The Court of the Gentiles Part 3, Book 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 4

The Court of the Gentiles Part 3 · Book 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 4

p. 222SECT. IV. Papal Primatie and Traditions from Ethnic Philoſophie.

§. 1. ANother piece of Antichriſt's Canon-Law is that which concernes his Canonic Papal Primatie, Antichriſt's Canonic Primatic an Imitamen of the Pagan.which we may reckon alſo as a part of his foreign, foretold 1 Tim. 4.1. For, as Mede wel obſerves, the whole of Antichriſtianiſme is comprehended under this Prophetic character of Antichriſt. And indeed, that the whole of Antichriſt's Primatie is but foreign, or an Imitation of the Pagan Primatie ſtabliſhed at Rome and elſewhere, is evident from the confeſſion of his own Canon-Law: for Decret. part 1. Diſtinct. 21. Edit. Colon. an. 1631. pag. 62. I find (according to this exact Verſion) theſe very words: Amongſt the Prieſts there is ſome difference kept, ſo that ſome are called ſimple Prieſts; ſome Arch-Presbyters; ſome Chorepiſcopi; ſome Biſhops; ſome Arch-Biſhops; ſome Metropolitans; ſome Primates; ſome Patriarches; ſome [ſummi Pontifices] high Prieſts or Popes. This difference was introduced chiefly from the Gentiles, who called their Flamens, ſome Arch-flamens, others Proto-Flamens. Thus the Canoniſt: who indeed gives us a good Genealogie of al their Canonic Primatie. I find this wel obſerved by learned Bochart, Contre Veron, part. 3. Paragr. 86. cap. 23. pag. 883. To the Ceremonies of the Jewes they have joined p. 223thoſe of the Pagans. It is upon this Model that they have built al their Papal Hierarchie, &c. I find the like obſervation in Grotius, de Imp. Sum. Poteſt. cap. 11. pag. 350. It may be demanded by what exemple chiefly the Epiſcopal dignitie was introduced into the Church? That there were Degrees of Prieſts amongſt the Gentiles is moſt evident. Neither was this a new cuſtome, or proper only to the Greeks, and their Deſcendents, as the Diſcipline of the Druides teacheth us. The Druides, ſaies Caeſar, have one Preſident, who has the chiefeſt autoritie amongſt them. Druidibus praeeſt unus, qui ſummam inter eos habet autoritatem. Caeſ. Comm.Alſo that the Preeminence of the Metropolitan Cities in Sacreds was very ancient, Thucydides teacheth us, who ſpeaking of the Corcyreans, Colonies of the Corinthians, ſaies, foreign, there were the chief Rulers of the Prieſts. On which place the ancient Scholiaſt addes, foreign, 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 foreign or foreign, 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, p. 224for 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 foreign or foreign, 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, p. 225tels 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. 2.7.2 Thess 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, Rev. 13.12. And he exerciſeth al the power of the firſt Beſte before him. So v. 15.Antichriſt's Character by Paul.

But al this wil more fully appear by that Character which Paul p. 226gives him,2 Theſ. 2.3, 4.2 Thess 2:32 Thess 2:4 2 Theſ. 2.3, 4. That man of ſin, &c. I know Hammond, in his Annotations on this Text, [Note E] underſtandes by this Man of Sin, Simon Magus, and that excluſively, without any reſpect to the Roman Antichriſt. So Bellarmine alſo underſtandes it of a ſingle perſon, as Grotius after him. But this fond conceit has been already refuted ſufficiently out of Mede, S. 2. §. 3. of this Chapter, and the vanitie of it wil farther appear by an explication of the parts.foreign, That Apoſtaſie. It is ſaid firſt, foreign, there ſhal come a falling away, or an Apoſtaſie; i.e. a total, univerſal, horrid Defection of the viſible Church. Which cannot be meant of any particular Heretics, or Hereſie in thoſe times: (1) Becauſe he ſpeakes of it Propheticly as a thing to come, not then exiſtent. (2) He here ſpeakes of an univerſal and total Apoſtaſie of the viſible Church, which can't be applied to any Hereſie then in being; becauſe al the Hereſies of the Gnoſtics and others then on foot were but particular, and generally diſowned by the Churches of Chriſt, &c.

2. He deſcribes this general revolt by its Head; That man of ſin.whom he cals,2 Theſ. 2.3. foreign.2 Thess 2:3 foreign, That man of ſin. (1) We may conſider him as a Man, and ſo he is ſtiled, That Man, in a way of Eminence and ſingularitie, which denotes him to be ſuch a monſtre, as never had, nor ſhal have his parallel. If we have a curioſitie to know [1] his Names, he is ſtiled ver. 4. foreign, one that oppoſes Chriſt, or a counter-Chriſt, i.e. Antichriſt. He is ſtiled alſo Rev. 13.11. The two-horned Beſte; and Rev. 16.13, 19, 20. The falſe Prophet. [2] As for his Anceſtors, we may run up his Gnealogie to Cain, and the Phariſees, from whom he received his Doctrine of Juſtification by Workes; to Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Antiochus Epiphanes, from whom he derived his Tyrannic perſecution; to Balaam, Barchozba, Apollonius Tyanaeus, and Simon Magus, from whom he received his Impoſtures and Lying Wonders; to the Gnoſtics, from whom he received his Pythagorean Infuſions and Superſtitions. Yet his immediate Parents were the Old Serpent, Rev. 12.9, 15. and Babylon the mother of Harlots, or the Apoſtate Church, Rev. 17.1,-5. [3] As for his firſt conception, it was very early, even in Paul's time, as 2 Theſ. 2.7. which John was more fully inſtructed in, as 1 Joh. 2.18. [4] His Nativitie and Birth, Cluverus on Revel. 11. Tom. 3. pag. 29, &c. refers to An. 440, or thereabouts: and ſo he makes Pope Leo Magnus, the firſt of the Antichriſtian line, in whom p. 227the Number of the Beſte began. And indeed his Arguments to begin the Antichriſtian Tyrannie with Leo Magnus ſeem weighty; becauſe he was the firſt that aſſumed an Univerſal Domination, by virtue of the power of the Keyes given to Peter, Math. 16.18, 19. Of which ſee more Cluverus. And if we begin the Birth of this Man of Sin with Leo Magnus, then his Deſtruction wil be about An. 1700 acccording to the Prophetic determination, Rev. 12.6, 14. where Antichriſt's Duration is confined unto 1260 years. But (2) if we conſider him as That man of ſin, then obſerve here the abſtract for the concrete, which implies an univerſalitie or perfection both of Parts and Degrees. He is a perfect man of ſin, both Extenſively and Intenſively. [1 Extenſively, or as to the parts and kinds of ſin, he is the complexe of al manner of ſins. What ſin is there ſo flagitioſe and monſtroſe, whereof we have not ſome Idea in this Man of ſin? Doth not his Head contain al the Hereſies that were ever found in the Church? Are not the Pelagian Infuſions the vital ſpirits of his heart? Is he not alſo a man of Schiſmes? Has not his Tyrannic Domination proved the wombe of the greateſt Schiſmes in the Church? Is he not alſo a man of Idolatries and Superſtitions? Are not al the Demon-ſuperſtitions to be found in him, as S. 3? Is not his mother-Church ſtiled, Rev. 17.1. the mother of Harlots, i.e. Idolatries? Yea is he not a man of Blaſphemies, as Rev. 13.1, 5, 6? Doth he not blaſpheme the Tabernacle or Bodie of our Lord, by his Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation? Are not the Heavenly Inhabitants, i.e. Angels and glorified Saints, blaſphemed by his foreign, or Saint worſhip? Is not alſo the Name of God, i.e. his Soverain Nature, Attributes, and Perfections, blaſphemed by his Idolatrie and Wil-worſhip? What is Blaſphemie, according to its formal Idea, but the diminiſhing or blemiſhing the Name and Honor of God? (1) By taking that from God that belonges to him. (2) By aſcribing that to God, that belonges not to him. (3) By aſcribing that to the Creature that belonges to God? Is he not alſo a man of Pride, Ambition, and Ʋſurpation? Can there be a more Hel-bred piece of pride, than for a poor beggerly Prieſt to exalt himſelf above al the Princes of the world, as 2 Theſ. 2.4? May he not alſo be juſtly ſtiled a man of blood, as Revel. 17.6? Yea is not al the blood of Saints that was ever ſhed from Abel to this day approved by him? Was there ever ſuch a Murderer found as this man of ſin, Rev. p. 22811.7? And is he not likewiſe a man of avarice or covetouſneſſe? was there ever ſuch an avaricioſe miſer found as this, who meaſures al Godlineſſe by Gain? Is not the Chamber of Rome wel Characteriſed by one, who ſtiles it an Infernal Golphe, which ſwallows up al that comes to it, without ever refunding any part? May we not alſo deſervedly terme him a Man of Sorceries, and Witchcrafts? Is not Exorciſme or Conjuration one of the principal Offices of his Church?Rev. 14.8.Rev 14:8 Do we not read, Revel. 18 23. of his Sorceries? Rev. 18 23.Rev 18:23which we find explicated, Revel. 14.8. The wine of the wrath of her fornication. foreign here ſignifies not wrath, but poiſon, the ſame with foreign, Revel. 18.23. namely thoſe poiſonous Philtres, or bewitching charmes, whereby the Whore of Babylon bewitches the Nations, in alluſion to Whores, who were wont to drinke Philtres to their Paramors in a Golden cup, thereby to charme their affections, as Mede. Again, is he not a man of ſenſualities and impurities? was there ever any guilty of ſuch uncleanneſſes both corporal and ſpiritual? O! what Luxurie, Sodomie, and al manner of Senſualitie is to be found at Rome, under the Throne of this Antichriſtian Beſte? And doth not al this procede from the juſt judgement of God, who uſually puniſheth ſpiritual fornication with corporal, as before? Is he not alſo a man of Ignorance? Is not his Kingdome ſubordinate to that of Satan, a Kingdome of Darkneſſe? Is not Ignorance ſtiled by him the mother of his Devotion? How many intrigues has he to keep his ſubjects in darkneſſe? Doth not the power of his Sceptre conſiſte in the power of darkneſſe? With what black Curſes doth he ſeal up the holy Scriptures from the peoples view? How do al his Devoti flie from the light of life, and turne their backes on the Sun of Righteouſneſſe? Is not Ignorance the main pillar of his Throne? What black darkneſſes covered Europe ſo long as this man of Sin gave Laws to it? Yea farther, may we not with juſtice terme him a man of Atheiſme? Whence ſprang al that Machiavellian Atheiſme, which like a deluge hath overflowen al Europe, but from the Doctrines and Practices of this man of ſin? What more potent to make men Atheiſts, than ſuch a ridiculoſe ſuperſtitioſe Religion, as that of this man of ſin? Doth not carnal Policie, which is the quinteſſence of Poperie, naturally tend to Atheiſme? Moreover, is he not a man of Irreligion and Profaneneſſe? Hath he not for more than 1000 years profaned the Temple of God by his Abomination p. 229of Deſolation? how has he polluted al the Ordinances, Sacraments, and holy things of God? Again, may we not without injurie terme him a man of Hypocriſie, Lies, and Deceit? Are not Lying wonders and fabuloſe Legends the main foundation of his Kingdome, as 2 Theſ. 2.7, 10? Is he not ſaid, Rev. 13.11. To have two hornes like a lambe; i.e. to counterfeit the power of Chriſt? So 1 Tim. 4.2. he is ſaid to introduce al his Doctrines of Demons, foreign, by the hypocriſie, &c. as before S. 3. §. 1, &c. Yea what is al Poperie but a profunde Myſterie of Iniquitie, a complexe of Phariſaic ranke hypocriſie, a mere carnal lie? Laſtly, to ſum up the Idea's of Antichriſt, is he not a man of Apoſtaſie? Are not al the Apoſtaſies of the Church in al Age to be found in this man of ſin? Is not this the principal reaſon why Babylon is ſtiled the mother of Harlots, Rev. 17.5? Thus we ſee how he is That man of ſin extenſively; i.e. of al kinds of ſin; the ſyſteme and complexe of al Hereſies, ſins, and blaſphemies, &c. It's true, there were many errors and corruptions in the Primitive Churches, and many Antichriſts, as 1 Joh. 2.18. yet none of them were this man of ſin; but he is the aggregate and compende of al of them; he is as it were the Ocean, into which al thoſe foregoing Hereſies and Abominations did flow. Thus he is ſaid to be that man of ſin; i.e. of al kinds or ſorts of Sin and Hereſie, in whom al Hereſies met as lines in their centre. [2.] This phraſe, That man of ſin, implies an intenſive univerſalitie, or perfection of degrees; i.e. in whom al ſins meet in their higheſt degree; for it is wel known, that Abſtractes ſpeak, formes, eſſences, and quinteſſences of things. So that Man of ſin, implies the moſt notorious ſins, abominations, and blaſphemies, enormities in the moſt ſoverain degree. Some conceive this character given Antichriſt to be borrowed from the like given by the Jewes to Antiochus his Type, 1 Maccab. 2.48, 62. who is there ſtiled, That ſinner; i.e. ſuch a ſinner as outwent al that ever were. Hence the prodigioſe ſin of Antichriſt is termed, 2 Theſ. 2.7. a myſterie of iniquitie; i.e. a profunde infinite abyſſe of iniquitie. So it's ſaid of Babylon, the royal ſeat of this man of ſin, Revel. 18.5. For her ſins have reached unto heaven; foreign,Rev. 18.5.Rev 18:5 i.e. her ſins following each other, and ariſing each from other grew ſo numeroſe and great, as that at laſt they reached up to Heaven, juſt like a pile of Wood, &c. Again, there is ſome emphaſis in the article foreign that man; i. e. foreign, he who is not only a diſloyal ſervant, or a declared enemie, but a Traitor and Uſurper of Chriſts p. 230Empire. Oh! what a world of Treaſons and Blaſphemies againſt Chriſt is he guilty of, and that under a pretexte of being Chriſt's Vicar? In ſum, if you ſhould rake Hel, you could not find a ſinner either extenſively or intenſively equal to this man of ſin.

Then follows the other part of his Character,2 Theſ. 2.3. foreign. That Son of Perdition.2 Thess 2:3 foreign, That ſon of perdition. i.e. (1) Actively, he who wil deſtroy himſelf, and al that adhere to him, as 2 Pet. 2.1. And bring upon themſelves ſwift deſtruction. Antichriſt's Perdition ſhal ariſe out of his own bowels; he ſhal periſh in and by his own deſignes, endeavors, and oppoſitions. As Chriſt makes the neceſſities of his enemies to ſerve his Churches conveniences; ſo alſo doth he not make the oppoſitions of his Enemies ſubſervient to their own ruine? Antichriſt has been theſe twelve hundred years digging a grave to burie the Church alive; but wil he not at laſt fal himſelf thereinto, and fil up the living Churches place? Do not Antichriſt and his Adherents, whiles they ſtrike at Chriſt and his Members, break their own arme on that rocke? (2) Antichriſt is That ſon of perdition, paſſively, [1] as worthy of perdition. So Epheſ. 2.3. Children of wrath; i.e. who deſerve wrath. If ever any deſerved perdition, this man of ſin doth. In which ſenſe Judas as his Type is termed, Joh. 17.12. That ſon of perdition. [2] As under the curſe of God, which at laſt brings perdition. So we read, 2 Pet. 2.14. of curſed Children, or Sons of the curſe. And is not Antichriſt a ſon of al the Curſes in the Word of God? What curſe is there which belonges not to him? [3] He is the ſon of that famoſe perdition, ſo much ſpoken of in the Word of God, and typified by al the great Perditions of Gods Enemies: a perdition in which al other perditions meet, the perdition of the old world, Sodome, Pharaoh, Babylon, Jeruſalem, &c. So Revel. 17.8. it's ſaid, that the Antichriſtian Beſte ſhal go into perdition; i.e. into that famoſe perdition ſo much ſpoken of. [4] He is that ſon of perdition, becauſe devoted, adjudged, ſentenced to perdition, as his proper Enheritance. As the Enheritance belonged to the Son, ſo Perdition to the man of ſin. What is ſaid of the deſtruction of the Ninevites, Nah. 1.9. He wil make an utter end: affliction ſhal not riſe up the ſecond time, ſhal be the portion of this man of ſin. As Judas was that ſon of perdition, becauſe adjudged to it; ſo the man of ſin is that ſon of perdition; i.e. wholly devoted to perdition: it being an Hebrew idiome where foreign, a ſon, being uſed with a Genitive caſe of Appellatives, ſignifies ſuch an one as is wholly given up to ſuch a thing, as Prov. 31.8.

p. 231But then follows Antichriſt's formal Uſurpation of that foreign, Demonarchie, which the Pagan Emperors aſſumed to themſelves, v. 4. And lifting himſelf up above al that is called God; 2 Theſ. 2.4. foreign. called God. The Roman Emperors called Demons.2 Thess 2:4i.e. Above the Roman Emperor, who was foreign, called God, and that (1) Truely, though Figuratively, as he was appointed by God, to be his Vicegerent in Civil affaires. So the Scriptures cal Civil Magiſtrates Gods, Pſal. 82.1. I ſaid ye are Gods, &c. in this ſenſe the Emperor was truely called God. But this ſeems not the whole or chief import of this phraſe here. Wherefore (2) by called God, we may underſtand the abuſed ſenſe and opinion which Paraſites and the vulgar people had of their Emperors, to whom they aſcribed a Divinitie, ſpecially after their deceaſe. For we muſt know, that the Roman Emperors generally affected the title of Gods; and ſuch as were deſerving amongſt them were eſtimed as ſuch, ſpecially after their death, paſſing for Demons, Deaſtri, or Medioxumi. Such were Romulus, Numa, Julius Caeſar, and the reſt of the more noble Emperors reputed. Now it's ſaid, that Antichriſt ſhould lift himſelf up above al that is called God; i.e. he ſhould uſurpe al that pretended Hierarchie or Demonarchie, which the Emperor, as Supreme Head in al Maters Civil and Eccleſiaſtic, aſſumed; yea he ſhould lift up himſelf at an higher pitch of uſurped Empire, than ever the Emperor either as Civil Magiſtrate, or as Pontifex Maximus, affected. So much foreign, lift up, notes. Some render the particle foreign, contra, againſt: the meaning is the ſame. That this is the proper import of the words, appears by what follows, foreign, or that is worſhipped: the French renders it,foreign. Divinitie. The Greek ſignifies whatever is in any ſoverain degree reverenced, be it Civil, be it Religioſe. (1) It ſignifies that Civil worſhip which they gave to their Emperors: whence al the Emperors after Octavius were called foreign, Auguſti, (which is of the ſame origination and import with foreign in this place.) So Act. 25.21. foreign, Auguſtus; and v. 25. foreign, and Act. 27.1. foreign. Auguſtus ſignifies Illuſtrious, from foreign, the luſtre of the Sun. (2) foreign ſignifies alſo Religioſe Worſhip, (from foreign, to worſhip, The Emperor called foreign, i.e. Divus Auguſtus.and this from foreign, Sabah to celebrate), which the Emperors affected as wel as Civil. Whence the Roman Emperor was uſually ſtiled Divus Auguſtus, and ſo worſhipped as a Demon after his death. And that this is the genuine import of the words is acknowledged by Milletere, (after his Apoſtaſie to the Roman Church) Poſitiones xii. Romae proponendae de fide propag. Poſit. 3. p. 232Paul (ſaies he) pointes out to the believing Theſſalonians the ſon of perdition by theſe characters, 2 Theſ. 2.4. That he exaltes himſelf againſt al that is called God, foreign, & Auguſtum. This is the proper name by which the Emperors were called, foreign, Auguſti. The ordinary name of the Emperor was Divus Auguſtus, Saint Auguſtus; which is formed of thoſe two words uſed here by the Apoſtle foreign. Thus Milletere, who here ſufficiently laies open the nakedneſſe of his Father the Pope, who has indeed fully made good our Apoſtles character, in exalting himſelf above the Pagan Emperor, who was by his flaterers and the ſuperſtitioſe people called and worſhipped as God, or as one of their Divi and Demons. And is not the Pope indeed called Sanctiſſimus Papa, the moſt holy Pope; which is the very name the Gentiles gave their ſupreme God Jupiter. So Bochart, contre Veron, pag. 883. 'This name Papa is given him from that amongſt the Pagans: Jupiter was called Pappas, i.e. Father. So Jupiter is by Muis derived from the Hebr. foreign, jah, and foreign, Father. foreign, jah, being pronounced by the Grecians firſt foreign, and then foreign, whence Ju-pater, Father Jah: whereunto Pappas, and Papa anſwer. Neither does the Pope affect the name only,The Pope above the Emperor. but alſo the Divinitie of a Pagan Demon-God; and that in an higher degree than ever the Pagan Emperors did. For (1) does he not pretend to an extraordinarie Sanctitie and Divinitie, more than ever any Divus Auguſtus did? (2) Does he not affect and uſurpe an abſolute Supremacie both in Civils and Eccleſiaſtics, beyond what the Emperor either as Civil Magiſtrate, or as Pontifex Maximus aſſumed? (3) Does not the Pope aſſume a power of making Demons, or Saint-Mediators, more than ever any Emperor did? (4) Are not the Popes, at leaſt ſome, Canoniſed as Saints, and ſo worſhipped, as Demons were? (5) Yea, are not the Popes worſhipped while living with great Ceremonies, both Sacred and Civil, more than ever any Pagan Emperors were? Thus this man of ſin has by his uſurped foreign, Demonarchie, exalted himſelf above al that is called God or worſhipped.

But then follows the deſcription of his Papal Throne or Seat, Ver …, to rule, notes the Popes Empirein that phraſe, Sitteth in the Temple of God: foreign, to ſit, according to the Scripture-Phraſeologie, ſignifies to Rule, or Preſide. So Pſal. 110.1. Sit thou at my right hand &c. The like Pſal. 9.8. & 20.10. Revel. 17.15. & 18.8. So Thomas renders it, Principari, dominari; and Theodoret, to uſurp the chief ſeat. In p. 233this regard Antichriſt is ſaid to be a counter-Chriſt, or an Uſurper of his Royal Throne; who is ſaid,Heb. 1.3. Pſal. 110.1.Heb 1:3Ps 110:1 Heb. 1.3. out of Pſal. 110.1. To ſit at the right hand of God, which denotes his Prophetic and Regal office: for to ſit in the Schole belongs to the Doctor; and on the Throne, to the King. Thus Antichriſt, by ſitting in the Temple of God, uſurpes Chriſt's Dignitie and Mediatorie Office as Doctor, and King in his Church. Meſtrezat, de l' Egliſe, liv. 2. Chap. 20. pag. 430. refers this to what is mentioned of the King of Babylon, Eſa. 14.12, 13.Eſa. 14.12, 13.Isa 14:12Isa 14:13 I wil ſit alſo upon the Mount of the Congregation. To ſit, (ſaies he) in the Scripture ſignifies, to exerciſe Authoritie and Empire. And we are to remarque here, that the Apoſtle ſpeaking of Antichriſt, that he ſhal ſit in the Temple of God, alludes to Eſa. 14.12, 13. where the Prophet repreſents the words of the King of Babylon, Glorifying himſelf in having ſubjugated Judea, &c. The Apoſtle therefore being about to deſcribe the Uſurpation of Antichriſt in the Church, does it by this of the King of Babylon, and by his pride; in as much as the King of Babylon was the type and figure of Antichriſt, who does that ſpiritually upon Religion and the Conſciences of men, which the other had done corporally on the Church of the Jewes, &c. Deodate, in his Annotations on theſe words, 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.Ezek 28:2We 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.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 foreign, or foreign. 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.

foreign, in the Temple. foreign, may be underſtood here (1) Subjectively, In the Temple of God.in, as we tranſlate it, for his ruling in and over the p. 234Church 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 foreign contra, againſt. Antichriſt's ſitting in, or ruling over the Church, being in order to its ruine. Thus Meſtrezat renders, foreign, 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. foreign, 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 foreign, Demonarchie to himſelf? does he not ſit p. 235on 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, foreign, 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. 4.1.1 Tim 4:1with which his Canonic Theologie or Law is ſo greatly ſtuffed, are al but foreign, 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 foreign, 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 p. 236to 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 purpoſe, ſhewing, How al their Traditions touching the worſhip of their Demons, were received from the Oracle, as Repub. 5. and elſewhere. And the Pythagoreans had ſo particular a veneration for their Maſter Pythagoras, as that they looked upon al his Inſtitutes to be Divine Inſpirations: whence they ſtiled him, foreign, The Divine; and judged his foreign, a Divine Tradition, ſpecially as to ſuch things as related to their Demon-worſhip. Now that al Antichriſt's Eccleſiaſtic Traditions, with which his Canonic Theologie aboundes, are but corrupt Derivations from this Pythagorean fountain, we ſhal endeavor to evince from 1 Tim. 4.1. foreign.1 Tim. 4.1.1 Tim 4:1 That foreign ſignifies as wel a Tradition or Canon, as Doctrine, we have already proved,Mat, 15.2, 6, 9. S. 2. §. 3. And this is very evident from Mat. 15.2, 6, 9. the conſideration of which Scripture wil give us much light as to our preſent deſigne. The Phariſees v. 2. complain, that Chriſts Diſciples tranſgreſſe the Tradition of the Elders. They cal them the Traditions of the Elders, becauſe they pretended, theſe Traditions were delivered by God to Moſes when on the Mount, and ſo delivered by him to Joſhua, and from Joſhua handed down by the Elders ſucceding in the great Sanedrim. But Chriſt tels them, that theſe Traditions were not, as they pretended, of Divine Origine; which he proves, becauſe they make void the Commandement of God, as v. 3,-6. And our Savior ver. 9. gives the true Genealogie of al thoſe Phariſaic Traditions: Teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of men. foreign, i.e. Theſe your Eccleſiaſtic Traditions, which you make to be ſo Canonic and Divine, are indeed but the Commandements of men, i.e. Pythagorean Dogmes and Inſtitutes: for ſuch theſe Phariſaic Waſhings and Purifications were, with al the reſt of their Externe Abſtinences and Severities, as it appears by Col. 2.20, 21, 22, 23. as before, S. 3. §. 10. ſee the like Mark 7.2, 3, 4, &c. Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 5. Under this deſcription of the Phariſaic Traditions our bleſſed Lord laies open to us al thoſe Canonic Traditions of Antichriſt, and their origination. (1) It's true, the Sons of Antichriſt pretend theſe their Traditions to be dropt from the mouth of Chriſt, and ſo handed p. 237down by the Churches Oral Tradition in al Ages: and did not the Phariſees pretend the ſame for their Oral Law, as they cal it, or the Traditions of the Elders? Would they not fain perſuade us, that thoſe Oral Traditions were at firſt delivered by God to Moſes on the Mount, by Moſes to Joſhua, by Joſhua to the LXX Elders, and by them in continued ſucceſſions down to their dayes? Which yet Chriſt tels us were but the Commandements or Inſtitutes of men, as Mar. 7.8. i.e. as Paul explaineth Chriſt's words,Mark 7.8.Mark 7:8 Col. 2.8, 20, 21. of vain Philoſophers; or according to 1 Tim. 4.1. Demon-Dogmes, Canons and Traditions. (2) The Sons of Antichriſt adorne and dignifie their Canonic Traditions with al manner of illuſtrious Titles of honor: and did not the Phariſees, and their ſucceſſors the Talmudiſtes, dignifie their Oral Traditions with as ſplendid Titles of honor? Do not both one and t'other eſtime it a far greater ſin to break a Tradition of the Church, than to violate the Law of God? (3) Antichriſt commandes that al his Canonic Traditions be ſwallowed down with an implicite faith, albeit never ſo contradictorie to commun ſenſe, reaſon, and Divine ſaith: and did not the Phariſees and their Sectators the Rabbines enjoin the ſame? So R. Sal. Jarchi, on Deut. 17.11. Thou ſhalt not, ſaith he, recede from the words of the Elders, albeit they ſhould ſay unto thee, that thy right hand is the left, and thy left the right. (4) The Pope doth anathematiſe al thoſe that violate his Traditions: and did not the Phariſees of old, as the Rabbines do the very ſame? O! what an exact parallel is there between Phariſaic and Antichriſtian Traditions! Thus we ſee how theſe Demon-Doctrines or Traditions, which Antichriſt's Canonic Theologie is ful of, owe their origine to the Pythagorean Demon Theologie, Canons, or Traditions.

§. 4.An foreign of this Chapter. To conclude this Argument touching Antichriſt's Demon-Dogmes, Traditions, and Canons, we have ſufficiently proved, that the whole of Antichriſt's Canonic Theologie is but foreign, an imitation of Pagan Demon-Doctrines and Canons: We have alſo proved, that theſe Demon-Dogmes and Inſtitutes were formed and ſhaped into a Natural Theologie by the Philoſophers, and principally by the Pythagoreans and Pythagoriſing Platoniſtes. It's true Orpheus, Homer and Heſiod were the firſt that brought in Demons, and Demon-worſhip into Grece; but yet we muſt know, 'twas the Philoſophers that formed and ſhaped theſe Doctrines of Demons into a complete bodie of Natural Theologie, conſtituting theſe Demons as Mediators with the ſupreme God, &c. For the Poets, p. 238Homer, &c. confound their Demons with the ſupreme Gods: ſo Homer cals Jupiter a Demon; as Iliad. foreign he ſaies, Jupiter, foreign. And Plutarch, de ceſſat Oracul. tels us, that Homer made no difference between the Gods and Demons. It was indeed the Philoſophers, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. thoſe Founders of, foreign, Natural Theologie, who formaliſed and ſhaped this foreign, Demonologie, into its proper Forme and Figure; which afterwards the Pythagoriſing Platoniſtes of the Alexandrine Schole, Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyrie, Jamblichus, Proclus, &c. reformed and refined; ſo that it became a fit Idea or image for Origen, and his adherents the Monkes of Alexandria, to forme and faſhion the firſt lineaments of Antichriſt's foreign by: out of which Antichriſt himſelf, when he came to the ſtature of a perfect Man of ſin, extracted al his foreign, with al the other parts of his Demonologie or Canonic Theologie, according to 1 Tim. 4.1. compared with Rev. 9.20.Rev. 9.20.Rev 9:20 foreign, Demons, i.e. ſaies Mede, Deaſters; conſecrated both of Angels and dead men, to be Mediators betwixt God and Men, which the Scripture cals Baalim, the like Act. 17.22.Act. 17.22. 1 Cor. 10.21.Acts 17:221 Cor 10:21 foreign. i.e. Devoted to Demon-fear, or worſhip: ſo 1 Cor. 10.21. foreign, i.e. the Demons libamen or drinke offering, as before, S. 3. §. 4. By al which laid together it is moſt evident, that al Antichriſt's Canonic Theologie is but a reviving of the old Philoſophic foreign, Demonologie, or Demon-Dogmes, Canons, and Traditions, formed into a Syſteme of Natural Theologie, by Pythagoras and Plato, and ſince reformed by the Pythagoriſing Platoniſtes of Alexandria, Ammonius, Plotinus, Porphyrie, Origen, and the reſt. Yea we have demonſtrated, that the whole bodie and ſpirit of Antichriſtianiſme had its conception and formation in the wombe of Pagan Philoſophie, and was brought forth in this Schole of Alexandria; which proved the Nurſerie of Antichriſt, and al his Myſtic, Scholaſtic, and Canonic Theologie; ſpecially (1) of Monaſtic Life and Inſtitutes. (2) Of al Pelagianiſme. (3) Of al Demonologie and Demonolatrie. (4) Of al Abſtinences, Satisfactions, and Merits. (5) Of Purgatorie. (6) Of Papal Primatie, &c. By which we ſee how much Antichriſt has been obliged to Pagan Philoſophie, and principally to the Schole of Alexandria, for his Nativitie and Nurſerie. Al which being ſuperadded to our former Demonſtrations from the Cauſes, Parts, Properties and Effects of Vain Philoſophie, ſufficiently prove our Concluſion touching the Vanitie of Pagan Philoſophie.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAge 1. in Contents l. 3. l. foreign. Item, l. 5. for 32. l. 34.

P. 2. l. 2 l. contentions.

Item, l. 6. l. foreign.

P. 3. l. 27. l. foreign.

P. 4. l. 1. l. foreign.

P. 7. l. 18. l. foreign.

P. 12. l. 21. l. foreign.

P. 15. l. 35. l. foreign.

P. 26. Contents, l. 5. l. foreign.

P. 27. l. 35. l. foreign.

P. 30. l. 37. l. foreign.

P. 31. l. 1. l. foreign.

P. 55. l. 33. l. foreign.

P. 58. l. 26. l. foreign.

P. 67. l. 32. Scripture.

P. 71. l. 7. l. foreign.

P. 76. l. 24. l foreign.

P. 81. l. 9. l. foreign.

P. 86. l. 37. l. foreign.

P. 88. l. 13. l. foreign.

P. 90. l. 32. l. foreign.

P. 98. l. 35. l. right hand.

P. 102. Marg. l. foreign.

P. 104. l. 35, 36. l. We ſhal ſerve and worſhip their Sepulchres, or Shrines, as of Demons.

P. 108. l. ult. l. ſolve.

P. 121. l. 21. l. foreign.

P. 132. l. 18. l. foreign.

P. 163. l. 12. l. §. 1. Another.

P. 165. l. 19. l. foreign. Item, l. 22. l. foreign. Item, l. 26. l. of which alſo S. 4. §. 3.

P. 172. l. 22. l. Propheſies.

P. 182. l. 16. l. foreign.

P. 187. l. 6. l. foreign.

Item. l. 8. l foreign.

P. 214. l. 25. l. Macarius.

P. 216. Marg. l. foreign:

P. 224. l. 35. l. l. 2. c. 15.

End of the text · Theophilus Gale, The Court of the Gentiles Part 3 (1677)