] In opposition to al the Jewish Types and Figures, which were but shadows of Christ the substance or bodie; [2] Really, in opposition to al those false Demons or Aeones, which were at first hatcht by the vain Metaphysic Philosophie, or Natural Theologie of the Heathen Philosophers, and now brought into the Christian Theologie by these Pythagorising Gno­stics, as forerunners of Antichrist. (2) [...] signifies also essentially, or substantially. Thus Occumenius interprets it by [...], essentially. So among the Hebrews [...] signifies essence as wel as bodie; and [...], Ver. 11. denotes essence: 2. Essentially. and then the meaning is, That the whole Divine Nature or Essence dwels in Christ, so that he is truely and Essentially God, in opposi­tion to their Philosophic Demons, which were but Idols. (3) [...] may be rendred personally. Thus [...] signifies a Person, 3. Personally. Rom. 12.1. 2 Cor. 10.10. So Pindar, [...], four Persons: and Sophocles, [...], My person. The Deitie dwels in the Human Nature of Christ personally, by an Hypostatic personal Union, typified by Gods habitation over the Arke, which was [Page 54]but the Type of Christs Human Nature.4. Perfectly. (4) [...] may sig­nifie perfectly and eminently; as Christ is said, Ver. 10. to be a complete Head, above al Principalities. (5) [...] may also denote the perfection of Gospel-revelation delivered by Christ, in opposition to the Typic shadowie Theologie of the Jews, and to the false Natural Theologie of the vain Philosophers, Ver. 8. Thus Hammond in his Paraphrase: ‘For the whole wil of God (saies he) is by Christ really made known unto us, as his Di­vinitie really dwels in him; and therefore there is little need of the additions of the Gnostics, which they borrow out of the Heathenish and Jewish Theologie, to supply the defects of the Evan­gelie Doctrine.’ Though this sense seems also included, yet the for­mer may not be excluded, as it appears by what follows, v. 10. Ye are complete in him, which is the Head of al Principalitie and power. Ver. 10. Complete. i. e. He is a complete Head, or perfect Mediator, infi­nitely above al Angelic Principalities and Human Powers, whence those Pythagorean Demons and Aeones had their origine. For al their Demons were but Human powers, or great Heroes deified; and al their Aeones, but Angels of a superior or low­er degree; al infinitely short of Christ, who is the Head of al Principalities and Powers, and therefore a perfect Mediator in whom you are complete, in opposition to al 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 Deitie of Christ) ‘interprets this of their being complete in knowlege by the Doctrine of Christ, without such supplies as these, from the Doctrines and Divinitie of the Gnostics about their Aeones, looked on by them as Divine immortal powers.’ Which sense, though true and included in the words, yet may it not exclude Christ as the simple object of Faith, or as he is the complete only Mediator, in opposition to al those Philosophic Demons, Aeones, or Idol-Mediators, which these Pythagorising Gnostics then began to foist into the Christian Theologie, 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 [...], Natural Theologie, and brought into the Christian Theologie first by the Gnostics, and then by Anti­christ, are again openly struck at by the Apostle, in this cauti­on [Page 55]of his to the Colossians, Chap. 2. v. 18, 19. V. 18, [...].Col. 2.18, 19. Let no man beguile you of your re­ward in a voluntary humilitie and wil-worship of Angels. [...], according to its origination, signifies an humilitie of mind, quasi [...], minding low things. But here it sig­nifies a superstitiose and servile demission or prostitution of the spirit to false objects of worship, together with an hypocritie shew and studie of humilitie. Here is, saies Grotius, [...]. i.e. In an humble Wil-worship performed to Angels; which these Pythagorising Gnostics called Aeones, and worshipped as Mediators to God, distributing them into certain Classes, and allowing them their respective Offices, without any other ground than their own fantiastic imitation of that Natural Theologie a­mongst the Heathen Philosophers. [...], let no man beguile you. [...] signifies (1) and properly, to give sentence against any one, whereby he is pronounced unwor­thy of the [...], or the reward given to such as contended for victorie. And so it is an allusion to such as ran in the race, who if they were defective or irregular in their race, were con­demned by Judges appointed for this purpose to lose the reward; whence [...] is rendred by Phavorinus, [...], let no man condemne you, as defective or irregular in your Christian race; beware of losing your reward by an Idolatrie Wil-wor­ship given to Angels or Men, answerable to the Heathens Natu­tural Theologie. (2) [...] notes [...] praeripere, by craft to cheat men of their crown or reward. So Pausanias, [...]. So Jerome saith, ‘That Paul used this word, accor­ding to the custome of his own Province, namely, Tarsis and Cilicia; for [...] in the Cilician tongue notes cunningly to cheat another of his reward.’ And then the sense is, let no one, by these Pythagorean Dogmes, craftily cheat you of your re­ward, by inducing you to bow your souls, in a superstitiose ser­vile manner, to worship Angels, and thence to reject Christ your Head. So it follows v. 19. [...] i.e. (saies Grotius) ‘not keeping close to Christ, whom God has therefore given to be Head of the Church, that so by him our desires may be offered up unto himself.’ The sum of these Apostolic exhortations is this: Paul saw the Pagan Demons (which were the main subject of their Natural Theologie) creeping in apace into the Church of God, under the Mystic Theologie of the Py­thagorising [Page 56]Gnostics: he foresaw also by the spirit of Prophesie, that Antichrist, the great Christian Demon, would advance the said Demons on Christs throne, by assuming to himself a power of Canonising Saints as Intercessors or Mediators; giving In­dulgences, making Laws, erecting Images, &c. al 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 Theologie tou­ching Demons, &c.

§. 4.4 Demon-wor­ship vain and corrupt. Hence it followed that the Natural Theologie of these Pagan Philosophers proved exceding vain, corrupt, and abomi­nable, as to al those modes or rites of Worship, which they either invented themselves, or traduced from the Jewish Church. It has been acknowleged, that these blind Philosophers, speci­ally the Pythagoreans, had very many Rites and Modes of Worship by tradition from, and in imitation of the Jewish Rites and Worship, as Part 2. B 2. chap. 2. §. 4. But al 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 Wil-wor­ship and Idolatrie. It's true, these proud Philosophers aspired, by this their Demon-worship (the fruit of their Natural Theo­logie) to reduce themselves to a friendship with the great, though unknown God: but al their attemts herein proved vain and successelesse; yea al did but cast them at a greater distance from the true God, into a servile subjection to Satan the God of this World. The Demon-Theologie, or Wil worship of the Pa­gan Philosophers was brought into the Christian Church first by the Gnostics, and afterward by Antichrist; which the Apo­stle Paul foreseeing does greatly caution Christians against in the forementioned Epistle, Col. 2.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. speci­ally v. 23. [...]. Also in the 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, of which hereafter, when we come to Antichristian Wil-worship, which was but the effect of this Pagan Demon-worship.

§. 5.5 The Vanitie of their Me­taphysic Philo­sophisings a­bout the Soul. Another part of their Metaphysic Philosophie, or Na­tural Theologie, consistes in some Traditions and Contemplations touching the Human Soul, its Divine Origine, Infusion, Separation, and Immortalitie; concerning which it cannot be denied but that the Philosophers, specially such as had conversation with the [Page 57] 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 grosse superstitions:Pre-existence of al Souls. as (1) They held the Soul to be of Divine extract and origine, according to that citation of Paul, Act. 17.28. Of which see Court Gent. Part 2. B. 3. C. 9. Sect. 3. §. 3. But yet withal they held the eternal simultaneous production and Pre-existence of al Souls: which opinion of theirs Origen, with some other of the Fathers, who did much Pythagorise, are said to have sucked in.Metempsycho­sis. (2) The Philosophers also held the Sub­sistence, yea Immortalitie of the Soul after its disunion from the bodie; but withal they held also a Metempsychosis or Trans­migration of the Soul into other bodies: which opinion the Jews, specially the Pharisees, dranke in from the Pythagorean Philoso­phie, if the Pythagoreans had it not from the Jews first.Purgatorie. (3) The Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophers asserted some kind of Purgatorie, which they called [...], Purification of the Soul by fire; whence the Papists had their Purgatorie, as hereafter, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 11.

§. 6. But amongst al the pieces of Pagan Metaphysics, 6. The hellish Corruption of their Magic. or Na­tural Theologie, 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, proceded originally from, and in imitation of the Divine Oracles vouchsafed the Jewish Church, wil be evident to any that shal give himself the trouble of drawing a parallel betwixt the one and t'other. 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 Prophesie, or Divination vouchsafed them by their God, with which Jeremie, Ezechiel, and Daniel (who li­ved much about his time, and with whom some think he had converse,) were endowed,The four waies of Divination amongst the Jews imitated by the Pagan Diviners. he affecting an imitation of them herein, enters into a compact with the Devil his God in or­der hereto.

The Jews had four kinds of Divine Revelation. (1) [...] Prophetie: which was either [1] by externe Vision; or [2] by [Page 58] 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 Enthusiasme, or Divine Afflation of the Spirit, which they called [...], the Afflate of the holy Spirit, as in Job, Moses, David, and other Penmen of the Sacred Scripture; who had also the spirit of Prophetie, though not in such an Ecstatic mode as some other Prophets, Ezechiel, Daniel, &c. Answerably whereto the Pa­gan Diviners had also their milder Enthusiasmes, vouchsafed their Poets by Diabolic Inspiration. (3) The Jews had their Ʋrim 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.) saies, was amongst these Idolaters answerable to the Ʋrim 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 [...], their little image of Saphir; which was called [...], truth, in imitation of the Jewish Ʋrim and Thummim, as Grotius. (4) The Jews had another kind of Divine Revelation, which they called [...] the daughter of voice, or vocal revelation, which seems mentioned Numb. 12.8. but was more usual under the second Temple, after the Ʋrim and Thummim ceased, where­by God reveled himself to his people, as at Christ's Baptisme, Mat. 3.17. Answerable whereto the Gentiles had their [...], Aparitions of their Gods, with Vocal tradition or decla­ration of their minds to men, which gave the first occasion to their [...], Pillars of Stone, erected as Memorials of their Gods Aparition, in imitation of the Stone which Jacob erected at Bethel, as a Memorial of God's Aparition and discourse with him. Of which more fully, B. 2. C. 2. Sect. 3. §. 3.

That this black Art of Divination was in much use,The Art of Di­vication part of their Doctrine of Demons. not only amongst the Poets and Priests, but also amongst the wisest of the Philosophers, the Pythagoreans and Platonists, is evident by this, that it was a part of that Doctrine of Demons, or [...], [Page 59] Natural Theologie, which did in a more peculiar manner belong to the Philosophers. So Plato, in his Symposium, pag. 202, 203. treating professedly of these Demons, he brings in Socrates demanding of Diotima, what facultie this his [...], Demon, had. To which Diotima replies, [...], a facultie of Interpreting the Gods mind, &c. And having discoursed at large of the Offices of this Socratic Demon, he addes, [...], from this Demon al the Art of Divination procedes. Whence Mercurie the great Egyptian Demon, was called [...], an In­terpreter, as 'tis supposed, from and in imitation of Joseph that great Divine Interpreter. Farther, that this Satanic Art of Divination was part of their Demon-worship, and thence of their Natural Theologie, is evident by what Diogenes Laertius reports of Pythagoras in his Life. ‘Pythagoras (saies he) affirmed, that the whole air was ful of Souls; which he supposed to be Demons and Heroes, by whom there were infused Dreams and Signes, and Diseases, both into Men and Bestes; from whence arose Lustrations, Expiations, and al Divinations, and Prophe­ties.’ Diog. of Pythag.

The great Oracle to which al their Diviners resorted,Apollo their great Oracle. was that of the Idol-God Apollo, (whose Temple was erected at Delphus, in imitation of God's at Jerusalem) and al inferior Vates or Diviners were but his Interpreters. This is wel set forth by Plato in his Io, pag. 534. [...], The Vates are nothing else but Interpreters of the Gods. Pag. 536. he gives us the manner how their Idol-Apollo inspi­red these Diviners; [...], God, by the endeavor of al these, draws the mind of men where he pleaseth. Plato here (according to his Al­legoric mode) supposeth a long chain or series of Diviners im­pelled or drawn by their God Apollo, whom he makes to be [...], the prime and first mover. That this their great Oracle Apollo was no other than the Devil, is most evi­dent, who is called by the same name in Scripture: as Deut. 32.17. he is termed [...] a Destroyer; Deut. 32.17. which the Greeks cal most properly [...], Apollo; and so Rev. 9.11. the Devil's name Abaddon, which signifies a Destroyer, is by the Spirit of God rendred Apollyon, which is the same with Apollo. The origine of the Delphie Divination. That Apollo was the great God of Divination is asserted by Augu­stin, de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 11. In Divinations Apollo, &c. where [Page 60] Lud. Vives on these words observes, ‘That they supposing this Apollo to be the Sun, i. e. the Eye of the World, easily belie­ved that he beheld and knew althings, both past, present, and to come; wherefore he was every-where consulted, and gave answers, as in many other places, so specially at Delphus, as Diodorus in the Life of Philip; whose origine he thus relates: In that place, at the entry of the Delphic Temple was a Den of a great and obscure winding, unto which a Goat feeding thereabout ascending, received an Afflation from that subter­raneous spirit, and began in an unusual manner to dance; which the Pastor admiring, he himself approching to the mouth of the Den was surprised with a Furor, and began to foretel things future. This some others attemted, and were af­fected in like manner. The mater proceded thus far, that he who would know things future brought some, who thrusting in the head into the mouth of the Den might Divine. Which seeing it could not be done without danger, no, nor with­out the destruction of many, the Delphics erected a Temple there to their Divining-God Apollo; and appointed a Virgin, who setting in the Machine, might safely receive the Afflation of that Divine spirit, and give answers to such as consulted the Oracle: Which Machine was called from its three Pillars, Tripos, as it were of three feet, much of the same forme with the usual Tripet. The Priest was called Pythia, who in the be­ginning was a Virgin like to Diana. Afterward a certain Py­thia being defloured by Echecrates, the Delphics rejecting Vir­gins appointed a Woman no lesse than fifty years aged; who yet was to use a Virgin habit, that so the old custome might not altogether perish.’ Thus Diodorus Siculus, and out of him Ludov. Vives.

§. 7.The nature of Divination out of Plato. To treat a little more distinctly of the nature of this Pagan Divination, whereby both its origine and vanitie wil more fully appear. The Greek name [...], or [...], is by some de­rived from [...], because they supposed its cause to be externe, spiritual, and divine. I find no-where a more ful and clear ac­count hereof than in Plato, who both in his Timeus, Phaedrus, and more professedly in his Io treats of this Subject. 1. As to the origine of Divination, Plato Io, p. 533. saith, That Poetic Enthusiasme comes not by Art, but by a Divine power, like the stone which Euripides called [...], Magnetem, Loadstone; which [Page 61]stone doth not only draw iron-rings, but also puts a virtue into them to draw others to them. So Prophetic men are inspired by the Muse. 1. Its origine not by Art but divine Afflati­on. Thence he, in his Io, pag. 534. tels us, That it comes not by Art, but by a divine power: [...], The Prophets utter these things not by Art, but from a divine pow­er: For (adds he) Art extendes it self to althings under the same kind. So agen pag. 536. [...], &c. not by art but by a divine fate, or afflation. And more particularly in his Phae­drus, pag. 245. [...], &c. But the third sort of madnesse 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 al that Prophetic Poesie, which issues from the mind of a sober temperate man, vanisheth. Truely I could reckon up to thee so many and more illustrious effects of this furor inspired by God. His design is to shew, that al Poetic Prophesie comes from a Divine Enthusiasme or afflation without art. Thence he tels us, [...] This furor is given by the Gods with the greatest felicitie. Whence in the Platonic Definitions we find Divination thus defined, [...], Divination is a science discovering a mater without De­monstration; i. e. by mere Enthusiasme. 2.The Instru­ments, Poets and Prophets. The usual Organs or Instruments the Devil (under the name of Apollo) used to de­liver his Oracles by, were at first the Poets; whence amongst the Grecians [...] & [...], Poets and Prophets, were of the same import. So Paul, Tit. 1.12. cals 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 tels us, the God used in delivering his Oracles to men: So Io 534, [...], Wherefore the God whiles he takes from them their mind, useth these ministers as mes­sengers to deliver his Oracles, and divine Prophets; that we who hear may understand, that it is not they who are thus deprived of their mind, that speak things of so great moment, but that it is [Page 62]God that speaks them, and by the ministerie 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 Enthusiasme. (2) That the Prophets were but mere Organs used by this God, to declare his Oracles. Thence he subjoins, [...], &c. We have an infallible demonstration hereof in Tynnichus Chalcidensis, who never composed any other Verse worthy of memorie, save that Pean in the honor of Apollo, which is in the mouth of al, and indeed the most excellent of al 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 mens 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 wel with Gods true Prophets,3. These Di­viners in an exstatic rap­ture or furie. who are but Instruments by which he speaks. (3) Plato tels us that these Organs or Prophets, which the De­moniac power inspired, were, whilest under this spirit of Divina­tion, in an Ecstasie or Rapture. So Io 533. [...], Thus therefore the Muse her self by a certain divine spirit doth inspire some; and by the ministrie of such inspired persons there is a series of others inspired aptly connected. Agen, [...] They rage and fome, and are possessed like the Priests of Bacchus. And pag. 534. he saith, that this his Divi­ner was [...], &c. Rapt into a divine ecstasie, and mad, neither did he continue in his senses or mind, being moved [...], by a divine fate. The meaning is, he was in an ecstatic rapture, not (compos mentis) in a sound mind. This Plato explains yet more fully in his Timaeus, pag. 72. [...], This is a suffici­ent signe, that God hath vouchsafed this facultie of Divination to human madnesse: (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 addes, [...], &c. for no one in his right mind or senses is inspired by this spirit of Divination, but such only whose minds and senses [Page 63]are bound up by sleep, or disease, or Enthusiasme, &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. Divination by Enthusiasme. (4) The usual mode or way by which this their Demoniac spirit inspired or possessed these ecstatic Prophets, was Enthusiasme. 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, [...], But ha­ving his prudence or reason bound either by sleep, or by a disease, or changed by some Enthusiasme. And then he gives the reason, [...], &c. But it belongs to a prudent man to understand such things as are spoken, or expressed by cer­tain signes, either by dream or watching, from the Enthusiastic nature. This ecstatic [...], Enthusiasme, Plato in his Io makes to be [...], an imitation of Divine ecstasie or rapture. And indeed it was but a Satanic imitation of Divine Enthusi­asme, 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 Enthusi­asme, of which Plato so much treats both in his Timaeus and Io, was but the Ape of the Divine. (5) Hence, saies Plato, These Enthusi­astic Diviners could not judge of their own Divination, but had there Judges. these Ecstatic Diviners could not judge of their own Enthusiasme, but had Judges appointed them by the Law. So it follows in that forecited place of Timaeus, pag. 72. [...] The work of such an ecstatic Enthusiast, whether he re­main under this Enthusiastic furor, or not, is not to judge of those things he saw or 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. 1 Cor. 12.10. So v. 32. which though [Page 64]here perhaps it may be meant of ordinary teaching; yet there was the same gift of discerning and judging extraordinary Pro­phets in the Jewish Church.The end of Di­vination to breed a friend­ship with God, and restore Natural The­ologie. (6) The main end or designe of this their Demoniae Divination was to bring them into a Reconcili­ation, and friendship with God. So Plato in his Symposium, pag. 188. [...] Divination is to breed a friendship between God and men; because it knows those amorose impetuosities that are in men, and tend to pietie or impietie. By which it appears, that the main end or designe of those Natural Theologists in erecting this Demoniac mode of Divination, was to make up those defects that were in their Natural Theologie; thereby to breed a reconcilement and friendship with their Gods: wherein they also affected an imitation of Divine Oracles and Propheties, whose main end was to restore lost man to a friend­ship with God. And thus far indeed these Demoniac Oracles attained their end, that they brought such as subjected them­selves to them into a miserable compact and friendship with the Devil, their great Apollo or Soul destroying God.

§. 8.The sundry kinds of Di­vination. As for the sundry kinds of Divination, the Philosophers (who were sufficiently vain herein) were not yet so vain as the Poets or common Prophets: for Plato in his Timaeus, pag. 7. makes mention only of three sorts of [...], Enthusiastic Divina­tion. (1) [...], by sleep or dreams. (2) [...], by some di­sease or frensie. (3) [...], by some Enthusiasme, pro­perly so cal'd. These also were the chief of the Pythagorean Di­vinations, and the effects of their Demon-worship; (as was be­fore observed) wherein they affected an imitation of Divine Oracles.1. Divination by Dreams. (1) As for that of Enthusiasme, we have already suf­ficiently opened it. (2) In their Divination by Dreams they had their [...], Onirocrites, Judge and Interpreter of Dreams, as before out of Plato. Apollonius Attalus writ of the [...], as Artemidorus after him. Diogenes Laertius reportes of Diogenes the Cynic, ‘That when he saw Physicians and Philoso­phers, he said, Man is the wisest of al creatures; but when he saw Interpreters of Dreams, Conjecturers, Prophets, &c. he said, [...], nothing is to be estimed more vain than man. To some that were affrightned at their Dreams, he said, You consider not the things you do waking, but your imaginary dreams you curiosely examine.’ So that we see [Page 65]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, ‘But Epicharmus with Philochore the Athenian, amongst Divinations gave the chiefest place to Dreams.’ He makes mention also of Hermippus, who writ five Books of Dreams. (3) Their Divination by Diseases may take in that of Sternutation or Sneesing, which they called [...], and made use of as an instrument of Divination. This mode of Di­vination was very ancient. Aristotle, 1. de Animal. saith, That Sternutation was an angural signe, 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. ‘Moreover in al good Omens or Auguries objected to them, they were wont to adore, either God himself, from whom they conceited the Omen came, or the very Omen it self, if it seemed to have any thing of Divinitie. So that of Xenophon, l. 3. de Expedit. Cyr. must be understood; where it's said, That al the Soldiers ha­ving heard the Sternutation, [...], with one impetus worshipped the God,’ 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, [...] 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 darknesse sucked in the like custome; which continues to this day in France, where generally al sa­lute such as sneese, and pray, God save; as if it were a thing very ominose. Thus among the Abassines in Africa, when their Negus or Emperor sneeseth, he is saluted by al throughout the Citie with great solemnitie, 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 [...], was another mode of their [Page 66]Divination. Whence Melampos the Hierogrammatist his [...], &c. yet extant; and Suidas tels us that Possidonius writ his [...], in which he expounded what the sudden moti­on of every Member did indicate. Isidorus, Origin. lib. 8. c. 9. acquaints us, that these Salissators were so called, because when any parts of their Members suffered a palpitation, or leaping, they foretold something prosperous or sad to happen. These three were branches of their [...].

§. 9.Of Divination by Magic. They had another kind of Divination strictly called Magic, which was, as they say, the Invention of the Persians, (whence their wise-men were called Magi) wherein the Pythagoreans and other Philosophers were not a little versed; of which Sui­das gives this account: [...], Magic truely is the Invocation of the Demons, those be­nefactors, for the procuring of some good; such were the Predicti­ons of Apollonius Tyanaeus. Apollonius Tyanaeus his Magic and Demon-Do­ctrines, a type and forerunner of Antichrist, and his Saint-worship. Whereby we are informed that Magic was a part of the Demon-worship; which as it's suppo­sed, Pythagoras brought into Grece. That the Pythagoreans were generally exercised in Magic is a commun opinion. And this Apollonius Tyanaeus, whom Suidas 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 Pythagorising Platonistes, Porphyrie 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 Theo­logie or Metaphysics. We have the Life of this Apollonius Tya­naeus writ by Philostratus, by which it is apparent that al his Predictions and lying wonders were wrought by commerce with the Devil, who was the Philosophers great [...], 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. ‘They do, saith he, unjustly condemne Apollonius, who foresaw and foretold many things, as guilty of this crime; as if they should accuse Socrates, who foreknew many things by his Demon; or Anax­agoras, who knew many things before they happened, &c.’ Thence he goes on to give us the Historie of his Life, and the [Page 67]many Miracles he did. Hierocles out of this Historie of Philo­stratus, equaliseth this Apollonius, in point of Miracles wrought, to Christ. Eusebius answers Hierocles, and demonstrates, that al Apollonius's Miracles were but Lying wonders, or Magic Delu­sions, wrought by Diabolic Inspirations. Grotius relates, ‘That there was a statue of his that spoke, being inspired by some Diabolic spirit, but that his mouth was soon stopped by the power of Christ, and the preaching of the Gospel.’ More, in his Mysterie of Godlinesse, B. 5. C. 7. proves, That there is no­thing in the Historie of Apollonius that can answer to Christ's Resurrection, &c. It is evident that al his Prophetic Predicti­ons were but Satanic Delusions. Thus Grotius understands that Prophetic prediction of Paul, 1 Tim. 4.1,1 Tim. 4.1. And the Doctrines of Devils, [...]. ‘He mainly points out (saies Gro­tius) the Pythagoreans; of whom the chief were Magi, Magi­cians, and had commerce with Devils or Demons. Amongst those Apollonius Tyanaeus was very famose, who is here in a more particular manner denoted: for he came to Ephesus while Timothie yet lived.’ Though I can no way fal in with Grotius's designe, 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 promotors of these Doctrines of Demons here mentioned, and so counter-Christs, or Pagan-Antichrists; and therefore be con­sequence, great promotors of those Antichristian Demons and Doctrines, which (by means of their Philosophie foisted into the Christian Church by the Pythagorising 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 practise, according to that 2 Thes 2.9,2 Thes. 2.9. Lying-wonders. And indeed al Antichrist's Lying-wonders, al 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 wel allow this Text a collateral ty­pic [Page 68]regard to the Pythagoreans, though its principal eye be on Antichrist and his Demon-Doctrines, as Mede observes.

§. 10.Divination 1. by Birds. There were many other kinds of Satanic Divination, more ordinary and usual amongst the Priests and vulgar people. As (1) Divination by Birds, which principally belonged to the 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 [...] Divination by Cockes, 2. From four four-footed Bestes. &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 intrals 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 excesse or defect in Nature.3. From Men. (3) They had likewise their Divinations from Men, as from the lineaments of the Bodie; [...], Chiromantie, from the Hand: [...], Physiognomie from the Face; also from meeting of Men, from casualties at Festes, and from dead persons, which they called [...], Necromantie. Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 2. speaks thus of [...], Chiromantie, &c. ‘There is no dout to be made but this Art was most ancient, and had its rise in the East, where that mad studie of Astrologie flourish­ed. For when they perceived the Influences of the Heavens on these Inferiors, it remained that they shewed the convenance of these Inferiors with the Superiors. Therefore making Man a little World, they reduced each of his parts to the Celestial lineaments. Whence sprang that Discipline called by the Grekes [...], which they distributed into [...], and [...].’ 4. From Herbs. (4) They had their Divinations from Plants, called [...],5. From Inani­mates. practised by Witches. (5) They had their Divinations from Inanimates; [1] From Na­tural Ele­ments, Water, Earth, Fire. as [1] from the Elements: from Water, which they called [...]. So Numa, to prove that his Sacred Constitutions came from the Gods, was compelled to make an Hydromantie, affirming that he saw in the Water the Images of the Gods, or rather the Devils, from whom he re­ceived his Constitutions. And Caesar saies, there were Women [Page 69]in Germanie, who divined from the course and noise of Waters. They had also their Divination from the Earth, called [...], from the Fire called [...], from the Smoke called [...]. [2] They had also their Divinations from Celestial Bodies; [2] From Ce­lestial Bodies, Stars, Meteors, &c. from the Stars called [...], Astrologie; 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 [...] & [...].[3] From things Artifi­cial. (2) From Sieves, called [...]. (3) From Keyes, called [...]. (4) From Axes, called [...]. (5) From Rings, [...]. (6) From Phials, [...]: (7) From Meal, [...]. (8) From a Bason, [...]. (9) From Lots, [...]. Of these sundry kinds of Divination, see more Lud. Vives, in August. de Civit. l. 7. c. 35. Vossius de Philosophia, p. 1. c. 22. and our Philosoph. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Sect. 9. §. 8. So monstrose and Hel-bred was the Ethnic Divination and Na­tural Theologie.

CHAP. IV. The Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie from its Forme and Pro­prieties.
The Corruption of Philosophie from 1. Its Symbolic Forme, 1 Tim. 1.3, 4, [...], v. 5, 6, 7, 15. [...]: the origine of the Jewish Cabala, 1 Tim. 4.7. [...]. Tit. 1.14. [...]. 2. From its formal Attributes. (1) Its deficience as to truth, and its clear discoverie. (2) It was only Traditional, Equivo­cal, and Artificial, not Ʋnivocal, Real, and Intuitive. It con­templated only Pictures, not native Ideas of things. Col. 2.23. [...]. Rom. 2.20. [...], a shew, &c. (3) 'Twas only General, not Particular and Experimental. (4) It was clou­dy and obscure, not Evident and Divinct. Heb 11.1. [...], i. e. either Natural or Philosophic. (5) 'Twas only Ʋncertain and Opiniative; [...]. Faith is 1 Cor. 2.4 [...], Gal. 3.1. [...], Col. 2.2. [...]. (6) 'Twas not truely Dia­noetic or discursive, but Paralogistic. (7) 'Twas not truely Noe­tic or Intelligent of highest Principes. (8) Twas defective as to Prudence; viz. [1] Soul-reflexion. [2] [...]. [3] [...]. [4] [...]. [5] [...]. (9) 'Twas not Transfor­mative, 2 Cor. 3.18. Changed. The Philosophers falsly preten­ded to a [...], or [...].

§. 1.The Corruption of Philosophie from its Sym­bolic forme or mode. WE have hitherto endeavored a Demonstration of the Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie from its original Cau­ses and Mater, both Natural, Moral, and Supernatural: We now procede to make good and strengthen the said Demonstra­tion from the Consideration of that Vanitie which attended the formal nature and proprieties of the same. And herein we shal be­gin with the Pythagorean, which was the source and most prin­cipal part of al the Grecian Philosophie; 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 vanitie of the Pythagorean Phi­losophie, which was the most noble, and so the measure of al the rest, our Conclusion wil hold much more true of the other [Page 71]Parts and Sects. The Forme 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 Aristotles time, as he him­self confesseth; which we no way dout they took up in imi­tation of the Jewish Church; as it's wel observed by Clemens Alexandr. lib. 1. [...], The ancient mode of Philosophising was Hebraic and Enig­matic: Therefore they embraced short speaking, which is most apt for ad­monition, and most profitable. That this mode of Symbolic dis­course was frequent amongst the Jews in Pythagoras's time is apparent from what we find in Ezechiel, (who is thought to be Contemporary with, yea the Instructor of Pythagoras) as Ezech. 17.2. Put forth a riddle and speak a parable, or Symbol. Now albeit this mode of Symbolic Philosophising was originally Di­vine, and very useful for the infant-state of the world, in that it affordes the phantasie most pleasant and lively colors or ima­ges of truth; yet was it not without much vanitie and corrup­tion as made use of by those ancient Philosophers, both Pytha­goreans and others.The origine of Symbolic Phi­losophie and its vanitie. And the great principe on which this Sym­bolic mode of Philosophising was founded, was this: [...], Things sensible are but Imitamens of things in­telligible. i. e. There is nothing in this inferior sensible world, but doth ressemble something in the superior Intelligible world: sensible formes are but Symbolic Images of insensible perfecti­ons. Whence these blind Philosophers (who traded in Oriental Jewish Traditions) were mighty greedy in catching after every sensible forme, corporal image or shadow, whereby Divine Truths were set forth: wherein none abounded more than the Jewish Church, which was the chief seat of al Symbolic Wisdome. Hence therefore those Grecians derived either immediately or mediately the chief of their Symbolic learning, both as to mater and forme: But not understanding the true mind and scope of these Jewish Symbolic Mysteries, they at first amused them­selves in contemplating the shel, cabinet, or bone only, without ever attaining unto the kernel, jewel, or marrow of Divine Truths. Thence having satiated their phantasies, and glutted their curiositie in their dreaming contemplations of those Jewish Symbols, without any real notion of those Truths which were [Page 72]wrapt up therein, they coin an infinitie of fables or false ima­ges, which they mixe with those Jewish Traditions they met with in their travels; and herein their phantasies (which are the greatest Apes in the world) were so skilful and unwearied, as that they soon rendred the whole bodie of their Symbolic Phi­losophie cloudy, dark, vain and monstrose; no way like its ori­ginal Idea in the Jewish Church. This Grecian itch and humor of coining, fables (not for the illustration, but to the darkening of truth) the Jews also when they came under the Grecian Mo­narchie, sucked in to the prejudice of their Religion; wherein they were in like manner followed by those carnal Gospellers the Pythagorising Gnostics in the Christian Church: and al was by the father of Liars made use of as the foundation of Anti­christs throne, which was founded on Lying-wonders, or fabu­lose lies, as 2 Thes. 2.9. And this is a good key to open to us those bitter invectives used by the Apostles, specially Paul, a­gainst those Pythagorean and Jewish fables, which the Gnostics then endeavored, and Antichrist after them, to bring into the Temple of Christ. And it seems there was none more infested with these fable-coining Pythagorising Dreamers, than the Church at Ephesus, where Apollonius Tyanaeus, that great Pythagorean Sorcerer, had been, and as it's thought infused some of his poi­son about the same time that Timothie resided there. Also there were many Jews at Ephesus, who in this facultie of coi­ning Fables and Wonders fully jumped with the Pythagoreans; and both joyning their forces had a mighty influence on those many Gnostic Antichristian Fables, which creeped into the Chri­stians Theologie. Whence we see the ground why Paul in both his Epistles to Timothie, gives such severe censures of and cauti­ons against this Pythagorising Jewish humor of Fable-framing Philosophie; which he then saw creeping into the Church, and which he foresaw would give a mighty lift to help Antichrist on his throne.1 Tim. 1.3. So 1 Tim. 1.3, I besought thee to abide stil at Ephesus. Paul saw these Pythagorising Judaising Gnostics creeping into the Church at Ephesus, and by their Pythagorean Jewish Fables laying a foundation for Antichrist; wherefore he be­sought Timothie to continue at Ephesus, and behave himself there as a stout Soldier of Christ, against those Gnostic Anti­christian false Teachers. So it follows: [...], That thou maist charge some that they teach no other [Page 73]doctrine: i.e. That they do not overthrow the Gospel of Christ by their Pythagorean and Jewish Fables, as he expresseth him­self v. 4. [...], Neither give heed to fables. Ver. 4. [...]. [...] is a Philosophic notion, and amongst them it signified a Symbol or Fable, whereby they expressed some Philosophic mysterie. [...] & [...] are much of the same import amongst the Phi­losophers. Thus Plato oft makes mention, [...], Of a Syrian and Phenician Fable; also [...], of an ineffable fable, whereby he understandes some Oriental Hebraic Tradition. But [...] signifies also a feigned Oration, Fable, or fictitious dis­course: thence it is expounded by Hesychius, [...], vain false speech, representing truth. Thus it is taken in the New Testament, as here, so C. 4. v. 7. 2 Tim. 4.4. Tit. 1.14. 2 Pet. 1.16. of which hereafter. [...] does here also take in the Jewish Fables, which these vain Gnostics so much ad­dicted themselves unto. So Grotius on this place: ‘The Apostle treats here (saies he) of such as were converted from Judaisme to Christianisme, and mixed Jewish Fables with Christianitie, as it appears by what follows, also by Tit. 1.14, &c. Such were those Jewish Fables concerning those things which God did be­fore the beginning of the world; of the first man which God made [...], (i.e. partly man and partly woman) of his co­pulation with the bestes, and with Lilith, with the Demons that sprang thence; of Behemoth and Leviathan; of the Pre-exist­ence of Souls before the Bodie; of Angels their distribution into Stars and Regions; with the like.’ These Fables, though they were entertained by the Jews, yet were they many of them of Pythagorean extract; namely that of the first mans be­ing [...], which also Plato asserted; likewise the opinion of the Souls Pre-existence; to which we might adde that of the Metempseuchosis, which the Jews also, together with the Pytha­goreans and Platonistes asserted. It follows: [...], [...]. and endlesse Genealogies. These Genealogies the Jews cal [...], because they supposed successive Productions and Emanations one after another. So Philo Judaeus discourseth much of such Gene­alogies. The origine of these fabulose Genealogies began with the first Poets, Orpheus, Hesiod, &c. Pherecydes also had his [...], and the Pythagoreans after him filled up much of their Theologie with such fictitious Genealogies, whom the Jews followed herein, as also the Gnostics; the most of whose Divini­tie [Page 74]consisted of [...] and [...], Conjunctions, and from them Genealogies, how one thing joining with another begets a third; whence sprang their Aeones or fabulose Gods. So Grotius here: ‘They feigned Emanations and Productions of one from the o­ther: for which they would seem more learned than others, and so despised other Christians as more rude; vvhence they assumed the name of [...], Gnostics.’ I do not conceive that they were called Gnostics in the Apostles times, but in the follow­ing Age, partly from their own Pretensions to a [...], i. e. an high speculative, mystic knowlege; and partly from those Characters which are given them in Scripture, as hereafter. In­deed the whole of their Theologie seems to have consisted only of some mystic Fables and Genealogies, borrowed from the Py­thagorean Philosophie and Cabalistic Traditions. It follows: [...], which minister questions rather. i. e. These Pythagorean Jewish Fables, and Genealogies, taken up by these carnal Gnostics, produce nothing but vain Questions, which the Rabbines cal [...], than edifi­cation of God in faith. As if he had said, these Pythagorising Gnostics pretend to make use of these their Mystic Fables and Genealogies, as explications of Evangelic Dispensations and My­steries; but indeed they effect nothing lesse; for the Oecono­mie of the Gospel holds forth a plain and simple way of be­lieving in Christ,Vers. 5. without such fabulose narrations. So v. 5. [...], Now the end of the Commandment is Love. i.e. The scope and drift of our Gospel is Divine Love; whereas their pretended [...], or fabulose Speculations tend only to foment endlesse disputes and strises about words. Then our Apostle procedes to give us the true Genealogie of Divine Love, in opposition to the fabulose Genealogies of those Py­thagorising Gnostics: [...], out of a pure hears, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeined. Paul (saith Grotius) gives us a short but very useful Genealogie. The Pythagoreans, and Jews after them, make much ado about the Genealogies of Virtues. Philo Judaeus (who did greatly Pythagorise) turnes much of the Historie of the Old Testament into Allegoric Genealogies of Virtues, &c. The Gno­stics followed in the same pathes: Paul here gives us an easie and familiar Genealogie of true Christian Love, in opposition to all their Mystic Fables, which tended only to turne them aside to [Page 75]vain janglings. So v. 6. [...], From which some having swarved have turned aside to vain jang­ling. Ver. 6. [...] primarily notes such an one as unhappily erres from his scope or marque: Thence [...] signifies, either properly or fi­guratively, not to reach the marque. These Pythagorising Gnostics aimed at high Speculation and Mystic Notions, but they rea­ched not their marque or end, but fel into a vain contention and strife about words. [...] were such as busied themselves on­ly in vain disputes, as Tit. 1.10. or fabulose narrations, as these Gnostics here, who would fain passe for some grand Sophists or Teachers. So v. 7. [...],Ver. 7. desiring to be tea­chers of the Law. That first notion [...] is very emphatic, denoting here an ardent desire and ambitiose affectation of a name and repute for Doctors of the Law. ‘There were (saies Groti­us) many Jews at Ephesus, some of whom embraced Christia­nitie, but in shew only, retaining much of Judaisme. Amongst their Jewish Fables they asserted a Colloque of the Law with God before the Creation of the World; they would that the World should have been made for the Law.’ Thus fabulose and vain were these Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics, who delighted themselves in nothing more than in unintelligible fables. So it follows: [...], under­standing neither what they say, neither whereof they affirme: i. e. they wholly give up themselves to fabulose Genealogies and Mystic Traditions, which they neither understand, nor yet can affirme any thing positively of, as Tit. 3.8. which Fables are di­rectly opposite, [...], vers. 10. as also to that great Evangelic Cabala or Divine Tradition touching Christ, v. 15, This is a faithful saying and worthy of al acceptation, 1 Tim. 1.15. [...]. that Christ came into the world to save sinners, whereof I am chief. Our Apostle had in ver. 4. given a caution against those Pythagorean Cabalistic Fables and Genealogies, which the carnal Gnostics had sucked in, to the great prejudice of Evangelic Mysteries: in this v. 15. he gives them a Divine Cabala (in opposition to their fabulose Cabala, ver. 4.) [...], and worthy of al acceptation. [...] answers to the Hebrew [...] Cabala, unto which our Apostle seems here to allude, as Paulus Fagius has observed on Deut. 5.27. ‘Our Apostle, saies he, alludes to that Cabalistic mode: as if he had said, If any affect to hear a Ca­bala, I wil shew unto him the true certain and undouted Ca­bala, [Page 76]which is no other than this, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, &c.’ The origine of the Jewish Ca­bala. For the more ful explication here­of, we must know that the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Monarchie, imbibed together with many other grosse cor­ruptions this mythologic fabulose mode of Philosophising, which was so commun amongst the Grecian Philosophers, specially the Pythagoreans, and indeed proved the bane of the Jewish Reli­gion, as we shal shew hereafter. For look as Pagan Philoso­phie was in its origine but a corrupt Imitamen of Sacred Histo­rie 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 Philosophie; a­mongst which this of their Jewish Cabala was one of the worst. For these vain Jews growing weary of the plain and familiar simplicitie of Sacred Revelations, fal in love with that Mytho­logic, Symbolic, Enigmatic, or Mystic kind of Philosophising, which they observed amongst the Grecians, specially the Pythagoreans. This fabulose and Mystic mode of Philosophising they make use of in their Commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures, which they called [...] a Cabala, i.e. a reverential reception of their Rab­bies Traditions: wherein they grew so vain and fabulose, that there was not the most plain, naked, and Historic Text, but they would bring it under some Cabalistic, Enigmatic or Mystic sense: which they caled [...], or [...] the hidden sense, which must be curiosely searcht into. Whence it grew into a commun saying amongst these Cabalists, That there was no Scripture without its Cabalistic or Mystic sense. These Pythagorising Cabalists were at first followed by the licentiose Gnostics, whose whole designe was to compose a flesh-pleasing Theologie out of Pythagorean and Jewish Dogmes and Fables, which were afterward greedily re­ceived by Antichrist and his Adherents; who glorie much in their Mystic, or rather fabulose sense and interpretation of Scrip­tures. Yea it cannot be denied but that some of the Fathers, specially Origen (who being of the Alexandrian 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 fabulose mixtures in sacred Theologie.1 Tim. 4.7. [...]. We find the like sa­cred premonition, 1 Tim. 4.7. [...], [Page 77] But refuse profane and old wives fables. [...], from [...] an old woman, signifies anile, or absurd, ridiculose. ‘He under­standes, saith Grotius, the doctrine [...], of the Metempseuchose or Transmigration of Souls from one bodie to another, which is the foundation of this [...], abstinence. These Fables are first profane, because they are bottomed on no Divine Revelation; thence they are old wives fables, i. e. ab­surd, like such as old wives recite to Children.’ That this fable of the Metempseuchose, which Grotius conceives to be here un­derstood, was indeed of Pythagorean extract, has been at large proved. This and other Fables these Pythagorising Gnostics made the foundation of their Abstinences, wherein they were after­ward followed by Antichrist, whose Doctrines of Demons were but one great fable or lye; which the Apostle here dehortes al Christians from, under the name of Timothie, whom he exhortes rather to exercise himself to Godlinesse: But exercise thy self rather to Godlinesse. [...], properly signifies to exercise in the Gymnade. It follows, v. 8, 9, [...], &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 leven of the Jewish and Gnostic infusions. So Tit. 1.14, Not giving heed to Jewish fables: Tit. 1.14. [...]. There were in Crete many Jews, who had sucked in this Grecian humor of coining Fables. They had their Fables concerning Behemoth, Leviathan, [...], 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 al this we see how much Vanitie 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 Phe­nicians and Egyptians, from whom the Grecians derived it; and from these the Jewish Cabalists, after their subjection to the Grecian Monarchie, brought it back again and mixed it with their Divine Oracles and Mysteries, to the great prejudice of their Religion, as also of the Christian: for the Pythagorising Judaising Gnostics, to save themselves from persecution, did here­in symbolise both with the Jews and Grecians, as also Antichrist and al his adherents, vvho have been as fruitful in fabulose mystic Theologie, as the Grecians, Jews, or Gnostics ever were.

§. 2. Having demonstrated the Vanitie and Corruption of Philosophie,The Vanitie of Philosophie in regard of its Proprieties. specially Symbolic, from its forme or mode, we now procede to demonstrate the same from its Proprieties. And here­in we shal only mention such Proprieties, as the Philosophers themselves have made essential to true Philosophie; shewing how defective, yea corrupt their Philosophie was in regard of those very Attributes, which they themselves constituted as essen­tial thereto.1. The desici­ence of Philo­sophie as to truth. For, 1. The Philosophers generally supposed that Truth was an essential ingredient, yea the spirit of al Philoso­phie. This Plato largely proves, Repub. 6. pag. 485, &c. where he affirmes, That there could not be [...], any thing more proper to Wisdome than Truth; whence he addes, that it was impossible that the same nature should be [...], a Philosopher and yet a lover of falshood. That truth is an essential Attribute, yea indeed the principal end of al true Phi­losophie, see Philosoph. General. P. 2. l. 3. c. 1. Sect. 3. §. 1. Now that al the Pagan Philosophie was greatly defective, and thence vain in regard of this Proprietie, is evident in that it was not only for a great part fabulose and false, but wholly shadowy and conjectural only.1. It was for the most part false. (1) That a great part of the Ethnic Phi­losophie was fabulose and false, has been already sufficiently de­monstrated from its effential parts both Mater and Forme, name­ly that al Physic Speculations about the origine of the Universe, its first Mater, Forme, and Privation, &c. were but fabulose, and for the most part false Traditions about the first Creation: that their Ethics were but false, or at best imperfect Ideas of Virtues: that their Politics were but carnal, and so false Rea­sons of State; and therefore stiled in the Scripture, tromperie, deceit and lies, as Psal. 119.113, 118, 128, 163. That the whole of their Theologie, as to their Doctrine of Demons, &c. was most corrupt and Idolatric. We have al summed up, Rom. 1.28. [...], i.e. a drossy, spurious, reprobate mind or judgement. 2. Philosophie but a night-day. (2) That the whole of Pagan Philosophie was but [...], (according to the Platonic notion) a cloudy dark nocturne Philosophie, is most apparent; whence it also follows, that it had little of truth in it: for al true knowlege supposeth ideal ex­istence or in-being of the Object in the Understanding; also that this existence, which the Object has in us, be agreable to the existence it has in it self, otherwise our conceptions of it cannot be said to be true. For what is knowlege but the Imi­tamen, [Page 79]Idea, or Image of a thing impressed on the Mind? how then can any have a true knowlege of a thing, unlesse the sub­jective Idea in his mind exactly answer to the objective Idea of the thing in it self? Yea, he that Philosophiseth on a thing truely, must have in his formal conceptions the latitude, and other dimensions of the thing; also its Causes, Proprieties, Qua­lities, Operations and natural effects, al which suppose the inhe­rence of the thing in the mind, (not Physically, but) in its ideal forme 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 easie to guesse by their own Confessions. Plato ingenuously confesseth, That al men did but as it were dream in their contemplations and notions of things: And this dreaming Philosophie he thus describeth, Repub. 5. p. 476. [...], To dream, is when a man counts that which is like to another, not like, but the same with that other, to which it is like. So agen, saies he, [...], &c. Men curi­ose to hear and see are much taken with beautiful, words and co­lors, and figures, and whatsoever procedeth hence: [...], but it is im­possible for the mind of such to see and embrace the nature of beautie it self, (he means God.) Then he addes, That such as judge of good things, but yet cannot judge of good it self, or the first Beautie, can be said only, [...], to live in a sleep or dream. Such he cals, pag. 480. [...], Lo­vers of opinion rather than lovers of wisdome; which is a true character of al the Philosophers. The like Plato addes, Repub. 7. pag. 534. [...], Such an one knoweth not either good it self, or any other good; but if he hath attained to some shadow of good, it is rather in opinion than certain knowlege: 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 speakes not universally of al Philosophers, but only of some who rested satisfied in the con­templation of some lower shadows, pictures, or reflexions of [Page 80]good, but contemplated not the supreme original Good, Beau­tie it self, or God: But yet upon the supposition of his Positi­on, viz. That al true Philosophie leads men unto and terminates on God, the knowlege, love and imitation of him, as [...], the first Beautie and Good it self; this, I say, being granted, (as it is eternally true) hence our assertion wil neces­sarily follow, that the wisest of these blind Philosophers were indeed but Dreamers, void of al true practic knowlege of God. But wil you hear Plato speaking Categorically and universally of the whole masse of Mankind plunged in Cimmerian darknesse? Consult then what he laies down in his Repub. 7. pag. 514. ‘Let us suppose (saies he according to his Allegoric mode) a Subterraneous habitation in the fashion of a Den, whose en­trance lies open at a great distance; in which there are men even from their infance bound neck and heels together, lying on the ground, and beholding nothing but what lies before them, without being able to turne their heads: Let there be likewise a fire kindled over head behind their backs afar off: Let there be also a way made betwixt the persons bound and the fire, for men to passe up and down, and a wal made some distance from the way, and over-topping it: Then let men walk up and down, carrying statues and vesseles of al sorts, some­times talking, sometimes silent: Hence let their some shadows of the shining fire fal upon the opposite part of the Den; nei­ther let these men behold any thing save these shadows: with­out dout they wil think these shadows to be the things them­selves, and the truth of the very things: they wil think also the words of the men walking over head to be the words of these shadows. Such is the state of these men lying bound in darknesse: The Den is this World in which we men lie pro­strate on the ground bound by chaines of native ignorance, so that we cannot turne our heads about, whence we cannot con­template the true light [...], of Being, [i. e. God] or [...], of other Beings; but we can see only the shadows of things, which yet we guesse are the things themselves; and thus we accommodate our words, which are [...], the sym­bols of things, &c.’ Thus Plato ingenuously acknowlegeth mans native ignorance, in words worthy of a Christian. He sayes p. 533. that Human nature is fallen into a gulf of darknesse and ignorance: [...], The eye [Page 81]of the soul is immerst in the barbaric mire of Ignorance. Agen he tels us, Rep. 7. p. 521. how the Soul may be delivered from these chains of native ignorance, and that his Philosophie was intended for this use: [...], To be is the knowlege of the reduction of the Soul from its night-day (or ignorance) to the true knowlege of Being. (or God.) This knowlege of God he cals [...], the Idea of the chiefest Good: also the Contemplation [...], of being, not according to o­pinion, but according to essence. This he terms [...], true Philosophie; which he and al 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 Philosophie, I think is evident by what has been said. But the Scripture speakes more fully of the falshood and vanitie of Pagan Philosophie: so in that famose Text, Col. 2.8, Philosophie and vain deceit; i.e. as Grotius, vain and deceitful Philosophie. So 1 Tim. 6.20,1 Tim. 6.20. [...], of false knowlege; which Grotius understands of the Pythagorising Gnostics, their Philosophic infusions. [...] from [...] a lie, signifies primarily falsely so called, assuming a name not belonging to it, or, not answering its name. These Py­thagorising wanton Gnostics affected the name of Mysterious sci­ence, or knowlege; they would fain passe for knowing men, such as had a deep insight into the most abstruse Mysteries: But Paul assures us, That al their Mystic science was but falsly termed such: their spinose and argute questions were but frivo­lous and vain, imbibed from the Pythagorean source, and no way deserving the name of true science. So Clemens Alexandr. applying this Scripture to the Gnostics, saies, [...], as pride and arrogant opinion spoiled Philosophie, so false knowlege, knowlege, &c. With which that of Plato suites wel, [...], I think no­thing has done so much hurt to man as false opinion. To all which we may adde that of our Lord, Luk. 11.35, Take heed that the light which is in thee be not darknesse; i.e. content not thy self with [...], a dark, spurious, false night-Philosophie, &c.

§. 3. A second Proprietie of true Philosophie, according to [Page 82]the Philosophers themselves,2. Proprietie of vain Phi­losophie, that it is only Tradi­tional, Equivo­cal and Artifi­cial, not Intui­tive and na­tive. is that it be a contemplation of things, [...], or [...], not only by phantasmes or imaginations, but according to the nature or essence of the things themselves: i. e. al true Philosophie gives a natural or native Idea of things; it is substantial, solid, real, intuitive knowlege. But now it's apparent, that Pagan Philosophie was but artificial imitamens, traditional emty notions, and aerial speculations about the pictures of things; they never saw nor yet understood the things themselves, more than by some broken corrupt Tradition. And surely this gives us a great demonstration of its vanitie. We have sufficiently proved, that al Pagan Philosophie was no other than traditional imperfect corrupt Imitamens of Jewish Revelations and wisdome. 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 conveighed 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, Pagan Philoso­phie but an equivocal pi­cture, not an univocal image or idea of truth. 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 Signe-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 Philosophie of the Pagans, and the real, sub­stantial, native, univocal Wisdome vouchsafed the Jewish Church. That al Pagan Philosophie was but an equivocal image, an arti­ficial picture, or rather but an imperfect dark traditional shadow of Divine Wisdome and Philosophie, may be easily gathered by their own concessions: so Plato, Repub. 10. [...], Mimes or imitators make only phantasmes or pictures, not things. This he more fully explicates elsewhere, telling us, That imitation is the third degree from truth; for it considers not the things themselves, but their [...], Idols or pictures, [...], making phantasmes of thing. Agen, Repub. 10. he addes, [...], [Page 83] The Mime wil neither know nor think aright of those things he imitates as to good or evil. This he does more fully explain in what follows, [...], The Imitator knows nothing worthy of reason about those things he imi­tates; but imitation is but a kind of jeast or play, not a serious studie. This he proves in that al imitation is employed only in drawing shadows of things, it reacheth not the things them­selves. This indeed is an exact character of Pagan Philosophie, which was but an artificial imitation of, or shadow reflected from Jewish Wisdome and Mysteries. These Gentile Philosophers, the most sharp-sighted of them, saw those Divine Mysteries they so boldly Philosophised on in a Mimic broken glasse, or abstract Idea only, conveighed to them by some imperfect corrupt Tra­dition; they had not any real intuitive vision or contemplation of the things themselves in their own native Idea, Proprieties and Effects. Thus much is acknowleged by Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 476. where speaking of such as were very curiose to hear sweet words, and contemplate beautiful colors and figures, he saies, [...], It is impossible for the reason of such intuitively to be­hold and embrace the nature of beautie it self. 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 glasse or abstract of Jewish Tradition, but never had an intuitive contemplation of those Divine Mysteries shining in their own real, native, gloriose Ideas on the glasse of Sa­cred Revelation in the Jewish Church. Thus much indeed seems acknowleged by Plato himself in the aforesaid place, Repub. 5. pag. 476. [...], Are there not very few if any who are able to know and contemplate beautie it self, [i.e. God] according to himself? i.e. intuitively. Whence he addes, [...]; Is not this therefore true knowlege, to con­template the first Being in his native perfections, [...], as being, under this reduplication? Agen, Repub. 5. pag. 480. Plato concludes thus, [...], Such therefore as have embraced this singular self-Being, are to be called Philosophers, not Opiniators, or lovers of [Page 84]opinion. i. e. None deserve the name of Philosophers, but such as have had a real intuition and contemplation of God; al others are but lovers of phantasmes, pictures, or opinions. And Plato in his Philebus, pag. 40, gives us a more particular [...], or dis­crimination of such Philosophers as had this intuitive, real know­lege, [...], 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 addes) contemplate only beautiful colors and pictures, not beautie it self. And if so, we may certainly conclude, that there was not one of those Heathen Philosophers that was truely such as they pretended to be; for they were al wicked men, and there­fore could not have a real, native, intuitive contemplation of God, who is Beautie it self, which they make to be essential to al true genuine Philosophie.Col. 2.18.23. [...]. Thus much also our Apostle, in his dis­course of that vain Pythagorean Philosophie, which was suckt in by the Gnostics, Col. 2.18, 23. v. 18. he speakes of their intru­ding into things they had not seen. [...] signifies, proudly in­vading or intruding into things beyond their reach; as before, c. 1. §. 3. i.e. They pretended to an intuitive knowlege of An­gels, &c. but Paul gives a true character of al their Philoso­phie, v. 23. which things have indeed a shew of wisdome; [...], i. e. of some excellent Philosophic Contemplations, or sublime notions, which seem rather to be dropt from Heaven than in­vented by men: but al this, saies our Apostle, is but a shew. [...], i.e. saith Erasmus, a species or forme, as 'tis opposed to a thing or substance; they had only a picture and artificial forme of wisdome, or rather a false opinion, or apparent shadow, not a real substantial intuitive contemplation of things. This our Apo­stle affirmes universally of the Jewish wisdome or Philosophie in its degenerate state,Rom. 2.20. [...]. Rom. 2.20. [...], a forme of knowlege. [...] signifies the forme 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 forme, or artificial scheme, and picture of truth; so Oecumenius, [...], manife­sting that they had not the true knowlege and godlinesse, but an ar­tificial [Page 85]image; for they had the scheme of truth, not the substance. Thence Hesychius expounds [...] by [...], an artificial scheme; and Phavorinus, by [...], a feigned scheme, forme, or picture of true knowlege; how much short were the blind Pagans of any real, solid, substantial knowlege of things Divine? Is not this proper only to the true Church and peo­ple of God? Thence it's said, Prov. 2.7,Prov. 2, 7. He layeth up sound wisdome for the righteous. [...] signifies primarily, that which really is essence, substance; thence it notes real, solid, and sub­stantial wisdome, 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 wisdome.

§. 4. Hence it follows, that al Pagan Philosophie is only universal and general, not particular and experimental; 3. Pagan Phi­losophie vain; because only general, not particular and experimental. which gives us a farther demonstration of its imperfection and vanitie, specially as to Morals and Metaphysics. For Aristotle rightly in­formes us, that universal knowlege in maters of practice is vain, but particular more true. So Aristot. Eth. lib. 2. cap. 7. [...], In Practic discourses universals are more vain, but particulars more true; for Actions are about singu­lars. This the Civilian has wel observed: ‘Then only (as Ari­stotle saies) we know any thing, when its parts are known and considered by us.’ i. e. When its Causes, Effects, Adjuncts, Qualities and Parts are apprehended by us. And it is a recei­ved opinion in the Scholes, ‘That to know a thing in universal, as to the thing known, is more imperfect than to know it in particular; though an universal knowlege, as to the medium of knowing, be more perfect than a particular.’ Now this was the case of al 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 Origine of the Universe, the state of Innocence, the Fal of Man, &c. but al their Philosophi­sings [Page 86]on, or notions of these things were only general, and so very imperfect and vain. Yet the main of their vanitie in this regard lay not so much in Naturals as in Morals and Superna­turals: For it cannot be denied, but that many of the Pagan Philosophers had very particular, experimental, and curiose Con­templations about Natural things; they were very exact in anatomising the bowels of Nature, and gathering up a Systeme of Natural Experiments, which is the choisest part of Natural Philosophie, as it appears by Aristotle's excellent Historie 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 Philosophie was only traditional, general, and notional, not particular and experimental; and therefore very vain and uselesse. This also may be demonstrated out of Plato's own Concessions; for in his Theaetetus he laies down this as his opinion, [...], It seems to me, that he who knows any thing has a sensate cognition of what he knows; for, as it now appears, science is nothing else than sensation, or a particu­lar experimental feeling knowlege. So Timaeus, pag. 103. [...], wisdome is a good sense of soul. So Plato in his Gorgias, [...], Experience makes our life to passe away according to rules of art, but Inexperience casually. Agen he addes, That an experimental Philosopher only can judge prudently of things; for, [...], persons unexperienced of the truth and other maters, have no sound opinions of pleasure and sorrow. Now that none of these blind Philosophers had this [...], good sensation, or experimental particular knowlege of good and evil, pleasure or sorrow, is most evident; because they had not [...], a good ha­bitude of soul, which they themselves make essentially requisite to this spiritual good sensation or experimental Philosophie. So Aristotle, Eth. lib. 3. cap. 6. [...], A virtuose man judgeth truely of what is good, but a wicked man casually: as it is in bodies, such as are wel-disposed can judge truely of things that are wholesome, or con­ducing to health; but those who are sick, otherwise; for to these [Page 87]bitter and sweet have the same relish. This indeed was the very case of al these Pagan Philosophers, they had [...], an il habi­tude of soul; and so were void of this [...], right sensation, or experimental knowlege; they had not those [...], Heb. 5.14. which rendred al their Morals and Metaphy­sics vain.

§. 5. Whence it follows, That al Pagan Philosophie is but cloudy, obscure, and confused, not evident, clear, and distinct: 4. Pagan Phi­losophie cloudy and confused, not evident and distinct. for it is a commun and true maxime, that in Ʋniversals and Generals there lies much Ambiguitie, Obscuritie, and Confusion; al clear, evi­dent, distinct judgement procedes from the consideration of par­ticulars. And that the evident, clear, distinct contemplation of things is essential to al genuine Philosophie may be easily ga­thered from the Philosophers themselves, their own acknowlege­ments. Plato, Epinom. pag. 976. makes mention of an admirable facultie of discerning, which belongs to a Philosopher; [...], &c. Which many cal nature ra­ther than wisdome; and it is conversant in this, that a man does with facilitie and dexteritie learne a thing, and having learned it, commit it to a faithful and firme memorie, and recals it with cele­ritie as occasion serves. This some cal [...], wisdome; others [...], nature; others [...], Sagacitie of nature. This na­tural Sagacitie is thus described, Platon. definit. [...], Sagacitie is a good disposition of soul, whereby he that has it is enabled to discerne what becomes every one; or more briefly in what follows, [...], an a­cumen of judgement. This, saies Plato Repub. 2. pag. 376. Dogs are in some sense endowed with, which have a natural sagacitie to discerne their friend from their foe, only by the countenance. This Repub. 7 pag. 537. he makes a character of his Logician, that he be [...], one that can accurately look into and distinguish things. And in his Repub. 9. he makes a Philosopher to be [...], a diacritic or very critic instrument; for look as the eye is [...], an accurate critic of bodies, such should the Philosophers mind be of good and evil. He tels us also in the same Repub. 9. whence this critic judgement springs, [...], a critic judgement is made by Experience and Prudence, and Reason or Discourse. And Seneca Epist. 71. tels us, ‘That Socrates, who reduced al Philo­sophie to Morals, affirmed, that this was the highest wisdome; [Page 88] to distinguish betwixt good and evil.’ By al which it is evident how little of true wisdome 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 [...], dexteritie; which according to the Platonic definition, is [...], an habit of choo­sing what is best; which al wil grant these Pagan Philosophers were void of. And indeed Plato ingenuously confesseth, That this facultie of distinguishing or discerning what was best, was not commun, but peculiar to the judgement of Jupiter. And Aristotle seems sensible of this, that there was much difficultie in distin­guishing betwixt truth and falshood; because there was so much falshood like to truth. So Rhet. l. 1. c. 1. [...], for it belongs to the same facultie to judge of truth, and that which is like unto truth. Which facultie he and the rest of his Tribe were greatly void of; for how often does a falshood, if like to truth, passe with them for truth? so confused and indistinct were they in al their Philoso­phemes. This is excellently set forth by Aristotle, Ethic. l. 3. c. 6. [...], for a righteous man judgeth rightly of althings, &c. Then he addes, that this righteous or virtuose man doth accurately difference things, [...], being as it were the canon, rule, and measure of althings: i.e. (saith Lambinus) not that truth dependes upon the judgement of a vir­tuose man, but that his judgement is conformed to truth. But then Aristotle concludes, [...], the most of men seem to be under deceit by reason of pleasure, &c. This indeed was the case of al those poor Philosophers; their foolish hearts were darkened and deceived by lust, which ren­dred their Philosophie, specially in Morals and Supernaturals, ex­treme confused and cloudy. It is Faith only, according to Heb. 11.1. that is [...], an evidence of things not seen, i.e. Supernatural.Heb. 11.1. [...]. [...] is either (1) a natural evidence; as the light is the evidence of it self and althings else. (2) A Philoso­phic evidence, as first principes are in themselves most evident, and give evidence to al other lower principes; or as a demon­strative argument is evident, and gives evidence to the conclu­sion. (3) Legal evidence; which is either of Right or Fact. (4) Supernatural evidence; such is Faith of things naturally and rationally invisible.

§. 6. Another Adjunct, 5. Pagan Phi­losophie incer­tain and Opini­ative only. which the Philosophers made essen­tial to their Philosophie, is Stabilitie and Certaintie of Assent. For, saies Plato, Repub. 5. such as content themselves with fluid weak Opinions, are not [...], Philosophers, but [...], lovers of Opi­nions. So agen in his Phaedrus, pag. 262. [...], He that knows not the truth, but hunts after Opinions, wil exhibit only a ri­diculose and inartificial Art. But Repub. 6. pag. 506. more fully thus, [...], 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 any thing from blind men, who, though going on in a right way, have only some opinions about truth without understanding? surely nothing. Whence he con­cludes, That it is not lawful to contemplate base and blind Opini­ons, when things more certain are before us. And in his Meno he gives us the privilege of a certain knowlege above opinion; [...], He that has science or certain knowlege alwaies reach­eth what he aimes at; but he that has only a right opinion some­times attaines his end, sometimes not. Now that these Pagan Philosophers had not this Scientific or certain knowlege 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 knowlege is the re­sult of [...], Demonstration, which supposeth a clear, stedfast knowlege of the Causes, and their causal connexion with the Ef­fect; which the Pagan Philosophie was, in its chiefest parts, wholly destitute of. For what jejune and slender notices had these purblind Sophists touching God, the first Cause of althings, his great Productive Acts of Creation and Providence? The cer­tain knowlege hereof dependes wholly on Divine Revelation, the proper object of Faith, according to Heb. 11.3, Through faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God. By which it's evident, that there can be no certain unmoveable assent or knowlege touching the first origine of things, (which comprehends a great part of Pagan Philosophie) but what pro­cedes from Faith assenting unto Divine Revelation. Whence [Page 90]the Spirits act in working this assent is called [...],1 Cor. 2.4. [...]. 1 Cor. 2.4. Demonstration, i.e. The assent wrought by the Spirit of God is as certain, as assent wrought by Mathematic ocular Demonstration. [...] is a Mathematic notion, noting a most potent and essica­cious conviction of the mind, which leaves no place for douting; and so it's opposed to [...], which signifies a dark Adum­bration, or rude draught, like the first lines in a demonstration; whereas [...] signifies a complete scientific certain assent. The Pagan Philosophers had some kind of [...], or [...], dark adumbration, or shadowy description of the first principes of na­ture, &c. which they received by some broken Traditions from the Jews; but they had not this [...], Demonstration, or cer­tain assent touching the Worlds origine: this is peculiar to Di­vine Faith, bottomed on Sacred Revelation, as Heb. 11.3. Yea, Divine Faith has according to its Sacred character,Col. 2.2. Col. 2.2. an objective [...], i.e. a ful, stable, certain persuasion of the ve­racitie or truth of its Object; the Metaphor being taken from a Ship carried with ful sails.Luk. 1.1. The like Luk. 1.1. [...], of those things which are fully and certainly assented unto by us. Every Believer has a direct, adhesive plerophorie, or certain assent touching the certaintie of the things contained in the Word of God; albeit he has not a reflexe plerophorie, or cor­tain assurance of his own proprietie and interest therein. Thence Gal. 3.1,Gal. 3.1. [...]. Before whose eyes Christ has been evidently set forth: [...], painted forth, or drawn to the life; they had as cer­tain and stedfast a vision of Christ by faith, as they had who stood by the Crosse and saw him crucified. This [...] is opposed to Plato's [...], dark adumbration, or opinionative knowlege. The Divine Faith of Jews and Christians gives them a ful, sted­fast, certain, spiritual vision of things invisible as to sense or rea­son, Heb. 11.27. [...]. But now the wisest of the Pagan Philosophers had only the [...], dark shadowy notices of these Divine Revelations from Jewish Traditions. The Schole-men tel us, that the certaintie 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 knowlege of the principes of Philosophie which they pretended unto. We have for this a great acknow­legement by Plutarch, one of the wisest moderne Philosophers, [Page 91]who in the life of Coriolanus speaketh thus: ‘Many times we think we hear what we do not hear, and we imagine we see what we see not; yet notwithstanding such as are piously bent, and zelosely given to think on heavenly things, so as they can be no waies drawn from believing that which is spoken of them, they have this reason to ground the foundation of their belief on; that is, the Omnipotence of God, which is wonder­ful, and hath no manner of ressemblance or likenesse of proportion unto ours, but is altogether contrary, as touching our nature, our moving, our art, and our force; and therefore if he do any thing impossible unto us, or doth bring forth and devise things above man's commun reach and understanding, we must not therefore think it impossible at al. For if in other things he is contrary to us, much more in his workes and operations he far surpasseth al the rest.’ [...], Many of the Divine ma­ters are (according to Heraclitus) by reason of our unbelief hidden from our knowlege. Thus Plutarch ingenuously acknowlegeth their ignorance of Divine affairs, as also the root of al, which he makes to be unbelief. This incertaintie of Pagan Philosophie gives us a farther Demonstration of its vanitie.

§. 7. Philosophers give this as a proprietie of true Philoso­phie,6. Pagan Phi­losophie not truely discur­sive, but sophi­stic or paralo­gistic. that it be [...], & [...], Dianoetic, Dia­logistic, and Dialectic or Discursive. i. e. originally springing from, and ultimately determining in some necessary first Princi­pes. Thence Philosophie is described in the Platonic definitions, [...], a true and unerring Ratioci­nation in the Dianoetic judgement. Thence Plato under the terme of Dialectic or Logic seems to comprehend the whole of his Philosophie. So in his Repub. 7. pag. 533. [...], Dialectic method procedes this way only, namely that removing the Hypotheses it may arrive to the first principe, and lay a firme foundation for assent — using other arts as auxiliarie aides. Agen in the same Repub. 7. he de­fines his Logician thus: [...], 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 knowlege of [Page 92]God, the first Principe, who is [...], as the Plato­nists speak, the sum and comprehension of al reason or discourse. By which it is apparent, that al Pagan Philosophie was not true­ly Logistic or discursive, but rather paralogistic and sophistic. For indeed most of their Disputes were but [...], contentiose Ratiocinations, vain both in their Principes and Conclusions. This Paul takes notice of in Rom. 1.21.Rom. 1.21. Vain in their imagina­tions. [...], In their disputes, or Dialogistic Ratioci­nations: for their ancient way of disputing was by Dialogues, or Interrogations and Answers, agreable to the Judaic Argumen­tation, as we have shewen, 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 knowlege of God the first Principe.1 Tim 6.4, 5. So 1 Tim. 6.4. Doting about questions; [...]. Which, as he addes, were but [...], strifes about words no way conducing to edification. Or, as he addes v. 5. [...], very busie, but perverse discourses about trifles. So that indeed al their Philosophic [...], disputes, were but [...], per­verse or false reasonings no way conducing to clear up truth or any first principes, as has been observed Chap. 1. §. 6.

§. 8. Another Attribute,Pagan Philoso­phie not truely Noetic, or In­telligent. or if you wil, formal part of Pa­gan Philosophie is, that it be [...], Noetic or Intelligent; i.e. comprehensive of the first and highest Principes. This part of Philosophie they usually stile [...], Intelligence; which they make to be a comprehension of the first Principes of Science; and so distinguish it from Dianoetic Philosophie, which is the assent to Conclusions by discourse from first principes; as also from [...], Sapience, which they take to be the knowlege of the most ex­cellent Being, God, &c. But Plato seems to make [...], Intelli­gence, and [...] Wisdome, to be the same, and so at present we shal consider them. This Intelligence or Sapience Plato makes to be the supreme and most perfect of al Sciences. So Repub. 6. pag. 511. [...], Intelligence in the highest place; which afterward he cals [...], the most perfect of al; and [...], the end of al Disciplines: unto which al o­ther Arts ought to be subservient. So in his Phileb. pag. 58. he termes it, [...], the principal Science; because it pre­scribeth mea2ure, weight, and rules to al other Sciences. And the original ground why this Intelligence or Sapience is so excellent [Page 93]a Science Plato laies down, Repub. 7. pag. 513. ‘Where he makes [...] Intelligence to be the highest of Sciences; because it is em­ployed in the contemplation of [...], the first Being, or [...], the first Beautie, and [...], namely from firme and eternal principles, [...], proceding by discourse to that which is singular; having cast off the ministerie [...], of Idols: it quits not this contemplation until [...], it comprehendes by its Intelligence that which is good it self.’ This he explains more fully in his Theaetetus, pag. 140. where he saies, this Intelligence is [...], the returne of the soul from its night-day to the true light of Being; i. e. of God. Whence he addes, pag. 176. [...], The knowlege of this first Being is true sapience and virtue, but the ig­norance of him the worst rudenesse and evil. So Alcibiad. 2. pag. 146. he saies, [...], that the knowlege of other sciences, without the knowlege of that which is best, is little advantageous. This gives us a farther demonstration of the vanitie of al Pagan Philosophie; which notwithstanding al its pretensions, was altogether void of this Divine Intelligence or Sapience. Thus much indeed Plato acknowlegeth in his Phileb. saying, that the knowlege of the one infinite Being was, [...], a gift of God to men: which in his Theages, he saies, God gives to none but such as are his friends. And Plato, Repub. 6. p. 483. gives us a large Ana­logie, or proportion, 'twixt the light of the Sun and this know­lege of God; shewing, that as the eye cannot contemplate the Sun but by its own light, so neither can the mind contemplate [...], or [...], Being it self; i.e. God, unlesse there be [...], some Idea or beam of this chiefest Good; which, saies he, is the cause of al truth in every intelligent facultie, 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 wil denie.

§. 9. Another formal Attribute or part they give Philoso­phie is, that it be [...], Prudential. Of this [...], Prudence, 8. Pagan Phi­losophie defe­ctive as to Pru­dence, viz. 1. Part of Prudence self-reflexion. they make several parts. (1) Self-reflexion, or the knowlege of our selves, specially our Souls. So Plato, in his Alcibiad. 1. pag. 133. [...], [Page 94] If the soul wilknow it self, must it not reflect upon it self? — And to know himself, we confesse is wisdome. And he addes, that such as know not them­selves know not either their goods or their ils, or any thing else that belongs unto them, &c. [...], Therefore this part thereof seems to be most like to the Divinitie; and if any reflect thereon, and behold al that is Divine, and God, and Sapience, he shal 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 Wisdome, and our selves. So de legib. 1. pag. 650. he saith, It is the most profitable of al Sciences to know, 2. [...], or Providence. [...], the dispositions and habits of the souls. (2) A part of this Prudence they cal [...] Providence; which the Platonists thus define, [...], Providence is a Preparation for something future. Whence say they it is the part of prudent persons [...] to foresee difficulties. And because they estimed no­thing more difficult than to die wel, thence Pythagoras, Plato, and Tullie define Philosophie, 3: [...] the Contemplation of Death. (3) The chiefest part of the Philosophers Prudence consisted in the framing of happinesse. So in the Platonic definitions: [...], Prudence is a science effective of happinesse. So Stobaeus, Serm. 1. [...], Prudence is the science of Happinesse as to life. So Aristo­tle. 4. [...], or [...]. (4) As to present affaires, they make this Prudence to con­sist in the right disposing and ordering of althings with subser­vience to our last end. So Pittachus makes Prudence to lie in [...], the right management of what is before us. And Socrates makes a young mans Wisdome to be [...], the do­ing nothing rashly. This Plato cals [...], good consultation. So Rep. 4. pag. 428. [...]. And Aristotle makes Prudence to be [...], a consultation what is to be done, 5. Practical knowlege. and what not. (5) More particularly the Philosophers made Prudence to be [...], a knowlege of good and of evil. i.e. [1] Rightly to distinguish betwixt good and evil. [2] To imitate what is best: [...], Lay up what is best, and those things do thou imitate, Stob. Serm. 3. [3] [...], To use things con­ducing to this life wel, as Plato Charm. [4] To preserve the recti­tude [Page 95]of the wil, and regular order in the affections, &c. By al which Descriptions of Prudence it is apparent these blind Phi­losophers were altogether void of it. For (1) How seldome or never did they reflect on their actions, souls, and state? (2) How little foresight of, but much lesse preparation for a future state, had they? (3) How little influential on future happinesse was al their Prudence? (4) How little practic or directive as to present affaires was their Prudence? (5) Much lesse could they attain to any true virtue by al their Prudence. Indeed al their human Wisdome or Prudence was but carnal policie, according to the Platonic definition, [...], Craft is an affection, whereby he that has it is enabled to designe his private interest; which is the greatest solie, accor­ding to Eccles. 10.3. His wisdome faileth him; [...] his heart, or his Prudence.

§. 10. The last Proprietie ascribed to Pagan Philosophie is [...], a plastic, efformative, or transforming virtue: 9. Pagan Phi­losophie defe­ctive as to that transforming power they pretended to So Plato, Repub. 6. [...], The Philosopher conversing with what is Divine and excellent, becomes also, so far as its possible for a man, Divine and excellent: by imi­tating these Divine things we become like to them. Agen, Gorgias, p. 460. he tels us, [...], He that studies any thing is wrought by his science into the likenesse of that which he studies, — and he that studies righteousnesse becomes righteous. But he speaks more fully, Repub. 6. p. 501. where shewing how Philo­sophers by their institutes do forme men according to the Divine Exemplar: This Divine Product in men (saies he) Homer cals [...], Deiforme, or little God in man. The like Rep. 9. p. 592. [...], But there is placed in Heaven a most ex­act exemplar for any that wil to contemplate, and by contemplating conforme himself unto it. Agen, Theaetet. p. 176. he tels us, That the Soul's [...], &c. assimilation unto God, so far as 'tis possible in righteousnesse and holinesse, is the product of Wisdome, or Philosophie. But this Divine Metamorphose, or Transformation is peculiar to Divine and saving Faith, accor­ding to 2 Cor. 3.18. [...], we are transformed; 2 Cor. 3.18. i.e. by beholding the gloriose Ideas of Divine Wisdome and Grace, re­flected [Page 96]from the face of Christ on the glasse of the Gospel, we are by the efficaciose concurrence of the Spirit changed into the same gloriose image of Christ. This Pagan Philosophie could never reach: al its transformative virtue was to change mens minds and conversations into the image of Satan. Such was its Vanitie and Insufficience to reach those ends, which those blind Philosophers proposed to themselves. But this may suffice to shew the Vanitie of Pagan Philosophie from its Formal nature, Attributes or Adjuncts.

CHAP. I. Pagan Philosophie the Cause of Pagan Idolatrie, Judaic Apostasie, and Errors in the Primitive Churches of Christ.
Pagan Philosophie 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 Idolatrie, specially Demon-worship, Ima­ges, &c. As to Atheisme, which was the product of Physics, Mathematics, Politics and Eristic Philosphie. (4) Jewish A­postasie from Pagan Philosophie; [1] The Jewish Baalim, or Demons. [2] The Aposasie of the Jews after the Captivitie from Pagan Philosophie. The Jewish Cabala from Pythagorean Symbolic Philosophie. So likewise their Talmud. (5) Pagan Phi­losophie the cause of the great Errors in the Primitive Churches, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17. [...]. (1) The Gnostic Errors from Pagan Philosophie; their Mystic Theologie from Mythologic, Sym­bolic Philosophie, [1] Their Aeones from Philosophic Ideas and Demons, 1 Joh. 2.18. [...]. [2] Their [...], from Pythagorean Institutes. [3] Forbidding Mariages, 1 Tim. 4.3. [4] Abstinences. [5] Sorceie. [6] Sensualitie. [7] Expi­ations. [8] Allegoric Resurrection. (2) Pagan Philosophie the cause of many Errors amongst the Fathers, specially those of the Scholes of Alexandria. (3) The Errors of Samosetanus and Ari­us had their rise in the Schole of Alexandria, from the Platonic Contemplations about [...], &c. (4) Pagan Philosophie the cause of Pelagianisme, which was founded by Origen and the Orige­nists, with other Greek Fathers, who did too much symbolise with Pagan Philosophers herein. A Summarie of Pelagianisme and Augustin's zele against it.

§. 1. WE have discoursed of the Vanitie of Pagan Philoso­phie from its Causes, Essential Partes, and Attri­butes; we now procede to demonstrate the same from its Ef­fects; wherein there appeares much more Vanitie than in the former. The many vain Effects of Pagan Philosophie 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 Apostasie.Pagan Philoso­phie vain as to its Effects. (1.) It came short of its End. We are to begin with the cor­rupt Effects of vain Philosophie 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 Vanitie, 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 Philoso­phie to reduce the Soul to that natural state of knowing and enjoying God, which it was possessed of in Innocence. So Philo­sophie is defined by Plato, [...], The reduction of the soul from its night-day to the true sight of Being, i.e. God. Agen, he cals Philosophie the contemplation, love, and imitation of God. But now how far al Pagan Philosophie came short of this End, is evident by what has been laid down in the foregoing Discourses. Yea take Phi­losophie in its zenith or meridian glorie, and it was but a mere [...], Theorie, [...], likenesse, or [...], as Rom. 2.20, forme of knowledge. It gave not the least [...], Me­tamorphose to the Soul, as Faith is said to do, 2 Cor. 3.8. [...]. Solomon gives an excellent character of al the Pagan Philosophers,Prov. 7.7. [...] Prov. 7.7, And beheld amongst the simple ones — a young man void of understanding. [...] of an heart: i.e. Practic understanding.Eccl. 10.2, 3. [...] So Eccles. 10.2, 3, we have an excellent antithese betwixt a true Philosopher and the vain: we find the true Phi­losopher characterised thus, v. 2, A wise mans heart is at his right; i.e. his Philosophie or Wisdome is practic and directive, he can make use of it on al occasions. But a fools heart is at his left; i.e. his Philosophie is no way practic or operative. So it follows, v. 3, Yea also when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdome [ [...] his heart] faileth him. i.e. Al his Philosophic [Page 99]Contemplations, when they come to maters of Practice or Di­rection, fail him. Whence it follows: [and he saith to every one that he is a fool,] i.e. his actions bespeak him to be a mere fool, void of an heart or practic judgement, notwithstanding al his pretensions to Philosophic Wisdome. Such wise fools were Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, &c. who, notwithstan­ding al their Philosophic Speculations, were void of an heart or true pactic directive Wisdome.

§. 2. Pagan Philosophie has not only come short of its End which was proposed, but also proved a great snare, delusion,Pagan Phi­losophie soul­deceit and de­lusion. and cloke for al manner of wickednesse, which is an effect worse than the former. This our Apostle Paul seems to give some hints of, 1 Cor. 3.1. He cals them Babes. 1 Cor. 3.1. They had much car­nal wisdome, being seated in the eye of Grece, yet he looks upon them as Babes as to Divine Wisdome.Ver. 10. Ver. 10, &c. he gives cautions against building Hay and stubble, i.e. Human Philo­sophic Inventions on the Gospels foundation. Then v. 18,Ver. 18. he gives a particular caution against this self-deceiving, vain Phi­losophie, Let no man deceive himself; if any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, &c. [...], Let no man deceive himself; i.e. with vain Philosophie, &c. So Grotius on this Text: Al Philosophie (saies he) repugnant to the Go­spel is deceit, 2 Thes. 2.3. Thence it follows v. 19,Ver. 19. For the wis­dome of this world is foolishnesse with God. [...], their Metaphy­sic Sapience, or Philosophie. He notes the most sublime Contem­plations and Philosophemes among the Philosophers. Thence he addes, He takes the wise in their own craftinesse. [...], from [...], signifies al 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,Ver. 20. The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. [...], the Philosophic Reasonings or Disputes of the Sophists; they are both Philosophic termes. These Philosphic reasonings are said to be vain, in that they deceived those who trusted to them. [...] primarily notes, to confer among themselves by Questions and Responsions or Answers; which was the ancient mode of disputing both among the Jews and Grecians. Thus Mat. 21.25. Luk. 12.17. Mark 2.6, 8. Hence [...] signi­fies a Disceptation or Ratiocination either Mental or Oral. Some­times it signifies the same with [...], inane concertation or [Page 100] dispute of words about things of no moment. Phil. 2.14. So Phil. 2.14. [...] here, saith Grotius, seems to be those bitter contentions about things no way conducing to pietie: 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 Philoso­phie in his Epistle to the Ephesians, amongst whom there lived many Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics. Ephes. 4.14. So Ephes. 4.14, That we be no more henceforth children tossed to and fro. [...], i.e. fluctuating up and down like the waves of the Sea, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men. [...]. [...]. Amongst the Grecians [...] signified a Dice, and because the cast of a Dice was most casual and incertain as to its event, as also that whereby crafty Gamesters circumvented the more simple; thence the word was by them translted from its primitive notion to signifie, (1) any casual and uncertain event; and this signification here, though metaphoric and borrowed, is very emphatic, and lively, setting forth the skipping levitie and inconstance of mens minds, more uncertain than the cast of the Dice. Thus Beza understands the word here. But yet (2) we must take in also the second notion of [...], as it notes crafty circumvention of the more simple. There were at Ephesus many Pythagorising Gnostics, who, by their sublime speculations and sub­tile fraudulent distinctions, circumvented the more simple pro­fessors as wel as themselves. Thence our Apostle procedes to give a further account of the root of al: [...], by cunning crafti­nesse. It is the same with that before mentioned, 1 Cor. 3.19, whereby he seems to paint forth the Philosophic sophisterie of those Pythagorising Jews and Gnostics, who lay in wait to be­guile and ensnare poor silly professors. So it follows, [...], whereby they lie in wait to deceive. i.e. By their cunning crafty Philosophisings. [...], method, is a com­pendiose and artificial way of handling simple Themes, Pro­positions, or Sciences. Thence [...] notes a certain Art of cheating or deceiving, comprehended under certain general rules. Thus Chrysostome, [...], to lie in wait to deceive, is artificiosely to circumvent some one, and by a compendiary way to reduce him under his power. Agen, [...], Lying in wait to deceive, i.e. Preparing a persuasive discourse, [Page 101]and using artifices to cover the cheat. Which course these Pytha­gorising Gnostics took. Our Apostle inculcates this exhorta­torie caution, Ephes. 5.6, Let no man deceive you with vain words. Ephes. 5.6. [...]. [...]. He markes out, saies 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 [...], i.e. reasonings or Philosophisings the Pythagorising Gnostics made use of, to color over their grosse wickednesses, and so to deceive the more simple Christians. [...] may signifie Phi­losophic Arguments or reasonings as wel as words. This our Apostle does yet more professedly discourse of, and against, in his Epistle to the Colossians, who were very sorely infested, at least assaulted, by the Pythagorising Gnostics. So Col. 2.4,Col. 2.4. [...] And this I say lest any one should beguile you. [...], i.e. De­ceive you by Sophistic disputes of vain Philosophie. [...] signifies to impose a sophistic and fallacious argument, which yet has the color and shew of a good argument, thereby to circumvent the credulous and simple; which is the main work of a Sophister. It answers to [...] and [...], which the Seventy interpret by [...] & [...], to cheat and deceive. Hence Hesychius expli­cates [...], a Paralogisme, by [...], deceit; and [...], a Paralogist, by [...], a Deceiver or Cheater. So that [...] signifies properly by false ratiocination to deceive, by so­phistic reason, or captiose syllogisme to impose on others, or on our selves; and so it's opposed to [...], and [...], to dis­pute regularly. Jam. 1.22. Hence Jam. 1.22. Such as content themselves with mere Philosophic reason, or notional knowledge, are brought in as [...], imposing a Paralogisme, or fallacious argument on themselves. Indeed for men to acquiesce in mere Phi­losophic or speculative Wisdome, 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. [...], with entising words. Col. 2.4. [...]. 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 [...] importes. This our Apostle does more fully explaine, v. 8,Ver. 8. [...]. Beware lest any spoil you. [...]. This terme is militarie, signifying the carrying away a prey. [...] notes a prey or spoil taken in war, [Page 102]and [...] to carry away. [...] signifieth properly, in an ho­stile manner, and by an armed power to plunder and carrie away: whence [...] is by Hesychius interpreted [...], plundering, or stripping naked: and [...]: as [...]. As if the Apostle had said: ‘Let no man plunder and strip you naked of your Christian Dogmes, which are your highest or­naments, by vain Pythagorean or other Philosophie.’ Thence follows the great engine by which this was accomplished: By Philosophie and vain deceit, here is [...], one and the same thing under a double expression; as if he had said, [...], by the vain deceit of Philosophie. So Grotius. The like he addes v. 18. [...],Ver. 18. [...]. Let no one de­ceive you of your brabium, or reward. [...] signifies to mo­derate as a Judge in the Grecian Games, and so it is the same with [...], jus dicere, to judge and passe sentence; whence the Judges were called [...], and the Reward [...]. Hence [...], signifies (1) and properly to give sentence against any one as unworthy of the [...], or Reward. So Phavorinus, [...]. So Beza here understands it, Let no man act the part of a Judge against you. But (2) Jerome tels us, that [...] in the Cilician tongue, wherein Paul was instituted being of Tarsis, signifies to spoil or rob one of his reward. Thus here it signifies in a borrowed notion, to beguile of the reward. And the medium by which they did it, was Pythagorean Philo­sophie. [...], pede inferens. These Gnostics having sucked in the Pythagorean infusions about Angels and Demon-worship, they thence coined many curiose mystic speculations about these Philosophic Mysteries, which had v. 23. [...], a pretext or shew of wisdome, which deceived the simpler sort of profes­sors; but al this vain Philosophie was but [...], a foolish de­ceitful wisd me, as hereafter. This gives us a sufficient general account of those monstrose Soul-deceits which ensued upon the spreading of Pagan Philosophie, and its infusions in the Chur­ches of God. But to descend to Particulars.

§. 3. Another cursed Effect of vain Pagan Philosophie was Idolatric. 3. Effect of Pagan Philoso­phie was Ido­latrie. It's granted that the Philosophers, the wisest of them, Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, renounced the Mythologic Theologie of the Poets, as also Politic in use amongst the Statesmen, Priests, and people, assuming a new Divinitie or Re­ligion of their own inventing, called [...], Natural The­ologie: [Page 103]which though it were lesse fabulose,Observatum est ibi maximè vi­guisse super­stitionem, [...], ubi maximè flo­rebant philoso­phi. Quod vel Athenicasium exemplo pater, de quo Act. 17.16. Hine fa­ctum est, ut ex ipsis Philoso­phis Dcorum Saccr otes le­gerenlur. Hor­nius Hist. Phi­los. l. 3. The origine of Demons from Pagan Philoso­phie. and more suited to corrupt reason than either the Poetic or Politic Theologie, yet was it no way lesse subject to Superstition and Idolatrie: For though in this their Natural Theologie they owned one eternal supreme God, yet they withal asserted an insinitie of Demons, or petty Gods, which they made to be Mediators betwixt this one supreme God and Men. Thence Plato stiles them [...], made and visible Gods: also [...], Idols and Images of the great God. Agen he saies, they were [...], made by, but under the great God. It's true he cals them also [...], immortal; but then he tels us, they had only [...], a framed Immortalitie, at the pleasure of the great God. In brief, they were but certain Heroes or noble Personages dei­fied after their Death, whom they supposed to have their chief residence in the Stars; whence they were called [...], deastri. So Tullie saies 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 Phenicians called Moloch, from [...], and the Grecians, Saturne, Apollo, Jupiter, as their phantasies inclin'd them; hence Julian's Oration to the Sun, which he makes the supreme God: So these Demons they placed in Dignitie, [...], Co-rulers with the great God, as Plato, Polit. pag. 251. The Romans called them semi-Gods, and Medioxumi, or midling Gods, from their office; because they were to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God. Such were Ro­mulus, Hercules, Aesculapius, Tyndarides, as Lud. Vives in August. Civ. l. 2. c. 16. Plutarch, in his Discourse of the cessation of Ora­cles, does greatly extol ‘such as invented these Demons or mid­ling sort of Gods, and made them Mediators betwixt the su­preme God and Men; which some attribute to Orpheus, or some other Phrygian, others to the Egyptians. The office they give them is to be as Mediators betwixt the supreme God and Men: Homer (addes he) promiscuously useth the names of Gods and Demons. Hesiod was the first who distinguished the four orders of Rational Nature into Gods, Demons, Heroes, and men: out of these later Demons and Heroes were made.’ But none gives us a more clear and ful account of the origine, Nature, Office, and Worship of these Demons than Plato, whom we have elsewhere quoted to this purpose; to which we may adde, what he mentions of them in his Cratylus, pag. 397. [...], [Page 104]&c. Knowest thou therefore whom Hesiod makes these Demons to be? that he saies they were men who lived in the first golden age. Then he addes, [...], because they were wise and knowing men, he called them Demons. Whence he concludes, [...], Every good man dying gains a great fate and honor, and is made a Demon, according to the name of wisdome. Here Plato gives us a true account of the origine of these Demons; who were indeed at first men famose for Wisdome 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 Phenician (distinct from the Assyrian Belus) to be one of the first of these Demons; who were thence called by the Phenicians [...] Baalim. So Virgil tels us, That Belus or Baal was a deified Phenician King. These Baalim (who were nothing else but the Souls of deceased Worthies deified) were brought into Israel by Jezebel, the daughter of Eth baal King of Tyre, which laid the foundation of the Jewish Idolatrie, as hereafter. And that these Demons were not only Mediators, but also Objects of Worship, even amongst the Philosphers themselves, is evident, by what we find in Plato, Repub. 5.468, 469. ‘In these things, saies he, we follow the authoritie of Homer. For we in our Sacrifices and such like Assemblies, honor good and valiant men so far as their merits require it, with Hymnes and Honorable seats, and flesh sacrifi­ces, and ful cups, or drink-offerings. — For he that after many noble atchievements dies in War, shal we not say that he belongs to the Golden age? — Let us consult therefore Gods Oracle, in what rank those blessed and divine men are to be placed, and with what Ensignes they are to be honored; and we shal performe to them such honors as he shal prescribe, [...], and for the future we shal serve them as Demons, and worship their Sepulchres, or Shrines.’ Thus Plato, wherein we have the origine and sundry modes of this Demon-Worship. 1. Demons worshipped by Images. (1) As for the manner how these Demon-Gods were worshipped, and as it were brought to the lure of men, when they had occasion to make use of them, it was transacted by Images, Statues, Pil­lars, [Page 105]&c. which they called [...]. These the Phi­losophers themselves made use of and worshipped; not that they looked upon them as their Gods, but only as visible bo­dies, unto which they supposed their Gods or Demons vouch­safed their presence and influence, answerable to Jeroboams Calves, which he erected at Dan and Bethel, supposing that God would have yielded his presence to them. We have this mysterie laid open to us by Plotinus and Hermes Trismegistus, who tel us, ‘That Images were made as bodies to be informed by Ghosts as with Souls: for an Image was as a trap to catch Demons, and a device to tye them to a place, and keep them from departing away.’ Of which see August. Civit. lib. 8. c. 23. (2) Another way whereby they worshipped these their De­mons,2. By Sepul­chers, Shrines, and Temples. was by Religiose Sepulchres and Shrines: for there they hoped to find their Ghost-Gods in a peculiar manner. And indeed it was not unusual for the Devil, their great Demon, to frequent Sepulchres 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 Sepul­chres, hence therefore it was their custome 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 Sepulchres of dead men; which custome notwithstanding the Christians themselves, when Antichrist began to get head, took up, building their Churches by the Graves of some Saint. (3) Moreover in the worship of their Demons they used cut­tings, 3. By Cuttings. 1 King. 18.28. Deut. 14.1. and 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.Levit. 19.28. Thence Deut. 14.1. and Lev. 19.28. God forbids his People this Funeral rite of cutting and lancing; be­cause abused to Demon-Idolatrie: yet did some transgresse, as Jer. 41.5. (4) Agen,Jer. 41.5. 4. By Col­umnes, Festi­vals, Abstinen­ces, sacred Vestments, &c. in the Demon-worship they had many other rites; as worshipping of Columnes, Templing of Reliques, Funeral-Orations, Festivals, Abstinences, sacred Vestments, &c. which were al 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, [Page 106]it's evident both from the Pythagorean Scholes, as also from what is mentioned of the Athenian Philosophers, Act. 17.16. that the [...], 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 Philosophie for the conception and improvement of De­mon-worship; which was in some regard the worst of al Gentile Idolatrie, in that creeping into the Churches of God, it caused the greatest Apostasie that ever was, (1) in the Jewish Church, which under Ahab and his successors fel to this Demon, or Baal-worship brought in by Jezebel. (2) In the Christian Chur­ches under Antichrist, who brought in al these Demon-doctrines and worship, applying the same to his Saints, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. as hereafter,1 Tim. 4.1. C. 2. c. 3.

And as Pagan Philosophie had this Demon-Idolatrie contai­ned formally in the very bowels of its [...], Natural Theologie; so had it also a great causal Influence upon al other both Poetic and Politic Idolatrie. What Influence al Idolatrie received from Philosophie. For, as we afore observed, al Idolatrie had its origine from superstitiose Admiration grounded on Philosophic Contemplations of those eminent qualities, hidden virtues and influences, or excellent Beauties and Glories that shone in the Creatures. So the Astronomers, by frequent con­templations of those Celestial Bodies, their excellent structure, Beautie, and Glorie, their regular Motions, powerful Influen­ces and Governments, were ravisht 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 Wisdome, Power, and Goodnesse in several partes of Nature, was so far ra­visht 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 qualitie to sparkle. Thus likewise the Politicians idolised human Wisdome 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 origine to Superstition and Ido­latrie, is that which Plato long since observed, and makes men­tion of in his Cratylus: where he saies, ‘That [...], [the Gods] had their origination [...], from contemplation; because [Page 107]men being ravished with the contemplation of that heavenly Machine, decked and adorned with so many gloriose Bodies, whose admirable Power, Efficace, and Influence, they had dai­ly experience of, hence they called the Stars [...], Gods; gi­ving them the names of Saturne, Jupiter, &c.’ This originati­on, which Plato gives to these Pagan Gods and their worship, seems most true: For certain it is, that their first Idol-Gods were the Celestial Bodies, called by them [...] (from [...] or [...] the names of God) the Heaven, the Sun, &c. which the Scripture termes 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 Idolatrie was called Zabaisme, as before, P. 2. Book 1. Ch. 4. And that Idolatrie was indeed the product of Pagan Phi­losophie seems more than probable by what is mentioned,Rom. 1.20, 21. Rom. 1.20, &c. For the invisible things, &c. They contemplated the invisible Glories and Beauties of the Deitie in his visible workes. But v. 21. [...], they became vain in their Philosophisings or reasonings. And he gives you the mode or manner of their vain reasonings, v. 23,Ver. 23. And changed the Glorie of God into an image, &c. i.e. they contemplated those eminent Divine qualities shining in the Creatures so long, til they fel to the adoring and Idolising of them, [...], And changed. They changed the Glorie of the incorruptible God in the coined image of a corruptible man, &c. i.e. For the gloriose incorruptible God they worshipped the Idols of corruptible men, &c. Schmidius distinguisheth here between [...], to change somewhat into somewhat, whereby the subject, into which somewhat is transmuted, is noted; as ver. 26. and [...], to change somewhat in somewhat, which notes the mode and medium of the change. So here, they changed the Glorie of the incorruptible God, in the framed image of corruptible man, &c. i.e. whiles they wor­shipped the image of a corruptible man, or beste, for the true and gloriose God. Not that the wiser of them made these Crea­tures the ultimate object of their worship; no, that was too grosse for such pretenders to Wisdome: 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 saies of the Egyptians, That they worshipped not those several Crea­tures [Page 108]they met with simply as Gods, but those Divine qualities they observed in those Creatures: as the Jews thought they worship­ped Jehovah under their Golden Calf. Thus much for the influ­ence Pagan Philosophie has on Idolatrie. We might adde to this Divination, which is but a piece of Idolatrie, and was the effect of Pagan Philosophie, as before, Chap. 3. §. 7, 8, 9.

§. 4. Another monstrose Effect of vain Pagan Philosophie is Atheisme, Atheisme the effect of Pa­gan Philosophie. 1. [...] a preparative to Atheisme. which may justly challenge the Philosophers for its Parents; and that upon sundry accounts and regards. 1. Pa­gan Philosophie had a mighty influence on Atheisme, in that it was a dore and inlet to Superstition and Idolatrie. For there is (as has been observed) a very great cognation or affinitie be­twixt superstitiose Idolatrie and Atheisme. Idolatrie at first open­ed the dore unto, and since has very much advanced Atheisme: [...], The Atheist be­lieves there are no Gods, and the superstitiose person wisheth there were none. We have in what foregoes shewen, that the Philo­sophers Natural Theologie and Religion was but a [...], a superstitiose Demon-fear or worship. This was the Religion of the Athenian Philosophers,Act. 17.18, 27. Act. 17.18. [...]. So v. 27. i.e. as being possessed with a dreadful apprehension of your Demon-Gods, and so wholly addicted to a superstitiose fear and worship of them. Al their [...], Demon-fear and Reli­gion, arose from slavish false apprehensions of an angry sin-reven­ging Deitie, whom though they flatered with their lips, yet they hated in their hearts, and therefore really wished he were not. Thus did their [...] prepare the way to Atheisme: yea not only so, but it opened an effectual dore thereto by bringing in a [...], Polytheisme or Multiplicitie of Gods. For he that has power to believe a pluralitie of Gods, is the next dore unto Atheisme, or a belief that there is no God: To multiplie the Deitie is to destroie it, as Gaches l' Atheisme con­sondu, pag. 5. This indeed proved too true by the event: for the first apparence that we find of Atheisme, was when this [...], superstitiose 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 [...], or Apparences of reason, for those multitudes of Demon-Gods which were brought into Grece, they set their wits on work to salve the Phaenomena of nature without the supposition [Page 109]of these or any other Deities. Thus did Philosophic Polytheisme, or [...], make way to Atheisme.

2. Pagan Philosophie had also a formal Efficience on Atheisme,2. Pagan Phi­losophic had a formal influ­ence on Atheisme. 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 necessitie of a Deitie. This indeed is an epi­demic contagion, which has more or lesse infected every part of Pagan Philosophie, and laid open a broad gate to Atheisme. It's confessed, true sane Philosophie, such as Adam had in Inno­cence, gives a ful demonstration of the Deitie from his visible workes, Rom. 1.19, 20. Ay but Pagan vain Philosophie in al 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 Philosophie makes men Atheists, though a great deal would cure them of Atheisme. And this indeed Plato takes notice of, as the great crime of many Philosophers in his age, whom he cals [...], mere sophisters; who, by reason of their Impietie, abused their Astronomic and other Philosophic Sciences unto Atheisme. 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 connexion of second causes, [...], became Atheists. Whereas, saies he, [...], It is the Divine Mind that disposeth every thing: for he that considereth these things not impiously nor foolishly, wil never become an A­theist. But his and al other Pagan Philosophie was utterly void of such a serious solid consideration of the visible workes of God. Al their vain Philosophisings were so much taken up in the ad­miration of those few raies of Divine Wisdome, Beautie, and Order, which they observed in the Creatures, as that they at first neglected, and then rejected the Creator of al, as one that was invisible and unknowne to their carnal Minds. This was long since observed by Augustin, de Civit. l. 5. cap. 2. ‘What the Physician believed to belong to the like temper of health, this the Philosopher and Astrologer ascribe to that Influence and constitution of the Stars, which was at the conception and birth of every one.’ But we shal a little run thorough the [Page 110]chief parts of Pagan Philosophie, and shew how much each con­tributes to Atheisme.

1. Pagan Physiologie, 1. What Influ­ence Physiolo­gie hath upon Atheisme. or Natural Philosophie strictly so termed, has not a little contributed to Atheisme, in that those proud Physiologists, not understanding the true origine of the Universe, nor that Divine Providence which governes and moderates al Natural productions, and motions, assigned causes of things suitable to their own humors and inclinations; excluding the great God from having any thing to do in the World. Thus Democritus and Epicurus reduced the first origine of the Universe to a fortuitous concurrence and casual combination of Atomes, excluding Divine Providence from having any thing to do here­in; which cursed piece of Philosophie has taken too much root amongst some new Philosophers. Aristotle, who endeavored to reduce al Effects to Mater and Forme, asserted a first eternal Mater ingenerable and incorruptible; which he made to be the seminarie of al Productions; out of whose passive power al Formes (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 al Divine efficience and concurrence in the production of things. Neither are there wanting some in this Christian World, who dare assert an Eternitie of Mater, at least a possibilitie of the Worlds Eternitie. As an Appendix to Natural Philosophie we may adde Medicine, Medicine how the cause of Atheisme. which has had a powerful influence on A­theisme in this regard; because these proud Naturalists, obser­ving by long experience many excellent qualities, soverain vir­tues and Medicinal influences in several Minerals, Stones, Plants, Animals, &c. hence they would fain perswade themselves and the world, that the terme of mans life was not fixt, but vari­able and determinable by their Art and Medicaments: which piece of Atheisme continues to this very day very commun. 2. The Mathematic Sciences have had,2. How the Mathematics are influential on Atheisme. and stil have no little in­fluence on Atheisme: 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 Authoritie and Testimonie, though it be in some sense more certain and infallible than their Mathe­matic Demonstrations. To passe by other instances which are many, we need go no further than Hobs's Leviathan for proof [Page 111]hereof. (2) But more particularly,Specially Astronomie. Pagan Astronomie has had a powerful causalitie for the production of Atheisme, in that it brought in a fatal kind of necessitie 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 stil assert) an essential subordination of al Subluna­ry causes and effects to the Celestial. Particularly that the [...], Good order, good Temperament, good nature, and good operation, as wel moral as natural, in al human persons and affairs received measure and determination, according to, and by derived influences from, the [...] or [...] of the Heavens. Which persuasion yet was more tolerable in those blind Heathens, who held the Stars to be Gods, than in the Atheistic Astrologers of these days, who reduce the most con­tingent Effects and events of Providence to some Astrologic Fi­gures, abstract Formes, Celestial Governements, insensible Influen­ces, or such like Stoic Fate and Necessitie, thereby to exclude Divine Providence from ordering and determining human affairs. 3. Neither was their Philosophie Politics lesse influential on this cursed root of Atheisme. 3. Philosophic Politics pro­ductive of Atheisme. For the great Politicians of former as wel as of later Ages have been ever apt to conceit, that the World is governed by no other Providence than that of State-Wisdome and Interest: They would fain persuade themselves and others, that al Mutations in States or private affairs do hap­pen but from some politic cause, contrivement, and resolutions of men. This Politic Atheisme seems to have had its birth and im­provement from the Romans, (where the Pythagorean Philoso­phie flourished) and the flourishing of their Empire; who fin­ding the successe of their politic Contrivances and Resolutions, be­gan to set the Crown of al their successes on the head of carnal Policie and Courage, excluding Divine Providence from sharing therein. Amongst these Politic Atheistes we may wel reckon Ne­buchadnezar, according to his own proud assumings, Dan. 4.30,Dan. 4.30. Is not this great Babylon that I have built — by the might of my power. i.e. By my politic contrivances and power. For the honor of my Majestie. 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 [Page 112]proud Nebuchadnezar, in making their own Wisdome and Pow­er the sole efficient, as also their own Majestie, Grandeur and Glorie, the sole End of al State-affairs, and Politic Undertake­ments, to the exclusion of Divine Providences, the experience of some late years as wel as former Ages hath given us too great Demonstration. That which gives these Politic Atheistes 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 Atheisme) began to suspend those Miraculose Effects of his Power, em­ploying more of Wisdome in governing the Politic World, the effects whereof are not so obvious to sense as those of his Pow­er. This made these Politic Atheistes deifie their own carnal wis­dome and resolutions, as the only Moderators of human affairs. And 'twere wel if there were not too many such now-adaies. 4. But no part of Pagan Philosophie did more directly and effi­caciously conduce to the production and improvement of Atheisme, 4. Eristic Phi­losophie or Lo­gic the cause of Atheisme. than their [...], contentiose Logic, which the Scripture cals [...], &c. 2 Tim. 2.14. 1 Tim. 6.4, 5. of which before. Indeed Eristic Logic and Atheisme seem to have had their con­ception and birth from the same Philosophic womb, and so, as twins, to run parallel til Pagan Philosophie grew extinct. For in the Eleatic Schole, where this [...], contentiose Logic, re­ceived its formation and spirit under Zeno, Democritus and o­thers, Philosophic Atheisme received also its Conception and Birth, and that much about the same time. This appears in that Me­lissus, who was condisciple with Zeno the Eleatic under Xeno­phanes, seems to be the first that began [...], to suspend his belief touching the Gods; affirming, that nothing was to be de­termined concerning them, by reason of our dark and obscure know­lege. And Zeno himself held a multitude of Worlds, and the Souls origine from the Temperament of the sour Elements: which were both foundations of Atheisme. But Leucippus, Zeno's Dis­ciple, who is stiled [...], and Democritus, who was as to Physics Scholar to Leucippus, gave both of them a great advance to Atheisme, by their Eristic Philosophisings about Atomes. For they asserted the origine of althings to be from the fortui­tous casual conjunction and combination of an infinite number of Atomes; which opinion was greedily imbibed by Epicurus, [Page 113]and made use of by al as a medium to solve the Phaenomena of nature, without any supposition of a Providence. This was the product of their [...], Eristic Philosophising. And indeed nothing is more natural and commun, than by frequent conten­tiose disputes at length to grow Academics and Sceptics; so to disbelieve every thing, even the Existence and Providence of God. And what a world of such Sceptic Atheistes are there in this Age, who make it their [...], or work, to cavil at the Existence and Providence of God! whose folie and iniquitie is by so much the greater, by how much the more credulous they are in maters more obscure. For the most incredulous of these A­theistes, 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 Deitie? and why are they so opiniatre and dogmatising as to the impo­sing their own Phaenomena, without shadow of solid reason? Plato shal one day rise up in judgement against such Sceptic A­theistes; who, in his Book 10 de Legib. from pag. 888, to 909, makes it his businesse to cure a young man laboring under this Epidemic disease of Atheisme; proving, (1) That there is a God. (2) That this God takes care of human affaires, even the least. (3) That this God is most just, and therefore not to be flatered into favor by Prayers or Sacrifices. (4) That Atheisme is the peste of human kind, of Families, of Communwealths; and therefore to be restrain'd by Penal Laws, Emprisonment, Banishment, and the like. Such are the evils of Atheisme, which had its origine from vain Philosophie influenced by pride, as Psal. 10.4,Psal. 10.4. Al his thoughts are there is no God. [...], i.e. These are the sceptic, politic, mischievous Philosophisings of his proud heart, that there is no God. Of the origine of Atheisme from Philosophie, &c. also of its maligne 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 Philoso­phie in general, as they regard both the Pagans themselves,Pagan Philoso­phic the cause of Jewish Apostasies. as also the People of God. We now procede to the sad evils which Pagan Philosophie infused into the Church of God, both Jewish and Christian. We shal begin with the Jewish Church: and here our main businesse wil be to shew that al the great Apostasies of the Jews had their foundation in Pagan Philoso­phie. [Page 114]To make our way clear hereto, we are to remember, that as the Pagan Philosophers traduced the choisest pieces of their Philosophie 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 Wis­dome and Mysteries, which were but darke Imitamens of, and broken Traditions from their Divine Philosophie. So vain and foolish were their imagination.The Jewish Baal-worship the Effect of the Philosophic Demon-Theo­logie. 1. The great Errors and Apo­stasie of the Israelitic and Jewish Church, before the Babilonian Captivitie, lay in Idolatrie, 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 Idolatrie, yet we scarce find any other taken notice of and recorded in Scripture. For the Spirit of God foreseeing that this Philosophic [...], Demon-worship, would prove the great foundation of Apostasie both in the Jewish and Christian Church, he seems to passe by other vain opinions, and make it his businesse both by Prophetic Precauti­ons, Threats, and Judgements, to strike at this. So Deut. 13. throughout that Chapter, the Lord gives severe Comminations and punishments to be inflicted on such as turne away to Ido­latrie;Deut. 14.1. and more particularly Deut. 14.1. God gives a strict prohibition against Baalim, or Demon-worship, Ye shal not cut your selves, 1 King. 18.28. &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 al Divine Comminations and Maledictions, how soon did the carnal Jews affect an imitation of their Ido­latrous neighbors the Phenicians 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 al is this, The Philosophers had a Divinitie of their own, (distinct from that of the Poets, which was fabulose, and that of the Statesmen, Priests and people, which was Politic) which they called [...], Natural Theologie; wherein they, in imi­tation of the Jewish God and Messias, asserted (some of the wisest of them) one supreme soverain God, and many other petty made Gods, which the Phenicians called Baalim, (from Belus a Phenician King) Lords, and the Grecians, Demons: whose office was to be as Mediators betwixt Men and the supreme God: [Page 115]whom the most of them conceited to have his residence in the Heavens, yea in the Bodie of the Sun, as the soul in the bodie, and therefore too remote, at least too sublime and pure to mingle with Sublunarie affaires; whence there could be no com­munion with him but by these Demons or Baal-Gods, who were nothing else but the Souls of great Worthies deceased and dei­fied. These the Apostle seems to hint, 1 Cor. 8.5, Lords many. 1 Cor. 8.5. These Baalim were brought into Judea by Jezebel, daughter of 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 Apostasie. 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 Phenicians Natural Theologie, 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 grosse for such a knowing pro­fessing people: only herein lay their Apostasie and Idolatrie, that, in imitation of the Philosophers Natural Theologie, they worshipped the true God with a [...], Demon-worship: they placed these Phenician Baalim, as an Anti-messias, in the room of Christ. This Baal-worship is called the way of Ahab, because it was brought into Israel by Jezebel his Queen,1 King. 16.31, 32. and established by him according to 1 King. 16.31, 32. which caused a total Apostasie among them: For the true Prophets, who would not conforme to this Baal-worship, were destroyed or removed; and others, who were willing to conforme to Baals worship, put in their room; so 1 King. 18.22, Elijah saies,1 King. 18.22. 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. 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 shews us: ‘Here note, saith he, that wheresoever you read in Scripture of the Idola­trie of Jeroboam's Calves, and of Ahab's Baalim, think of what [Page 116]I have told you, and know, that whatsoever God speakes a­gainst these things there, the same he speaks of the Apostate Christians under Rome, whose case is the very same. The Holy Ghost placeth the essence of the great Apostasie under the Man of Sin, in Idolatrie, and spiritual fornication, &c.’

2. The Apostasie of the Jewish Church after the Babylonian Cap­tivitie had in like manner its foundation in Pagan Philosophie. The Apostasie of the Jewish Church after the Captivitie from Pagan Philosophie. It's true the Jews after their Captivitie were professed enemies to Idolatrie, for which they had been so severely punished; yet had they great Errors and Corruptions, which they sucked in together with the Grecian Philosophie. For look as the Gre­cians, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. received the chief Rudiments and Elements of their Philosophie from the Jewish Church; so the Jews, when they came to live under the Grecian Monarchie, began to symbolise with their new Lords in Wisdome and Philo­sophie. We find little of Pagan Philosophie in use amongst the Jews before the Captivitie, save only some few pieces of the Mathematics, which we may presume they had from the Pheni­cians 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 Lords, they soon drank in the Grecian Philosophie; which proved the corruption, yea subversion of their Divine Theo­logie. This the pious and devote amongst them foresaw, and therefore in the time of the Hasmoneans, or Macchabees, there was a Decree made, That whosoever taught his Son the Grecian Philosophie should be accursed. Which notwithstanding could not prevent the inundation of Grecian Philosophie on the Jewish Church, to the infinite prejudice of their Sacred Theologie, as it's wel observed by Grotius on Col. 2.8, [...], ‘I do not wonder (saies he) that in the times of the Hasmoneans there was a decree made, That he should be cursed that taught his Son the Grecian Philosophie; not that it was in it self evil to know it, but in that they saw much danger therein. And truely we must confesse, that after the Jews gave up themselves to the studie of Greek Books, their ancient Doctrine was much so­phisticated.’ It's confest, that the Jews before the Captivitie had very much perverted their Doctrine,Esa. 47.10. according to Esa. 47.10. Thy wisdome and knowlege hath perverted thee. [...], i. e. caused thee to turne aside. But after their returne from Babylon [Page 117]there was an universal Reformation made by Esra and others both as to Doctrine and Discipline, which continued til this new soundation of Apostasie was laid by the mixing Grecian Phi­losophie with their Doctrine. This is wel observed by Owen, Theol. lib. 5. cap. 14. ‘The Jewish Doctors before the Babyloni­an Captivitie seem (according to what mention we sind) to have received none of the Exotic literature or sciences, excepting the Mathematics; which they seem to have received from the Chal­deans, and to have abused to Idolatrous uses. For al human Wisdome is prone to Pride and [...], Superstition, speci­ally when it fals upon a Mind not brought into obedience to the Truth. For that Grecian Philosophie being by degrees brought into the Church, it speedily turned to the ruine of the more pure Theologie. Hence they, whose Religion consi­sted only in Faith and Obedience, began to erect Scholes alto­gether unlike those over which the ancient Prophets presided, and to sal into Sects. The names of Plato and Aristotle were not more famose amongst the rout of Grecian disputers, than those of Shammai, Hillel, &c. amongst the Jews.’

Now the Corruptions that crept into the Jewish Theologie by its commixture with the Grecian Philosophie, may be reduced to these three heads. (1) Their Cabalistic Mythologie. Tie Jewish Cabala from the Grecian Symbolic Phi­losophie. (2) Their Pharisaic and Talmudic Dochrines and Traditions. (3) Their Eristic or contentiose Disputations. 1. As for the Jewish Cabala or Cabalistic Mythologie, it seems to be exactly framed in imi­tation of the Grecian Mythologie and Symbolic mode of Philoso­phising. It's true, the Jewish Church had even from its first Institution its choisest Mysteries delivered in Symbols, Parables, Enigmes, and other terrene shadows; whence we need no way dout, the Pagan Philosophers, Egyptians, Phenicians and Greci­ans traduced their Mythologic and Enigmatic modes of Philoso­phising. These the Jews, when they came under the Grecian Go­vernement, so far fel in love with, as that, despising their own Sacred Oracles and Mysteries, (by reason of their simplicitie) they clothe them with a new Grecian habit, or fabulose garb, which they cal their Cabala, or mystic sense; by virtue where­of they in a short time grew as skilful in coming Fables as ever the Grecians were. This Jewish Cabala was so called from [...] to receive: for as the office of the Rabbi or Doctor was [...] to deliver; so that of the Disciple was [...] to receive: which [Page 118]sometimes also was expressed by [...], to hear. Whence the Ca­balistes were wont to expresse the Traditions of their Doctors by this [...], the wise said: answerably to that [...], he said it, in the Pythagorean Schole. Reuchlin, de Arte Ca­balist. l. 3. p. 51. assures us, ‘That the Judaic Cabala is nothing else but their Symbolic Theologie, wherein not only Letters and Names are signes of things, but also things of things.’ The Pa­pists make their Anagogic sense of Scripture correspondent to the Judaic Cabala. Some refer the Origine of this Cabalistic sense of Scripture to the Angel Raziel's consolation given to Adam in Paradise after his Fal, as Reuchlin: others to Moses, as Johan. Picus Mirand. others to Esra, as Paulus Fagius. But I conceive it no difficult task to demonstrate, that this Cabalistic Symbolic Explication of Scripture found no place in the Judaic Theologie, 'til the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie was in­corporated therewith. And indeed Johannes Picus, that noble Earle of Mirandula, and prodigiose Scholar, seems to grant this our Hypothesis, by acknowleging the assinitie of the Jewish Cabala to the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie. So learned Reuchlin, de Art. Cabalist. pag. 22, 23. makes this Cabalistic The­ologie the same with the Pythagorean Doctrine. Hence also the Gnostics and Valentinians imbibed their Mystic Theologie, as hereafter, §. 7. These Cabalistes making it their main studie 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 Theologie seemed more like to Pythagoras and Plato's Philosophie, than to the Sacred Insti­tutes of Moses and the Prophets. That the Hellenistic Jews generally followed the Symbolic, Allegoric Philosophie of Pytha­goras and Plato, is evident by the Writings of their chiefest Sophists, Philo Judaeus, and al such as were bred up at Alexan­dria, where the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie flourished. So Eusebius Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 4. [...], &c. He greatly affected the Platonic and Pythagorean Philosophie, speaking of Philo Jud us. But the Scripture gives us a sufficient account touching these Philosophic Fables, which had been foisted into the Jewish Theologie by the Cabalistes. 1 Tim. 1.4. So 1 Tim. 1.4. [...]. He treats here, [Page 119] ‘saith Grotius, of such as turning from Judaisme to Christianisme mixed many Jewish Fables with Christianisme, as the conse­quents shew, and Tit. 1.14. Such were those Jewish Fables concerning what God did before the Creation: of Man being at first made [...], of his copulation with the Bestes, and with Lilith, and of the Demons springing thence, of Behemoth and Leviathan, of the Soul's pre-existence before the bodie, &c.’ That many of these Fables were Pythagorean and Platonic is evident. Which we may presume these Grecian Philosophers at first took up in imitation of Jewish Mysteries, and then the Jews took them up again at second hand from the Philosophers. The like 1 Tim. 4.7. [...]. He understandes, saies Grotius, the Doctrine of Metempseuchosis, which was the foundation of this abstinence. So Tit. 1.14. [...], i.e. saies Grotius, ‘of the Messias being a Temporal Monarch, of the first Resurrection on the Earth, of the War of Gog and Magog, &c.’ 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 Theologie had in its Declension, besides the Ca­bala, 2. The Jewish Talmud of Traditions. or Mystic Explication of Scripture, a Talmud or systeme of Traditions, which they pretend were at first delivered by God unto Moses on the Mount, to be handed down by Joshua and his Successors unto Posteritie. This they cal [...], the Oral Law, which they equalise unto, yea prefer before the Scriptures. For they say, (just as the Papists of their Traditions) ‘That we cannot arrive to a perfect explication of the Divine Precepts, but by these Traditions of the Ancients: again, that without this Oral Law, the whole written Law is wrapped up in darknesse. Whence they affirme, that men offend more by breaking these Traditions, than by violating the words of the Law, as Sanhedr. c. 10. §. 3. Yea they command that al Talmudic Traditions be swallowed down with an implicite faith, as R. Sol. Jarchi, on Deut. 17.11.’ 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 wil-worship, as Mark 7.3-13. These in after-times they compiled into their Fal­muds; on which the Rabbines have spent vast Commentaries. But to give the true origine of these Pharisaic Rabbinic Tradi­tions, they were indeed but corrupt imitations of Pythagorean Philosophie and Mysteries. For as the Pythagoreans received [Page 120]their Mysteries and Discipline by Tradition originally from the Jews, so the Jews when they came under the Grecian yoke re­assume many of these Pythagorean Dogmes and Institutes, and coin many more in imitation of their Pythagorean Preceptors. That many of those Traditions mentioned in the New Testa­ment were Pythagorean as wel as Jewish is evident: particular­ly Mark 7.3, 5. the Pharisees cal them [...], supposing them to be traduced down from Moses by Oral Tradition; but Christ cals them ver. 7. [...], i.e. of the Pythagorean Philosophers, as Col. 2.22, 23. Agen Christ cals them, Mark 7.8. [...]. by which also he seems to strike at the Pythagoreans, according to Col. 2.8, 20, 21. That the Rabbinic Pharisaic Dogmes of Free­wil, &c. were of Philosophic Origine shal be (as already it has been) proved.

3. Al those Eristic and vain disputes amongst the Jews had also their origine from Grecian Philosophie. 3. The Jewish disputation from the Gre­cian Philoso­phie. Tit. 3.9. So Tit. 3.9. [...]. i.e. saies Grotius, ‘those vain questions and various emanations of Proprieties, or [...], the figments of idle Jews:’ thence [...]. i. e. saies 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 Philosophie. Lastly, the later Jews are thought to receive much of their corruption from the Stoic Phi­losophie: so Heinsius, 2 de Sat. Horat. saies, That an egge is not more like an egge, than the Paradoxes of the Rabbines to the Pa­radoxes of the Stoics. Yet Maimonides, and Aben Tibbon follow Aristotle for the most part according to the Arabic Versions. For these later Jews mingling with the Saracens have received their Philosophie from them, as Hornius Hist. Philos. l. 5. c. 10.

§. 6. As the Pagan Philosophic had a very poisonous pestilen­tiose influence on the Jewish Church,Pagan Philoso­phic the cause of the greatest Errors in the Christian Churches. so has it been not lesse 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 Phi­losophie 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 shal at present only [Page 121]adde that, 2 Tim. 2.14, 16, 17, 18, 23. v. 14. [...],2 Tim. 2.14, &c. [...] put them in remembrance. [...], i.e. frequently inculcate this on thy hea­rers, &c. [...], obtesting or adjuring them before the Lord. It notes the most solemne Adjuration. And to what? [...], that they strive not about words; i.e. according to the custome of the vain Philosophers, who had their [...], strifes about words. In opposition whereto he exhortes Timothic, v. 15. To studie, that he approve himself to God, — [...],Ver. 15. [...]. rightly dividing the word of truth. [...], from [...] & [...], properly signifies to divide accurately: but here it is taken Metaphorically, as by the Seventy, Prov. 3.6. [...]. So Prov. 11.5. [...]. Hebr. [...], which the Seventy elsewhere render [...], & [...]. Grotius and others take the Metaphor from the accurate Section and division of the Sacrifices; which the Levites, according to a cer­tain solemne rite, accurately divided. But our learned N. Fuller, Miscel. l. 3. c. 16. makes it to be a Metaphoric allusion to the Section of the Law, communly understood by al. For, the Ver­ses of the Scripture were stiled [...], i.e. [...], segmenta, or particles. Whence they who gave up themselves to the studie of the Scriptures, were stiled [...], they who divided the Law. Thus Paul exhortes Timothie, (who was from his infance instituted in the Scriptures, and therefore wel understood the import of this phrase) [...], accurately to divide the word of truth: which he opposeth to the [...], i.e. striving about words, v. 14. So v. 16. [...], shun. Ver. 16. There is a great elegance in the original, which signifies primarily to circumclude, or shut up, thence to shun or avoid; because we are wont to shut up what we fear and would avoid, as Lions, Bears, &c. The same word is used Tit. 3.9. Then he addes the mater he was to avoid; [...], profane and vain bab­lings; i.e. saies Grotius, ‘Mens comments or figments about Divine maters without any Revelation.’ [...] signifies (1) Aclamor about vain maters: or (2) Avain clamor; or clamor of vain words, such as agree not with the forme of sound Doctrine. So Chrysostome understands it here, of such new formes of speech, or unheard of termes, which were not used in the Churches. [...] is of the same import with [...], v. 14. and takes in al Philosophic discourses or dis­putes; which in maters Divine without a Divine Revelation are [...], profane and vain bablings. For, addes he, they [Page 122]wil encrease unto more ungodlinesse. [...]. i.e. such vain Philosophisings, though they seem to have some res­semblance to Divine Truth, and but little error in them, yet wil they in the issue determine in the foulest Heresies and Abo­minations, even in Antichristianisme.Ver. 17. Thence it follows, v. 17. [...], their Philosophic discourse or Ratiocination: [...] for so [...] may signifie as wel as word. [...], wil eat as doth a Cancer. The word we translate Cancer signifies proper­ly a Gangrene, which is somewhat like, though different from a Cancer. That phrase [...], wil eat, has a peculiar significance in it: for we know a Gangrene mightily spreads and feeds up­on the sound flesh: [...], as Lev. 13.22. Whence the Greekes derive [...], i.e. [...], to eat; as Hesychius. It properly signifies the mortification of some carnose part, by rea­son of an inflammation; so that if there be not some oppor­tune remedie immediately applied, or the part cut off, the Gan­grene eats farther and farther on the adjacent parts, until the whole man perish. Such a venimous and dissusive influence has vain Philosophie on the minds of men, yea on whole Churches. This (addes Grotius) he affirmes, ‘That Philosophic evil spreades far, specially seing many wil embrace this mode of living, that they may avoid those punishments which hang over the Chri­stians. Nothing does so much hurt Christianisme as those Insti­tutes, which came very near to Christianisme, and by certain interpretations mollified the [...], Polutheisme.’ Of whom is Hymeneus and Philctus: v. 18. who concerning the truth have er­red, saying the Resurrection is past already. These Pythagorising Gnostics, by their Philosophic Allegories, endeavored to make void the Doctrine of the Gospel touching the Resurrection. The Philosophers, both Pythagorcans and Platonistes, as they called a wicked life, [...], death; so a reformed life was by them termed [...], a Resurrection, and [...], a new birth: and these sensual Gnoslics, that they might the more freely en­joy their lusts without fear of a future judgement, would needs persuade themselves and others, that the Resurrection, of which the Gospel speaks so plainly, was already past; intending there­by the Philosophers symbolic allegoric Resurrection. Then the A­postle concludes,2 Tim. 2.23. v. 23. foolish and unlearned questions avoid. [...] foolish, i.e. because they no way tend to true Wisdome: al these Philosophic Allegories and Questions are but a mere [...], foolish wisdome. See the like, 1 Tim. 1.4, &c. [...], unlear­ned. [Page 123] [...] uncorrigable, impudent. [...] is sometimes put for [...], as Prov. 8.5. sometimes for [...], Prov. 15.13. as also sometimes for [...], Prov. 17.22. Paul here (saies Grotius) understandes immodest Questions. For the Greeks expresse [...] by [...], because [...] & [...] are of the same import. Knowing that they gender to strife, as Tit. 3.9. The Hebrew [...] is sometimes rendred [...], sometimes [...], as Grotius. By al which it is evident, that this Gnostic Gangrene had its rise from Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie. And indeed that the Phi­losophers were the great Heresiarchs, or founders of al those great Errors and Heresies, which like a Gangrene insested the Christian Theologie and Churches, was a commun received per­suasion amongst the Fathers and Primitive Christians: the truth whereof wil appear evident by an examen of Particulars, and dis­coverie how al the great Errors brought into the Christian Church, both before and after the rise of Antichrist, had their origine from Pagan Philosophie.