Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	bishop_n	church_n	great_a	8,286	5	3.5391	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41681	The court of gentiles. Part III, The vanity of pagan philosophy demonstrated from its causes, parts, proprieties, and effects, namely pagan idolatrie, Judaic apostasie, gnostic infusions, errors among the Greek fathers, specially Origen, Arianisme, Pelagianisme, and the whole systeme of papisme or antichristianisme : distributed into three parts, mystic, scholastic, and canonic theologie / by Theophilus Gale.	Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.	1677 (1677)	Wing G141; ESTC R10994	239,335	264

were the chief Rulers of the Priests On which place the ancient Scholiast addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the custome to take the chief Priest from the Metropolis Strabo makes mention of one chief Priest of the Catti and Marcellinus of a chief Priest amongst the Burgondians c. Thus Grotius So Bochart tels us there were Priests in Phrygia called Galli and Archigalli as before S. 3. § 9. of this Chapter By which it is evident that the Pagans generally had an Hierarchie and one chief Priest over the rest and it is apparent that the Papal Primatie was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Imitation of the Pagan which wil farther appear by the following particulars 1. This Papal Primatie began at Alexandria Papal Primatie began at Alexandria in in imitation of the Philosophers Scholes which as it was the chief Seminarie of Pagan Philosophie and Demon-worship so also the fruitful womb wherein al the principal Parts and Lineaments of Antichrist received their first conception and Formation And amongst other Parts of this Man of Sin his Head which consistes in his usurped Primatie was also formed in this Philosophie Church or Schole of Alexandria Thus much I gather from Grotius his Gallic Epistles Epist 162. pag. 397. where proving that Clemens's Epistle to the Corinthians was genuine he gives this as one argument namely That he never makes any mention of that extravagant Authoritie of Bishops which by the custome of the Church began after Marke's death to be introduced at Alexandria and by that exemple elsewhere c. Thus we see that Papal Primatie began very early in this Philosophising Church at Alexandria soon after Marke's death and we may presume from their too great symbolising with that Pythagorean Platonic Schole in point of Discipline Neither is Grotius singular in this his observation for Jerome long ago observed the same who makes Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first Authors of advancing one Minister above another in power about the year 140. And a learned Divine assures us That Julianus Bishop of Alexandria was the beginner and breeder of Diocesan Government which came in by little and little c. Yea so speedy was the growth of this Antichristian Primatie at Alexandria as that at the Council of Nice it arrived to a Patriarchie § 2. But albeit the Papal Primatie had its first conception and Fomentation at Alexandria 2. The chief Seat of Papal Primatie at Rome and that from imitation of Pagan-Rome yet its chief Nurserie and Throne was at Rome for here according to Divine prediction Antichrist that Man of Sin and Head of this Papal Hierarchie has his main seat and residence Now that the whole of this Papal Hierarchie stablished at Rome was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Imitation of Pagan Hierarchie or rather Demonarchie stablished at Rome and elsewhere we shal prove by its Parts First 1. The Popes Supremacie an Imitamen of the Pagan Empire The Head of this Papal Primatie is the Pope the whole of whose usurped Dignitie and Primatie is but an Image of and extract from the Demonarchie or Hierarchie of the Pagan Emperors as it wil easily appear to any that shal consider how exactly parallel they are Touching the first stablishment of the Roman Hierarchie by Numa Plutarch gives us a good account in the Life of Numa Numa Pompilius saith he erected the Pontific College and he himself was the first Pontifex the chief of those Pontifices whom they cal the great Pontifex Who has the dignitie and autoritie of the High Priest and Master of the Pontific Law who was to see that none brake the ancient Ceremonies nor brought in any new thing into Religion but that every one should be taught by him how they should serve the Gods c. And has not the Pope assumed the very same Pontific Dignitie both Name and Thing Has he not assumed the very Name of Pontifex Maximus and is he not Master of the Pontific Law or the Ecclesiastic Canons Does he not take upon him to teach every one how they should serve his Demon-Gods or Saints Again Augustin de Civit. l. 15 c. 15. tels us That the Romans made Romulus a Flamen which was a sort of Priesthood so excelling in the Roman Sacreds witnesse the Apex that they had only three Flamens instituted to the three Gods the Diale to Jupiter the Martiale to Mars the Quirinale to Romulus Ludovicus Vives on this place explicating what this Flamen dedicated to Romulus was tels us That amongst the Orders of Priests Numa Pompilius made some which he called Flamens whose chief Ensigne was an Hat as the Bishops now wherein there was a thread of white wool whence they were called Filamines from fila lanae And then as for the Apex which Augustin makes mention of Ludovicus Vives gives us this account That it was in the Flamen that which covered the Head namely the fila lanea or Cap. This Apex addes he the Romans gave to none but their chiefest Priests as now the Mitres So Lucan Et tollens Apicem generoso vertice flamen And has not the Roman Bishop the very same dignitie and primatie as it has been already observed § 1 Is he not the Proto-Flamen and has he not his Mitre exactly answering to the Proto-flamen's Apex But to carrie on this parallel a little farther the Roman Emperor as we just now observed of Numa Pompilius reserved to himself the Title and Dignitie of Pontifex Maximus the Great High-Priest by virtue whereof he was Head in al maters Ecclesiastic as wel as Civil and had an absolute disposition of the Pontific Hierarchie College and Law This Title and Dignitie the Emperors affected ' til the dissolution of the Empire Yea after Pagan Rome turned Christian the Christian Emperors for some while retained the Title and Dignitie of Pontifex Maximus both Name and Thing ' til the Bishop of Rome upon the declension of the Empire usurped the same Which is a good Clavis to that prediction of Paul 2 Thes 2.7 He who now letteth i.e. The Roman Emperor 2 Thes 2.7 who had the very Title and Dignitie of the Pontifex Maximus which Antichrist was to be invested with but could not obtain ' til after the dissolution of the Empire And the event has made this evident that the Rise and Growth of Antichrist and his Tyrannic Empire was according to the Declension and Dissolution of the Civil Empire yea in the same measure and proportion that the later decreased the former encreased as it was foretold Revel 13.1 That he should receive his power at the same time with the ten Hornes which were to rise up out of the broken parts of the Empire Thus was the generation of Antichrist out of the corruption of the Empire Yea that Antichrist exerciseth al the power which was exercised by the Pagan Emperor seems clear from that part of his Character

3. Canonic Antichristianisme from Pagan Philosophie the main designe whereof has been to defend Antichrist's Authoritie and Discipline by Ecclesiastic Canons For look as the Monkes by their pretended Sanctitie and Mystic Theologie and the Scholemen by their Eristic Theologie so in like manner the Canonists by their Canonic Theologie have endeavored to their utmost to maintain and propagate Antichrists Soveraintie and Discipline The chief Head of these Canonists was Gratian who reduced the Ecclesiastic Canons to a bodie called the Canon-Law the scope whereof chiefly is to support the Discipline of the Pope under a pretension of the Catholic Church and its Autoritie For as the Scholemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or taske was to defend the Pope's Power and Doctrine by Disputation and strength of argument so the work of these Canonists was to maintain Antichrist's Soveraintie and Discipline by producing the Canons and Authoritie of the Catholic Church They pretend not to Scholastic Reason or Argument for that say they does but diminish the Authoritie of a Law but their great Diana is the Churches Authoritie which they urge as the fountain of al their Ecclesiastic Canons and Impositions But to run up this Canonic Theologie to its origine or spring head we no way dout but to make it very evident that the main if not the whole of Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Canons and Discipline owes its origine to Pythagorean or some other Philosophic Institutes This we shal make good both by Divine and Human Autoritie And the great hinge on which this our Demonstration shal turne is that eminent Prophetic image or character of Antichrist 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. compared with Col. 2.8 9 10 18 19 20 21 22 23. And to give a general key to these and such Prophetic descriptions of Antichrist we are to know that though they might have some typic and initial fulfilling in the Gnostic Heretics which started up in the Apostles times and were fore-runners of Antichrist as has been once and agian observed Ch 1. § 7. Yet their main scope is to characterise and delineate Antitichrist his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superstition and tyrannic Impositions For it is usual with the Spirit of God in Scripture to paint forth and decipher the great and famose Apostasie under Antichrist by lesser and more particular Usurpations and Apostasies of persons in those times wherein the Prophesie was delivered So in the Old Testament what is Historically spoken of Egypt Babylon Antiochus c. is in the New Testament applied to Antichrist and his Kingdome in like manner as David and Solomon are made Types of Christ So here we denie not but that these Prophetic Characters of Antichrist laid down by Paul and John might have some foundation in and regard unto those Gnostic Antichrists of their time of whom Simon Magus was the Head but to confine al these great Prophetic descriptions of Antichrist to Simon Magus or some Heretic of those times as Grotius and his Sectators seem to do savors too much of an Antichristian spirit No it is our safest course to interpret Scripture in its largest sense for as it has been wel observed by Sir Francis Bacon in his Advancement of Learning Prophetic Scriptures have their fulfilling over and again in diverse Periods and Ages so that al these Scriptures which we have before made use of to characterise and describe the Gnostics and their Philosophic Infusions who were the Forerunners of Antichrist may much more truely and fully be applied to Antichrist the great Antitype who though last in Execution yet was first in Intention as we need no way dout Having given this key we shal procede to demonstrate That Antichrists Canonic Theologie or Ecclesiastic Canons were Derivations from and Imitamens of Philosophic and principally Pythagoric Institutes And herein we shal follow our wonted method reducing the whole of our Demonstration to the Forme and Mater of Canonic Theologie § 2. As for the Forme of Antichrists Canon Law it received its Constitution from its formal Object answerably to al other Laws The forme of Antichrists Canon Law from the Churches Autoritie taken up in imitation of the Pythagorean Dogmes or Canons 1 Thes 2.13 For the formal Object of any Law is the Autoritie of the Law-giver which is the principal foundation or proper motive on which it dependes Whence the formal Object of this Antichristian Canon-Law is the pretended Autoritie of the Church on which al their Ecclesiastic Canons are founded as on their principal ground and proper motive For look as Christs Divine Law has for its formal Object his Divine Autoritie reveled in Scripture according to 1 Thes 2.13 As the word of God This As is reduplicative not specificative only as quatenus is used in the Scholes i. e. they received the Word of God under this reduplication As the word of God or as clothed with Divine Autoritie so parallel hereto Antichrist's Canon-Law has for its formal Object the pretended Churches Autoritic whence resultes its formal constitution or obligatorie spirit and force Now that this formal constitution of Antichrist's Canonic Theologie exactly answers to and as we may presume was taken up in imitation of the Pythagorean mode of dogmatising or imposing Institutes seems evident from what intimations we find hereof in the forementioned Scriptures So 1 Tim. 4.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrines of Demons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as used in the Pythagorean Schole signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Dogme Decree Institute Canon so also it seems to be used Col. 2.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being appendent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Institutes and Dogmes of the Philosophers as Grotius answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. of which hereafter Sect. 4. § 3. Thus Mat. 15.9 as also S. 4. S. 3. So that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrines of Demons here we may understand those Dogmes Institutes and Canons which Antichrist by his pretended Ecclesiastic Autoritie and Traditions should impose upon the Churches of Christ in imitation of those Pythagorean Dogmes Institutes and Canons imposed by Pythagoras on his Scholars in reference to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demon-worship For the Explication whereof we may remember that amongst Pythagoras's Scholars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipse dixit HE SAID IT i. e. Pythagoras had the same weight and autoritie as any Law or Canon in human Polities They disputed not but obeyed their Masters Canons and Institutes with as great reverence as the Sons of Antichrist do his Ecclesiastic Canons so that a Dogme or Doctrine in his Schole had the sul force and obligation of a Law specially in maters of Discipline and Demon-worship In imitation whereof our Apostle here tels us that Antichrist should introduce his Demon-Dogmes or Canons under a pretext of Church-autoritie or tradition And this notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it implies a Dogme or

Theologie from Philosophie 155 How far the Arabians contributed to Scholastic Theologie 156 The Mater of Schole-Divinitie specially Pelagian Infusions from Philosophie 159 The Pelagian Apathie Free-wil c. from Philosophie 160 Pelagian Armes from Philosophie 161 SECT II. A general account of Antichrist's Canonic Theologie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with its Traduction from the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canonic Antichristianisme from Pagan Philosophie 163 The Forme of Antichrist's Canon-Law from the Churches Autoritie taken up in Imitation of Pythagorean Dogmes 165 The Mater of Antichrist's Canon-Law from Pagan Philosophie 170 Antichrist's Canonised Saints Imitamens of Pagan-Demons 171 The Origine of Popish Saints the same with that of Pagan Demons 174 Both from a fond conceit of some great excellence in them 176 The Canonisation of Saints an Imitamen of Demon-Apotheosis 178 The Saints Mediatory Office in Imitation of Demon-Mediators 180 SECT III. That Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but an Imitamen of the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 demonstrated from its parts Antichrist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Imitamen of Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 184 The Essence of Antichrist's Apostasie in Idolatrie 184 The Antichristian Church termed Revel 17.5 Babylon the great the mother of Harlots 185 Rev. 13.1 The name of Blasphemie 186 Antichrists Saint-worship an Imitamen of Demon-worship 187 The Commemoration of Martyrs at their Graves by Temples and Panegyrics from Demon-Temples and Panegyrics 188 Popish Festivals Hymnes Playes c. from Demon-worship 192 Antichrists Epiphanie from Pagan Epiphanie Ib. Popish Hymnes from Demon-Hymnes 193 Popish-Playes from Demon-Playes 194 Popish-Festes from Demon-Festes Ib. Popish Images from Demons 195 Popish Crosses Imitamens of Pagans 198 Templing of Reliques Pagan Institutes Ib. Antichrists Sacrifices from Demons 199 The Sacrifice of the Masse an Imitamen of Demon-Sacrifices 200 The Cup in the Lords Supper turned by the Papists into a Cup of Demons 202 Popish Tenths and Offerings from Demons Ib. Popish Exorcisme and Lying Wonders from Demons 203 Invocation of Saints from Demon-Invocation 204 Pagan Rites assumed by Papists 1 sprinkling Holy Water 2 Sacred Fire 3 Sacred Groves 4 Bowing towards the East 206 5 God-fathers Gifts 6 Distinctive Garments and other Rites 207 Al Antichrists Canonic Fastes and Abstinences from Demon-worship 209 Popish Monastic Life another part of the Doctrine of Demons 211 The Origine of Monastic Constitutions 213 Al Antichrists Workes of Supererogation and Merits parts of Demon-Dogmes 214 Bodily Exercices and Wil-worship from Demon-Institutes 216 Antichrist's Purgatorie from the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 218 Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacrifices for the Dead 219 Antichristian Purgatorie from the Schole of Alexandria 221 SECT IV. Papal Primatie and Traditions from Ethnic Philosophie Antichrists Canonic Primatie an Imitamen of the Pagan 222 The Different Orders of Priests Arch-Presbyters Chorepiscopi Bishops Arch-Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarches in the Roman Church from the Gentile Flamens Arch-flamens and Proto-flamens Ib. Hierarchie among the Pagans 223 Papal Primatie began at Alexandria in imitation of the Philosophers Scholes Ib. The chief Seat of Papal Primatie at Rome in Imitation of Pagan Hierarchie 224 The Popes Supremacie an Imitamen of the Emperors being Pontifex Maximus Ib. Antichrist's Character by Paul 2 Thes 2.3 4. 225 V. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Apostasie 226 That Man of Sin both Intensively and Extensively 226-229 That Son of Perdition 230 V. 4. Called God 231 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worshipped what Ib. The Pope above the Emperor 232 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Rule what Ib. The King of Babylon and Tyre also Antiochus and the Roman Emperor Types of Antichrist 233 In the Temple of God Ib. As God what it notes 234 Al Popish Traditions Doctrines of Demons 235 The Sum of Demon-Doctrines espoused by Antichrist 237 Table of Hebraic Words Explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bidden sense 76 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vesta 206 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baalim who 104 182 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ben a Son addicted 230 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of Prophetie 58 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pride 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blaspheme 187 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Investigator 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bidden sense 76 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to convince of folie 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 121 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deceive 52 101 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to blaspheme 187 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wise who 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God save you 65 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coresh Cyrus 182 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the practic Judgement 98 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disputation 31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain Questions 74 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proprieties 120 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proverbes 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to provoke to wrath 187 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophetie 57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 human Rites 169 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wives 211 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Scribe 42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the yoke of Law 166 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Essence or Bodie 53 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cabala 75 76 117 216 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to approche for worship 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 171 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirit of Prophetie 58 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deceive 52 101 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Destroyer 59 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hear 118 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sound Wisdome 85 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Talmud what 119 Table of Grecanic Words Explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image 58 196 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love-Festes 130 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sagacitie 87 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeones 126 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 226 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contradiction 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Demonstration 90 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acception 216 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apollo 59 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luxurie whence 129 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to erre 75 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lustre thence Augustus 231 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Freet-wil what 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baetylia what 198 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Gangrene what 122 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Genealogie 73 120 125 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ethic Characters 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnostic Science 10 74 123 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gnostics 74 124 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Demon what 67 103 171 180 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demon-worship 171-176 181 236 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialectic 91 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ratiocination 24 26 93-99 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Obtesting 121 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perverse Dispute 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accurate Disputation 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Constitution or Canon 165 169 171 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what 67 165 171 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Institutor 171 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Dogmatise what 7 169 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to presume 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

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 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 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 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

opportunitie to broach and perfect their Mystic contemplations Thus also the Pythagoreans Platonistes and Egyptian Priests spent a great part of their time in sublime Mystic Contemplations which made their Philosophie so Symbolic and Mystic as Porphyrie de Abstinent l. 4. § 6. p. 149. and Philos General p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. § 1. paragr 5. Farther that this Mystic Divinitie was taken up in Imitation of and Derivation from the Pythagorean Egyptian and Platonic Philosophie may appear not only from the Authors of it Origen and his followers who were seated at the fountain of Platonic Philosophie but also by its essential parts both mater and forme Mater of mystic Theologie Pythagorcan or mode 1 As for the mater of this Monkish Mystic Divinitie it aboundes with many Philosophic Fables and lying wonders answerable to the Mystic Fables in Pythagoras and Plato's Philosophie Indeed the whole of Antichrists Theologie is but a mere Philosophic and lying Mysterie as 2 Thes 2.9 But yet no part of Antichristianisme is so stuffed with lying Fables and Demonic Miracles as this Mystic Theologie framed by these Antichristian Monkes By whom were those Legends of fabulose wonders supposed to be wrought by Saints framed but by these Mystic Divines and that in imitation of the Pythagorean wonders wrought by Apollonius Tyanaeus and others of that Sect Indeed the whole of this Mystic Monkish Divinitie seems to be but a mere Pythagorean and Platonic Fable for though the original Idea might be some Divine Scripture-Mysterie yet these fabulose Monkes mixe so many of their own fantastic allegoric Fables therewith as that a critical eye can hardly discerne any elements or characters of Divine Truth amidst so many Fables 2 Neither is the mater only of this Mystic Theologie fabulose but its forme also Mystic Theologie as to its Forme Pythagorean Platonic answerable to the Mythologic Symbolic Allegoric mode of Philosophising so commun amongst the Pythagoreans and Platonists How much do these Mystic Divines glorie in their Tropologic Anagogic and Allegoric explication of Scripture Neither is there any Scripture so plain literal or historic but they have some Tropologic or Mystic sense for it witnesse that of Job 1.14 where by the Oxen plowing they understand the people laboring and by the Asses feeding beside them they understand the Priests feeding on the peoples labors In which Mystic Explication though most absurd as to the Texte yet we have more of truth than they ever dreamed of namely that al their Monastic Orders and Antichristian Priests are but so many idle Asses which feed on and waxe fat by the labors of poor Laics as they cal the people Indeed this Monkish Mystic Theologie does in point of Fables and Allegories seem to excede either the Jewish Cabala or the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie whence it received its original Ideas And we need no way dout but that the Spirit of God in laying down such severe Premonitions and Cautions against giving heed to Fables had a very great eye upon this fabulose mystic Divinitie which at first the Gnostics and since these Monkish Divines the first-borne sons of Antichrist took up in imitation of their Grand-fathers the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophers So 1 Tim. 1.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philosophic Fables 1 Tim. 1.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Allegoric Genealogies these Monkes affected as wel as the Gnostics The like 1 Tim. 4.7 where he addes this as one part of these Doctrines of Demons revived by Antichrist 1 Tim. 4.7 that they should revive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 old Philosophic fables which these mystic Monkes were greatly guilty of The like Tit. 1.14 In al which Textes we find these mystic Divines the Monkes fully characterised as wel as the Gnostics of which see B. 1. Chap. 4. § 1. § 2. After the Mystic Theologie framed by the Monkes The Origine of the Schole-men and their Theologie from Aristotle succeded the Schole-Divinitie composed by the Scholemen which received its origine from the very same fountain of Pagan Philosophie and tended to the very same end namely the confirmation and farther propagation of Antichristianisme though the medium and course taken up by the later was quite different yea opposite to that used by the former For the Monkes deriving their Mystic Theologie from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philosophie made use of al their fabulose Miracles and lying Wonders al their allegoric and mystic Interpretations of Scripture with al their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Pythagorean Institutes Abstinences Severities and other pretended Sanctities of their Monastic life as medium's to gain credit and authoritie to Antichrist their Parent and Lord. But now the Scholemen those younger sons of Antichrist though they had the same end in their eye yet they proceded on a new and different medium or way For these vain Sophists traducing their Scholastic Divinitie from their Grandfather Aristotle his Eristic Philosophie made it their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or businesse to maintain Antichrist their Father's Doctrine and Authoritie by vain disputations according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contentiose Logic in the Eleatic and Peripatetic Scholes And to make the demonstration hereof more firme and evident we shal a little consider the origine of Scholemen and their Divinitie its parts essential and integral As for the origine of the Schole-Divines they began to slourish in the thirteenth Centurie Scholasticorum apud Graecos Johan Damascenus apud Latinos Petr. Lombard fuit Pater Hornius Hist Philos l. 6. c. 2. about the middle thereof and their chief feat was at Paris which was then the eye of Europe for Liberal Sciences and Theologie For Charles the Great having in the ninth Centurie erected a famose Universitie there those who had inclinations to good Literature resorted thither as to the commun Schole thereof specially considering the Inundation of Barbarisme and Ignorance in Italie But that which rendred this Universitie of Paris more famose was the College of the Sorbonne instituted by Robert D. brother of Lewis King of France about the year 1270. Here the Scholemen Albertus Magnus Hugo the Cardinal Thomas Aquinas Bonaventura and the rest of that Gang seated themselves making it their businesse to defend the Popes Doctrine and Authoritie by their Philosophic distinctions and disputations wherein they found at first great opposition from more sober Divines and Professors of the Universitie at Paris specially from Gulielmus de sancto Amore a pious Reformer who flourished about the year 1260 and greatly declaimed and writ against those Schole-Divines their Philosophic Infusions as that which was likely to prove perniciose to the Church wherein indeed he was a true Prophet He writ many excellent Treatises against these Schole-Divines viz. A Defensorie of the Scripture and Church against the dangers which hung over the Universal Church by Hypocrites and false Teachers also of the perils of the later times of the signes of false prophets

2 Thes 2.4 Sitteth c. saith That this circumstance is taken out of what is mentioned of the King of Tyre Ezech. 28.2 I am a God I sit in the seat of God c. Ezech. 28.2 We may take in both because they were both Types of Antichrist Yea we may adde hereto what is mentioned of Antiochus Dan. 11.36 The King of Babylon and of Tyre also Antiochus and the Roman Emperor Types of Antichrist Dan. 11.36 And he shall magnifie himself above every God c. Also what is mentioned of the Roman Emperor Mat. 24.15 That he should set up his Abomination of Desolation in the Temple of God For al these Pagan Monarchs were by reason of their bloody Persecution against the Church of God Types of Antichrist his Spiritual Domination in the Churches of Christ by virtue of his usurped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yea indeed this Tyrannic persecution of Antichrist in many regardes excedeth al those former Persecutions of the King of Babylon Tyre Antiochus and of the Roman Emperors against the Jewish Church So Augustin de Civ l. 18. c. 52 53 c. tels us That this last Persecution under Antichrist which he cals the Eleventh would be of al the worst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood here 1 Subjectively In the Temple of God in as we translate it for his ruling in and over the Church of Christ not as an open enemie but under the pretexte of being Christ's Vicar and so it denotes the difference between the Usurpations of Pagans Nebuchadnezar Antiochus and the Roman Emperors who ruled over the Temple of Christ but not IN it as Antichrist whose Tyrannie is not externe and open but interne and under pretexte of a Vicarious power from Christ Revel 13.11 This Man of sin is not a bare-faced but Masqued enemie 2 We may render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra against Antichrist's sitting in or ruling over the Church being in order to its ruine Thus Mestrezat renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Temple of God i.e. Antichrist shal by his Empire ruine the Church Spiritually as the King of Babylon did it corporally for it is a sitting or Domination for ruine as it arrives from a cancer on the bodie 3 August de Civ l. 2. c. 19. gives this glosse hereon We need no way dout but that in this place 2 Thes 2.4 -11. The Apostle speakes of Antichrist v. 4. he saies not in the Temple of God but for the Temple of God as if he were the Temple of God which is the Church as we are wont to say sedet in amicum he sits for a friend i.e. as a friend Though this be a truth yet I conceive our commun version is most authentic which also comprehendes both the former For Antichrist sits in the Temple or Church of God as an absolute Monarch or counter-Christ for the Churches ruine not edification and thus though his Session be in the Temple of God yet is it also against the Temple or Church of God yea al his Pretensions of sitting as Christ's Vicar in his Church are but Politic expedients by which he does more effectually ruine the Church c. That the Temple of God here and else where in the Epistles is used as an expression of the Christian Churches which are the Bodie and truth of that whereof the Material Temple at Jerusalem was but the Type and Figure is evident from 1 Cor. 3.16 17. 2 Cor. 6.16 Ephes 2.20 21 22. And thus the Fathers as Augustin c. generally understand Then it follows As God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as God which seems also to refer to the description of the King of Babylon Esa 14.12 13. or of the King of Tyre Ezech. 28.2 For addes Mestrezat who ever attributes unto himself Domination over mens Consciences and Empire over the Christian Church he sits as God and deportes himself as if he were God And has not Antichrist usurped such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demonarchie to himself does he not sit on his Pontific Chair which he stiles St. Peters in Christ's room And has he not his Pontific Sceptre or staffe i.e. his Canon Law which he sets up in the room of Christ's Sceptre or Law has he not usurped the Keyes of Christ Revel 1.18 to bind whom Christ absolves and to absolve whom Christ bindes Doth he not condemne what God commandes and command what God condemnes Is not that evil by his Law which is good by Gods and that good by Gods Law which is evil by his Do not al his Ecclesiastic Canons bespeak him an Idol-God or Demon So it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing himself that he is God i.e. exhibiting himself as one of those great Demon Idols which the Pagans erected in their Temples and worshipped as Gods attracting to himself the eyes hearts and Consciences of al his Adorers Or as the Roman Emperors by assuming to themselves the Title and Authoritie of Pontifex Maximus did thereby virtually if not formally shew themselves to be Gods and so were called Divi Augusti and worshipped as Demons at least after their death Just so this Man of sin though he does not formally assume unto himself the Name of God or Christ yet virtually he shews himself as God or a Demon-Christ by usurping the Name and Power of a Pontifex Maximus of the Head of the Church St. Peter's Chair and Keyes c. § 3. Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Traditions Al Popish Traditions Doctrines of Demons 1 Tim. 4.1 with which his Canonic Theologie or Law is so greatly stuffed are al but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctrines of Demons in imitation as 1 Tim. 4.1 2. We have before S. 2. § 3 4. spoken somewhat of Antichrist's Ecclesiastic Traditions in relation to the Forme of his Canon-Law we shal now treat a little of them as they are the chief Materials of his Canonic Theologie And indeed the main bodie of Antichrist's Pontific Canon-Law is made up of certain Ecclesiastic Traditions which he pretendes to have received down from the Apostles by the hands of the Church but to give them their true Genealogie they are in truth no other than corrupt Imitamens of and Derivations from the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demon-worship To make this clear we must recollect what has been before mentioned of the Pythagoreans the great founders and Promotors of Demon-worship who alwaies received Pythagoras's Institutes as Divine Traditions delivered to him their Master by the Divine Oracle For al those great Founders of Demon-worship never presumed so much on their own Autoritie as to deliver any Institute or Canon touching the worship of their Demons without some pretension of Divine Tradition So Numa Pompilius Lycurgus Solon and al those great Legislators pretended unto a Divine Tradition for al those Institutes or Canons they delivered touching the worship of the Gods Plato aboundes in expressions to this