The Court of the Gentiles Part 3, Book 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 1

The Court of the Gentiles Part 3 · Book 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 1

p. 149SECT. I. Antichriſt's Myſtic and Scholaſtic Theologie from Ethnic Philoſophic.

§. 1. WE have ſhewen the ſad and evil Effects of Pagan Philoſophie in reference to the Pagans themſelves, the Jews, and the Primitive Chriſtians; we now procede to demonſtrate its pernicioſe cauſalitie and influence as to Antichriſt his hel-bred Doctrine and Diſcipline. And for our more Methodic procedure herein we ſhal reduce the whole of Antichriſtianiſme to theſe three Heads: (1) Myſtic Theologie; (2) Scholaſtic Theologie; 1. The Monkes drew Myſtic Divinitie from Pythagorean and Platonic Philoſophie in the Alexandrine Schole. 1 Tim 4.3.1 Tim 4:3(3) Canonic Theologie. (1) As for Antichriſt's Myſtic Theologie, it was the figment of the ſuperſtitioſe Monkes, who were the firſt-borne ſons of this Man of Sin, and the main Pillars of his Throne, according to that part of his character, 1 Tim. 4.3. foreign, forbidding to marie. It's true, there were ſome devote Chriſtians, who in time of perſecution choſe a Monaſtic or ſolitarie life; but the impoſing hereof under certain Rules, yea Vows, and that as a more perfect ſtate of Religion, proceded from the ſpirit of Antichriſt. Now theſe ſuperſtitioſe Monkes were firſt ſeated in Egypt at Alexandria; where they dranke in the Pythagorean and Platonic Philoſophie, and therewith many Philoſophic ſuperſtitions. And to treat a little more diſtinctly of the Origine of theſe Monkes, the firſt borne ſons of Antichriſt, and their Myſtic Theologie, we are to take a brief view of the Schole of Alexandria, and its Conſtitution when Monaſtic Life and Theologie was introduced into the Primitive Churches. This Schole of Alexandria, founded by Ptolomeus Philadelphus, was indeed the ſeat of al Philoſophie, yea the eye of the world as to learning, at this time when Monaſtic Life and Theologie crept into the Church, as we have largely demonſtrated, Court Gent. P. 2. B. 3. C. 4. §. 4, &c. The Philoſophie that moſt flouriſhed in this Alexandrine Schole at this time was Pythagorean and Platonic: and the principal Profeſſors thereof were the Egypt an Prieſts, who were incorporated into Colleges, or Convents, affecting a Monaſtic Life and Severities, in imitation of the Eſſenes among the Jewes; who, in the times of the Babylonian and ſubſequent Perſecutions under Antiochus, &c. affected a Monaſtic ſolitarie life, and ſevere Diſcipline, to preſerve the puritie of their Conſciences and Religion, as we have ſhewen Philoſ. General. P. 1. l. 1. c. 1. §. 11. Hence, I ſay, both p. 150the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Prieſts traduced their Monaſtic Life and Diſcipline: of which ſee Philoſoph. General. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. alſo l. 2. c. 3. §. 4. and Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. c. 6. §. 9. Now that the whole of Antichriſt's Monkes, their original Conſtitution, and Diſcipline, and Myſtic Theologie, was but a ſuperſtitioſe Imitamen of the Egyptian and Pythagorean Monaſtic Life and Philoſophie,1. Antichriſtian Monkes an Imitamen of Egyptian and Pythagorean Colleges. wil be moſt evident by the ſubſequent Parallels.

1. As to the origine of theſe Antichriſtian Monkes, their ſeveral Orders and Rules, they were indeed al but ſuperſtitioſe Imitamens, or Apes of Pagan Monkes and Diſcipline. We have before P. 2. Book 2. C. 6. §. 9. ſhewen how the Pythagoreans, in imitation of the Jewiſh Scholes and Eſſenes, affected a Collegiate Monaſtic life, and Diſcipline. And that the whole of Antichriſtian Monachiſme was but a reflexe Idea or Imitamen of that Pythagoraen Conſtitution, learned Bochart in his Treatiſe againſt Veron, part 3. chap. 25. §. 4. Art. 1. proves at large: ſhewing, how this injunction of Celibat and Monaſtic life was one great part of the Doctrine of Demons, 1 Tim. 4.1, 3. which was one of the ſuperſtitions Pythagoras brought out of Egypt into Grece; for he forbad Mariage to thoſe of his Sect, and erected a Cloiſtre of Virgins or Nuns, &c. then he proves, how that this inſtitution of Celibat was by Chriſts time eſtabliſhed almoſt throughout the Pagan World. But to come to Particulars: (1) The Pythagorean Monkes, in order to their more regular Collegiate life, entred into a moſt ſtrict confederation or covenant to walk by the ſame commun Rule, enjoined by their Maſter Pythagoras, as Court Gent. P. 2. B. 2. c. 6. §. 6. Thus alſo the Egyptian Prieſts, as Philoſ. Gener. P. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. parag. 11. The ſame do the Antichriſtian Monkes, who make a Vow to walk regularly according to the Rule of their Founder: whence they are called Regulars, in oppoſition to the Secular Prieſts. (2) Had the Pythagoreans in their College Novices and Perfect? So have the Antichriſtian Monkes. (3) Did the Pythagoreans ſeparate themſelves and deſpiſe al that were not of their Order, as foreign, imperfect and uninitiate? So do theſe Monaſtic Sons of Antichriſt, &c. (4) Did the Pythagoreans affect a ſuperſtitioſe ſilence? ſo do theſe Monkes; having this Motto over their dores, Silentium, ſilence. (5) The Pythagoreans enjoyed althings in commun; thence their College was called foreign, a communitie. The ſame do Antichriſts Monkes in their Convents, which p. 151they cal by the ſame name, Caenobium. (6) Had the Pythagoreans their Rules for abſtinence from fleſh, &c? Thus alſo the Egyptian Prieſts gloried much in their abſtinences from fleſh, &c. as Philoſ. Gener. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. parag. 3. And have not Antichriſts Monkes the ſame Abſtinences? are not the Carthuſians and Praemonstrantes under a prohibition from ever eating fleſh, according to their character, Col. 2.21. 1 Tim. 4.3? (7) The Pythagorean Collegiates had their white diſtinctive garments: ſo have theſe ſons of Antichriſt the like diſtinctive Garments or Veſtments, which Conſtantin ſtiles foreign, the Garment of darkneſſe. (8) Did the Pythagoreans greatly reverence their Elders? ſo do theſe ſons of Antichriſt their Superiors and Elders, calling them, my Father, &c. (9) Were the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Prieſts much addicted to devotion or foreign, ſuperſtitioſe Demon-worſhip? ſo are theſe ſuperſtitioſe Monkes to their foreign, Saint-worſhip, which exactly anſwers to the Pythagorean Demon-worſhip, as 1 Tim. 4.1. (10) Had the Pythagoreans and Egyptian Prieſts their Severities, Mortifications, and Purifications? ſo have theſe ſuperſtitioſe Monkes the very ſame. (11) The Pythagoreans divided their life into contemplative and active, &c. So alſo the Egyptian Prieſts, as Philoſoph. Gener. p. 1. l. 1. c. 2. S. 7. §. 1. So the Monkes. Now to explicate more fully the manner how theſe Pythagorean and Egyptian Rites of Monaſtic Life and Diſcipline were introduced firſt into the Egyptian Churches, and thence into the Grecian, Roman, and other Churches, we muſt reflect on what was before mentioned of Origen, C. 1. §. 8. who, in imitation of that Monaſtic Life, ſo much affected by the Pythagoreans, Platoniſtes, and Egyptian Prieſts in the Schole of Alexandria, brought in the like Monaſtic modes into the Churches of Egypt; wherein he was followed by his Sectators, the Origeniſtic Monkes of Egypt; from whom al Antichriſtian Monaſtic Life, Rules, Confederations, Orders, Abſtinences, and ſuperſtitioſe Rites proceded, as before, alſo in what follows, S. 3. §. 9.

2. To procede to the Myſtic Theologie hatcht by theſe Antichriſtian Monkes, and its production both as to mater and forme, The Monkes Myſtic Theologie from the Pythagorean and Platonic Philoſophie.in derivation from, and in imitation of the Pythagorean and Platonic Philoſophie. We have already ſhewed, that the Origine of this Myſtic Divinitie was laid by the Monkes of Alexandria, and other parts in Egypt; the Idea or platforme whereof was given them by Origen, who being brought up in the Schole of p. 152Alexandria under Ammonius, that great Reformed, and as ſome think Chriſtian Platoniſt, was ſo drencht in Pythagorean and Platonic Philoſophie, as that he fils his Commentaries on Scripture with little elſe ſave Allegoric and Myſtic Theologie, anſwerable to the Pythagoric and Platonic mode of Philoſophiſing. Wherein he is followed by his ſucceſſors the Monkes of Alexandria: amongſt whom Origen, by reaſon of his great parts and acquired learning, was greatly idoliſed and imitated; whence they were called Origeniſts. And that which gave them great advantage for the ſpinning out this their Cobweb of Allegoric and Myſtic Divinitie, was their ſolitarie Monaſtic contemplative life, which they greatly affected, and whereby they being freed from the encumbrances of worldly affaires, had the more 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 p. 153amidſt 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. foreign, Philoſophic Fables. 1 Tim. 1.4.1 Tim 1:4foreign. 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. 4.7.1 Tim 4:7 that they ſhould revive foreign, 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 p. 154their 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 foreign, 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 foreign, or buſineſſe, to maintain Antichriſt their Father's Doctrine and Authoritie by vain diſputations, according to the foreign, 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 p. 155the 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, &c. Yet notwithſtanding the Schole-men, thoſe great Champions of Antichriſt, found ſo much favor from Alphonſus Earle of Poictou, another brother of Lewis King of France, as that he, by threats and terrors, chaſed away the more zeloſe Reforming Divines, and eſtabliſhed theſe Scholaſtic Doctors in the Sorboune, as it is wel obſerved by our famoſe Baleus, de Script. Britan. Cent. 4 cap. 34. where he farther addes this: And as Cantipratenſis has it in his Book of Myſtic Bees, Albertus Magnus, Hugo Cardinalis, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and others of the ſame meal did many and wonderful things at Paris. And Eraſnus ſaies, that the Philoſophie which theſe our Maſters afterward uſed in the Scholes had its origine in theſe daies. Leland ſaies, that in thoſe times Arts degenerated from their puritie, and I know not what ſophiſtic Garrulitie made a noiſe in the Schole. Thus Baleus, who alſo (cap. 77.) acquaints us, that Arnoldus de Villa Nova, a famoſe Phyſician and Mathematician (who flouriſhed about An. 1300.) oppoſed in like manner theſe Divines; affirming, that they had perfidiouſly adjoined the Dreams of the Philoſophers to the Scriptures. Franciſcus Petrarcha, lib. 1. de Remed. utriuſque fortunae, Dialog. 46. complaines of theſe Scholemen thus: They fable many things raſhly of God and nature; by their airy Sophiſmes they circumſcribe the moſt Omnipotent Majeſtie: they diſpute ſo of the ſecrets of Nature, as if they came down from Heaven. By which we ſee, that in the firſt peepings forth of this Schole-Divinitie out of its ſhel, there were not wanting ſome zeloſe Reformers who oppoſed it, as being but a Philoſophic dream, which would greatly prejudice the true Chriſtian Theologie. And to make the ſame more evident and clear we ſhal conſider this Scholaſtic Theologie in its Parts, both eſſential and integral, with their origine from Pagan Philoſophie.

§. 3. The firſt Eſſential part of Scholaſtic Divinitie, The Eriſtic mode of Scholaſtic Theologie from the Eleatic and Peripatetic Scholes.we ſhal conſider, is its Forme or Mode of Philophiſing, which is Eriſtic or Dialectic, anſwerable to that in the Eleatic and Peripatetic Schole. For, as we have formerly obſerved, B. 1. C. 2. §. 1. there was in the Eleatic Schole a foreign, Eriſtic or contentioſe mode of Diſputing, whereof there was alſo ſome ſpice in the old Academie called foreign, a probationarie or problematic p. 156mode of diſputing, which yet was only about things doutful; but in the new Academies it determined in an univerſal foreign, or Sceptiſme. This foreign, contentioſe Logic, as ſeated in the old Academic Scholes was more ſimple and plain, being managed only in a way of Dialogue, according to the Scriptural mode of Diſputation. Whence foreign & foreign uſually ſignifie to diſpute. But Ariſtotle, to avoid the prejudices which ſuch a naked forme of diſputation was expoſed to, reduceth the diſputes of his Schole to a more artificial forme and method of ſyllogiſing; wherein by reaſon of his natural acumen he was extreme dexterous. Him therefore theſe Scholemen follow, as their Maſter; he having laid down a more ſuccinct, accurate, artificial forme of diſputation. Thus Luther (as Sleidan, Lib. 11. Comment.) ſaies, That Ariſtotle was in great repute among the Schole-Divines; and there was nothing ſo abſurd, ſo remote from our Religion, which they defend not, which they clothe not with ſome interpretation, although far-fetcht, that ſo his honor and name may be great. And Schmidius applies to them, 2 Tim. 2.23. Fooliſh and unlearned Queſtions reject, knowing that they breed contentions. But how guilty theſe Schole-Divines are as to contentioſe diſputes is ſet forth to the life by one of their own Religion, Eraſmus in his Annotations, on 1 Tim. 1.6. where he diſcovers how far they have, by their frivolous vain Queſtions and Digladiations turned away, foreign, to vain babling. Though, to give Ariſtotle his due, he was nothing near ſo vain and contentioſe in his Diſputes, as theſe Scholemen are. It's true, he left ſome Theſes to be diſputed by his Scholars, (as alſo Theophraſtus his ſucceſſor after him) as an exercice of their acumen and wits; but theſe diſputations were nothing like thoſe vain foreign, or contentioſe diſputes, which are in uſe amongſt the Scholemen. Therefore to give a more particular account of the origine of theſe vain Scholaſtic Diſputes, we muſt know, that theſe Scholemen, though they pretend Ariſtotle to be their Maſter, yet they rather owe their Eriſtic mode of diſputing to Ariſtotle's Commentators the Arabians; How far the Arabians contributed to Scholaſtic Theologie.particularly to Aben roes, who having little or no skil in the Greek, and not much in the Latin, could only make ſome poor gueſſes touching Ariſtotle's mind and ſenſe: whence he framed many exotic termes, and uncouth notions and diſtinctions as ſo many blinds to concele his ignorance. We ſind this p. 157wel obſerved by Owen, de Theolog lib. 6. cap. 7. pag. 515, &c. In al the Eriſtic diſputations, Ariſtotle's name is pretended, when as they rather follow his corrupt Interpreters and Commentators. For the Arabians, (from whom the Scholemen derived al their niceties) being moſt ignorant of Greek and Latin, were forced to make uſe of rude and unlearned Tranſlations from the Latin to the Arabic Tongue, which in many places could no way reach the ſenſe of the Original, &c. The like account I ſind in Hornius, Hiſtor. Philoſ. l. 5. c. 10. of theſe Arabian Commentators on Ariſtotle, thus: I wiſh, they had been skilled (which is altogether neceſſarie to accurate Philoſophie) in the Tongues, and in Philologie. But they being borne in the midſt of Barbariſme, what elſe brought they to Philoſophie, but Ingenie and Induſtrie? There happened another evil, that whileſt they eſtimed Ariſtotle for the God of Sapience, who could not erre, they oſt erre, with erring Ariſtotle. This alſo we may peremtorily affirme, that they who gave up themſelves to Ariſtotle's Philoſophie, could not underſtand Ariſtotle in his own tongue, nor yet in any tolerable Verſion. There were extant Arabic Verſions, but thoſe in many places maimed, perverted, corrupted. Which happened by the fault partly of the times, partly of men, partly of the Tongues. The times were ſo barbarous, that Grece it ſelf was ignorant of her own Plato and Ariſtotle. For as it was difficult to turne Ariſtotle out of Greek, by reaſon of his conciſe and interrupted manner of ſpeech; ſo was it moſt difficult for the Arabians, whoſe ſpeech, as it is evident,Quanquam dubium non ſit, quin, ſi ipſos Arabes ſua lingua, quae ſcripſerunt, lectitaremus, aut purior ſaltem verſio adornaretur, propius ad mentem Ariſtotelis acceſſuri eſſent. Horn. Hiſtor. Philoſ. l. 5. c. 10. is moſt diſſerent from the Greek: hence it was that theſe Commentators ſo often miſtake Ariſtotle. Thus Caelius, lib. 2. A. l. cap. 2. of Avincenna. He being, ſaies he, imbued with the Arabic Idiome, and no way verſt in the Greek literature, read Ariſtotle's Books not tranſlated, but mutilated and perverted in his barbaric tongue: whence no wonder if he could not attain to the ſenſe and mind of that moſt eminent Author, who for brevities ſake oft ſpeaks ſo conciſely, that the beſt Philoſophers can hardly reach his ſenſe. Yea that which addes to the Scholemens miſtakes of Ariſtotle, is that they underſtood only ſome Verſions of theſe Arabic Commentators on Ariſtotle. That Abenroes, (or as they write him Averroes) the chief of the Arabian Commentators on Ariſtotle, was of great repute amongſt the Scholemen at Paris, yea more ſtudied p. 158than Ariſtotle's Text, is evident, in that it was reputed the glorie of a Scholeman to be a good Averroiſt. And not many years ſince we found Averroes in great vogue there. We find an excellent character of theſe Ariſtotelic Divines, and their Eriſtic mode of diſputing in Janſenius's Auguſt. Tom. 2. lib. pro em. c. 28. The Scholemen being even drunken with the love of too much Philoſophie, would fain draw out, penetrate, forme, and judge thoſe ſecret myſteries of Grace, almoſt buried and extinguiſhed, according to the rules of human reaſon. Hence that ardor of diſputing every thing, and calling al thoſe myſteries into queſtion. Hence their Theologie is ſtuffed with a bundle of innumerable opinions, by which al things though never ſo contrary are made probable, which, according to their own declarations, it is lawful for any to defend. So that promtitude has ſcarce leſt any thing certain, but a belief that it is lawful to forme new opinions; for Scepticiſme and incertitude is the puniſhment of ſuch temeritie: neither is any thing more natural, than that men from Peripatetics ſhould become Academics, &c. We find the like account of this Schole-Divinitie, and its foreign in Owen, Theol. lib. 6. c. 7. pag. 516, &c. Al the difference betwixt the Scholemen and Philoſophers lies in this, that they have mixed ſomewhat of Scripture with their Science. — In the beginning of Reformation nothing ſeemed ſo odioſe in that Apoſtatiſed Church, as this Theologic Science, which ruled in the Schole. — From this Philoſophic Theologic there has ſprung many Errors, infinite contentions, which might be eaſily removed, if Chriſtians would content themſelves with the naked Word of God, laying aſide that ſpinoſe Theologie, &c. Sir Francis Bacon, in his Novum Organum, ſpeaking of theſe Scholaſtic Divines, ſaies, That beſides their reducing Theologie into an order, and artificial forme, they over and above effected this, that Ariſtotle's contentioſe and ſpinoſe Philoſophie ſhould be more than was meet mixed with the bodie of Religion. This made Sir Henry Wotton give this as his Epitaph, Diſputandi pruritus eſt ſcabies Eccleſiae, the itch of Diſputing is the ſcab of the Church. And indeed Chriſt and his Apoſtles foreſeeing the noxious influences of theſe Scholaſtic diſputes, give frequent, and very ſevere Premonitions againſt them. So 1 Tim. 6.4, Doting about queſtions and ſtrife of words: 1 Tim. 6.4, 5.1 Tim 6:41 Tim 6:5foreign, i. e. (as Grotius) anſwerable to the Philoſophers p. 159foreign, Again v. 5. foreign, or foreign, Sophiſtic diſputes: which he cals v. 20. foreign, profane and vain bablings: alſo foreign, oppoſition of ſcience falſely ſo called, of which ſee more fully B. 1. C. 1. §. 6. Again, 1 Tim. 1.6. foreign, of which Book 1. C. 2. §. 1. as alſo, 1 Cor. 1.20. foreign. Which Scriptures, though they might have ſome fulfilling in, and regard unto thoſe vain diſputings began in the Primitive Churches; yet we may not limit them to thoſe times: For without dout the Spirit of God, in laying down ſuch ſtrict cautions againſt theſe vain diſputes, had a particular regard to following times, wherein he foreſaw theſe Philoſophic contentions would be revived; as indeed they were by the Schole Divines.

§. 4. As the Forme, ſo alſo the Mater of Schole-Divinitie, The mater of Schole Divinitie, ſpecially Pelagian Infuſions from Philoſophie.had its origine in good part from Pagan Philoſophie. It's true, the Texte theſe Scholaſtic diſputers Theologiſe upon is uſually the Sentences collected out of the Fathers by Lombard, but their Comments are for the moſt part little elſe but Philoſophic Notions and Diſtinctions taken out of Ariſtotle and his Commentators, Abenroes, &c. I ſhal not treat at large of the Mater of Schole Divinitie, but only of their Pelagian Infuſions, which are their foreign, the ſpirit of Antichriſt, which they have greatly fomented by their Scholaſtic Diſputes, and contemplations traduced from Pagan Philoſophic. And here we may not bring al the Schole-Divines under this imputation and condemnation. For Thomas Aquinas and his followers the Thomiſtes, who keep more cloſe to Auguſtin, are nothing near ſo guiltie of this Pelagian crime as the Jeſuites. Yea, many of the Thomiſtes, as Greg. Ariminenſis, Alvarez, and others, have greatly oppoſed the Pelagians and Jeſuites in the moſt principal of their Dogmes againſt Efficacious Grace. Yet, that the Scholemen have been the great brochers and patrons of Pelagianiſme, is evident by their Writings: neither did Pelagius's Doctrine find any conſiderable favor and acceptation in the Catholic Church til the Scholemen came in play. And that theſe Pelagian Infuſions were foiſted into their Schole Divinitie by Philoſophic Diſputes and Principes, is as clear. We have in the foregoing Chapter, §. 8, 10. ſhewen, what foundation the Pelagian Hereſie received amongſt the Grecian Fathers, particularly Origen, and that from Pagan Philoſophie. Now that the Scholemen build their Pelagian Infuſions p. 160upon the ſame foundation, wil be eaſie to prove. We find a great account hereof in Janſenius his Auguſtinus, Tom. 1. lib. 6. cap. 18. Although if we, would reduce the Pelagian Error to its proper fountain, and weigh it in its own ballance, we ſhal find that it has been compoſed of nothing elſe but of the Placits of gentile Philoſophers. Neither is the apparatus of that whole Hereſie any thing elſe but pure Pythagoric, Stoic, and Ariſtotelic Philoſophie; ſo that what Tertullian and Jerome ſaid of the Philoſophers, that they were the Patriarchs of Heretics, may be affirmed of none more truely than of the Pelagians, their deſcent from the Philoſophers. Which may eaſily be demonſtrated of each hinge of the Pelagian Error:1. The Pelagian foreign from Philoſophie. For (1) the firſt and chief Pelagian Dogme was concerning foreign, Apathie, or Impeccance; and what is this but that moſt known and proud reverie of the Pythagoric and Stoic Philoſophie? againſt which both the Peripatetics and new Academics moſt ſtoutly diſpute; whoſe opinions Tullie in his Tuſculan Queſtions has explicated. That the Scholemen have been great Champions for this Philoſophic Pelagian Impeccance, or ſtate of Perfection in this life,2. Free-wil from Philoſophic. is evident from al their writings, &c. (2) Another Philoſophic infuſion ſuckt in by the Pelagian Schole-Divines, follows in Janſenius thus: It is the unanimous opinion of the Philoſophers, That other things are to be ſought from the Gods, but Virtue from a man's ſelf. So Seneca, The only good which is the cauſe and firmament of a bleſſed life, is to truſt on a mans ſelf. In which words the whole venome of the Pelagian impietie is comprehended. So Tullie de Nat. Deorum, fine, Virtue, ſaies he, is never acknowledged by any as received from God. That the Philoſophers generally aſſerted a natural power or freewil to moral good has been before proved, Part 2. Book 3. Ch. 2. §. 4. which ſome called the ſeeds of virtue, others foreign, good nature, others foreign, others foreign, a ſelf-power, others foreign, an indifference to good or evil. Al which the Scholemen have foiſted into their Theologie, both names and things. That this Scholaſtic Free-wil and indifference to good and evil, was originally a Philoſophic figment, 3. Pelagian Errors about Original Sin from Philoſophie.ſee more largely Janſenius, Augut. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 24. (3) It follows in Janſenius, Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 18. Alſo their diſputes againſt Original Sin and its puniſhment, whence came they but from the Ethnics Philoſophie? for theſe were not only ignorant of the traduction of Sin from p. 161the Parent to the Child, but alſo aſſorded unto Pelagius ſuch materials as ſerved for a foundation to his Error, &c. And have not the Scholemen made uſe of the ſame Philoſophic Armes to oppugne the traduction of Original Sin?

(4) Janſenius addes, That not only the Pelagian Dogmes,Pelagians Armes from Philoſophie. but alſo the very weapons which are uſed by its Defendents to maintain the ſame were taken out of the Philoſophers Shop: which is ſo far true, that if you take away the garrulitie or babling of Philoſophie, the whole Hereſie may be diſſipated by one breath. Whence the Pelagians being condemned by the Church flie to the Philoſophers, even by their ſentence to be abſolved from condemnation. Then he addes more particularly concerning the Scholemen, how much they have ſomented and nouriſhed this Pelagian Hereſie, by virtue of Ariſtotle's Philoſophie incorporated into their own ſubtile Queſtions and Scholaſtic niceties. Moreover as Philoſophie alone produced this Pelagian Hereſie, ſo as many as in after-times amongſt the Chriſtians have adulterated the puritie of Divine Grace, by a predominant mixture of human libertie, have been ſeduced by the inveiglement of Philoſophie. — For by how much the more plain and ſimple the truth once was explained, and delivered; by ſo much the more vexatious ſubtiltie found or caſt in ſcruples; and that which it found certain, it made uncertain, by mixing therewith uncertainties: for too much of Philoſophie has ever ſophiſticated, not perfected Chriſtian truth, in that it does not believe ſufficiently things divine and ſixed; neither does it ſufficiently underſtand thoſe human mixtures which by their ſeeming novitie flater, &c. We find yet a more ful confirmation hereof in Janſenius, Auguſt. Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 23. Amongſt the Pelagians there is a great eſtimation of Secular Sciences; and becauſe they are ſons of contention, they greatly affect Logic, becauſe any thing is wont to be defended by the pertinacious againſt the truth by Philoſophic ſubtilties. Hence they would needs ſeem exact Dialectics and Ariſtotelics, that ſo they may by their Syllogiſmes caſt miſts on the eyes of the ignorant: Which vanitie Auguſtin does moſt frequently upbraid the Pelagians withal. Hence they would have althings doutful decided by human reaſons; which they ever-where crack, as the Philoſophers were wont. Namely, Reaſon holds the chief place amongſt the Pelagians, to which they contend, al the p. 162Scriptures muſt conforme, although they ſeem to ſpeak what is contrary thereto. Whence Julian fixing the Pelagian rule, ſaith, What reaſon argues authoritie may not denie. Thus Janſenius: wherein he gives us an exact character of theſe Pelagian Schole-Divines, and their Philoſophic Theologie. For what more Idoliſed in the Scholes than their Recta Ratio, Right Reaſon, as they ſtile it, which they make the meaſure of Moral good and evil, anſwerably to the foreign, right reaſon among the Philoſophers, of which ſee P. 4. B. 1. C. 2. §. 2. Yea, that theſe Schole-Divines have out-gone the very Philoſophers, (thoſe who were more ancient) in their Pelagian Infuſions, is excellently laid open to us by Janſenius, Auguſt. Tom. 2. de Nat. pura l. 2. c. 2. p. 326. I have more than once, ſaies he, vehemently wondred, that the Philoſophers, before the light of the Goſpel ſhone on the Gentiles, Philoſophiſed far more rightly, more accurately, more holily of the chief Heads of Moral Doctrine, of the Infirmitie of natural Abilitie to live wel, of God to be loved in al acts, of the Souls Purgation and Beatitude, of the Neceſſitie of Grace, &c. than many Chriſtian Scholemen. Neither truely can I find any other cauſe hereof but this, that they have univerſally followed Ariſtotle's foreign, vain ratiocination, who being willing to carpe at the choiſeſt Heads of Learning in his Maſter Plato, and that either from his ignorance of Divine things, or from an emulation of his Maſter's glorie, he by his minute reaſonings contemplated only terrene things: He ſuppoſed there needed not any Adjutorie of a ſuperior Being, either to Virtue, or Happineſſe its reward; but being ignorant of his own Imbecillitie, he taught, that for every good worke a man ſhould confide in his own ſtrength and virtue. This is the very poiſon which the Pelagians ſucked from him as their Maſter, whileſt they ſtifled the Grace of God as ſuperfluous: This is the Doctrine which the Scholemen have endeavored to moderate, whileſt they frame two men in one, a Philoſopher, and a Chriſtian. Whence alſo we ſee it happened, that ſo long as Ariſtotle's Philoſophie ſtood baniſhed from the Churches Scholes, there was no mention found of theſe Pelagian Dogmes or blandiſhments of pure nature in the Writings of the Latin Fathers, Cyprian, Ambroſe, Auguſtin, &c. But the Scholemen, becauſe they remembred themſelves to be Chriſtians, placed a ſupernatural and natural man, as the Arke with p. 163Dagon, in the ſame houſe: For whatever they perceive to be predicated of Divine Grace in Scripture, that they applie to the ſupernatural man: and whatever they find mentioned in the Philoſophers touching the power of the wil, and Philoſophic Virtues, this they applie to the natural man. Whence their diſtinction of Virtue and Happineſſe into natural and ſupernatural, as hereafter, P. 4. Book 1. Chap. 2. §. 4. Thus we ſee how al the Pelagian Dogmes have been revived by the Scholemen, and that upon Philoſophic Principes.