2. The Mater

Canon-Law

from Pigan Philofophie.

he impofeth on al his flaves, under the ufurped pretenfion of Church-autoritie,and Apoftolic Tradition. Thus we have fhewen what foundation Antichrifts Canonic Theologie,as to its formal conftitution, had in the Pythagorean Philofophie.

6.3. As Antichrift derived the Forme, fo in like manner the of Antichrifts Mater of his Ecclefiaftic Canons from Pagan Philofophie; the Demonftration whereof wil appear evident from an enumeration of Particulars. Indeed the whole bodie of Antichrifts Canon-Law feems to be but a reviving of the old Pagan Adamovia, Demonworship, according to Pauls Prophetic defcription of that Man of Sin, 1 Tim. 4. 1. difaorarías Jaqueria, &c. We fhal insist only on fuch of his Canons as are manifeftly Derivations from, and Imitamens of the Philofophers Demon-worship. And the main feat of this Difcourfe fhal be that great character of Antichrifts Dif1Tim.4 1,2,3. cipline, 1 Tim. 4. 1, 2, 3. Doctrines of Demons, &c. Before we enter upon the examen of Particulars, we are to make our way plain by removing thofe Antichriftian Gloffes, which are given by Grotius, and his Adherents, on this and fuch-like characters of Antichrift. Grotius reftraines thefe words to Apollonius Tyanaus, that Pythagorean Sorcerer, and Hammond feems to limit them to Simon Magus, and other Gnoftic Heretics; which fo far as they were Forerunners of Antichrift, we have before admitted. But yet that the main fcope of this Prophetic Character is to delineate Antichrift, and his Demon-worthip introduced by his Ecclefiaftic Canons, is excellently wel proved to our hands by Mede, on 2 Pet. 2. 1. (Diatr. 3. pag. 532) In thefe Prophefies(faies he)of a general defection and Apoftafie of the later times, 2 Thef. 2. 1 Tim. 4. 1, &c. if St. Paul fhould mean no other but the Errors of particular men, and their trouble from the Church, they should make no Prophefie at al, or a needleffe one. For who knows not that in St. Paul's, St. John's, and the Apoftles times were diverfe Herefies and Heretics here and there difperfed of al thefe they could not mean, when as (1) the known bodie of the vifible Church difclaimed them. (2) They foretel of a corruption to come in after times, or as 1 Tim.4.1. In the later times for no man ufeth to foretel of things which are already, as if they were to come.--The corruption and 'defection therefore fo much prophefied of, was another manner of one; fuch a kind of one as had neither been before in the 'Church, nor was to be; namely fuch an cne as fhould not be

difclaimed by the bodie of the Church, but fhould furprise and "overwhelme the visible Church itfelf.

Demons what.

We now procede to the particulars of Antichrift's dea via, or Canonic Demon-worfhip, according to 1 Tim. 4. 1. - Tim. 4. i. δασκαλίαις Δαιμονίων. 1. That διδασκαλία here fignifies not a mere διδασκαλίας Speculative Doctrine, but an Inftitute or Canon, as Col. 2. 22. Savior, answerably to the notion of ya, Col. 2. 14, 20. we have proDodrines of ved. . 2. To which we may adde,that this alfo fuites with the notion of didding, which, according to Pagan and Scripturephrafeologie, fignifies not a mere Doctor and Teacher, but also an Inftitutor or Preceptor, who has Autoritie to impofe his Dogmes and Canons; whence the proper title given to Christ is didong, anfwerably to the Hebrew 27, Rabbi. So that by Sida oranicus Jasmariar, we must understand those Ecclefiaftic Inftitutes or Canons, which Antichrift was to frame,for the introducing the Philofophic Sedan, or Demon-worship. And that this is the proper notion of Savior in this place, namely to fignifie Demons, (not Devils as Grotius wil have it) is evident from thofe parallel places, Act.17.22. wis dead'aquoveséges, Rev. 9.20. Saμóvia, 1 Cor. 10. 21, TOTÝL faroviar, &c. Of which more in what follows. Now thefe Demon-Dogmes or Canons framed by Antichrift, in imitation of the old Grecian Sovia, (framed by the hilofophers, and made a chief part of their Dogía quon, Natural Theologie) comprehend several branches parallel to the Pagan Demon-Canons.

1. As the Philofophers had their Deified Demons, which took 1. Antichrift's up a good part of their Natural Theologie, fo alfo Antichrift Canonifed has his Canonifed Saints, who fil up a great part of his Canon- Saints in iniLaw, as 1 Tim. 4. I. Savior, Demons. Mede, in his excellent tation of PaDifcourfe of the Apoftafie of the later times, opens this Text at 8an Demons. large, and fhews, That the Primitive Chriftians Canonifed "Saints, and honored their Reliques in imitation of the Gentiles, 'their Demon worship, thereby to allure them; which laid the foundation of Antichrift's Sauce, and Idolatric Apoftafie. We fhal difcourfe a little more diftin&tly and particularly touching thefe Antichriftian Saints, and their derivation from the Pagan Demons. As for the origine of the Philofophers Demons we have once and again difcourfed thereof, as Part 2. Book 2. Chap. 8. 9. 11. and P. 3. B.2.C. 1.9. 1. alfo Philofoph. General. P. 1. L. 3. C. 4. §.4. We fha! adde thereto what account we Z 2

find

find hereof in Auguftin and Ludovicus Vives thereon. Auguft. de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 18. tels us, That Apuleius (and whoever are of the fame opinion) does in vain defer or beftow this 'honor on thofe Demons, whom he placeth as midling Gods in the Air, as those who must transport the prayers of men to "the Gods, and thence the commands of the Gods to men. For they who believed thefe things thought it unworthy for men to mingle with the Gods, or the Gods with men; but that it was meet for thefe Demons to mingle with men and the "Gods. Where Ludovicus Vives gives this whole Mysterie more fully to us: This is the opinion of Plato in his Convivium, and "attributed to Socrates, who asking Diotima what Love was? 4 the made anfwer, δαίμων μέγας, ὦ Σώκρατες. καὶ γὰ πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον με • TaZÚ OF DER TE Xỳ vno, A great Demon, O Socrates: for every Demon is a middle betwixt God and Mortal. Socrates not yet understanding, demands what this Demon's power and nature was? then Diotima anfwers, to interpret and conveigh human 'affaires to the Gods,and Divine affaires to us: i. e. prayers and 'facrifices from men to the Gods, and precepts and rewards 'from the Gods to men. Wherefore Demons being placed in "the middle, they fil up that place, that fo the universe may 'be wel difpofed and conjoined. Hence flows Prophetes, and 'al Sacerdotal art, and whatever belongs to Sacrifices, and Incantations. To thefe fhe addes, what Auguftin cites, dos av • DeWTW & μizvUTU, &c. God mingleth not with man; but al com'merce betwixt men and God is by Demons. These Apuleius cals Adminifters and Salvation-bringers. They are called by Capella, 'Angels, i.e. Meffengers. Now that the Popish Saints were taken up, and brought into the Church in imitation of thefe Pagan Demons feems very evident, and that according to the general confent both of ancient and moderne Writers. Indeed there was a great foundation laid for thefe Antichriftian Demons or Saints in the fourth Centurie, as foon as the Church began to have any relaxation from Pagan perfecution. This I gather out of Auguftin, de Civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 26. “But that Egyptian Trifmegiftus feems to grieve, that the Commemorations of our Martyrs fhould fuccede the Temples and Commemorations of their Demons; fo that he who fhal read these things "with a mind perverfe and averfe from us, may think, that as the Pagans worshipped their Gods in their Temples,fo we wor

'fhip our dead Martyrs at their Graves, &c. By which it is evident, that in Auguftin's time the Chriftians performed many Commemorations and other folemnities at the Graves of the Martyrs and Saints, al which had a very great reffemblance with the Pagan deidauuovia, Demon worship; though as yet it' was not arrived to donargía, a Saint-worship. For Auguftin, in his following Chapter endeavors to vindicate this refpect which fome gave to the Martyrs and Saints from the imputation of Saint-worship; though it is moft certain, that it laid a very great foundation for the fame, as it may appear by Auguftin's own words, and the obfervations of learned Papifts thereon. An guft.de civit. Dei, lib. 8. cap. 27. speakes thus, Neither do we notwithstanding conftitute Temples, Priesthoods, Sacreds, and "Sacrifices to thefe Martyrs, because they are not our God, but 'their God is ours. -Where-ever therefore there be performed Religiofe Obfequies, in the places where Martyrs fuffered, they are only Ornaments for Memorial, not Sacreds, or Sacrifices of the Dead, as if they were Gods. Whoever alfo 'carrie their Banquets thither, which truely is not performed by the better fort of Chriftians, and in many Countries there is no fuch cuftome; yet whoever they be who do this, (which • Banquets when they have fet down at the Martyrs Sepulchre, they pray and carrie them away, that they may fefte thereon, or that they may bestow them upon the poor amongst them) they wil that their Banquets be fanctified there, by the merits. of the Martyrs, in the name of the God of the Martyrs. But he who acknowlegeth one true God does not acknow'lege thefe to be Sacrifices of the Martyrs. We therefore wor'fhip not our Martyrs with Divine honors, as they worship their Demon Gods. Thus Augutin. By which, though he endeavors to vindicate the Chriftians of his age from devidaymovia, Demon-worship performed to the Saints; yet it is evident by his own confeffion, that fome fuperftitiofe Chriftians were too much inclined thereto : for he faies, That they carried their Banquets to the Sepulchres of the Martyrs, and there prayed, and fo carried them away again, fuppofing them to be fanctified by the merits of the Martyrs. Yea, Auguftin, Lib. 6. of his Confeffions, relateth of his own Mother, That the brought to Milan, for a "Commemoration of the Saints, Bread, and Fruments, and Wine, gave them to the dore-keeper: But these things were pro

"yet

and

'hibited

hibited by Ambrofe, to avoid occafion of rioting, and because thefe kind of Parentals were moft like to the Gentiles fuperftition. This alfo is taken notice of by Caffander, that learned and moderate Papist, Confultat. Art. 21.de Venerat.Reliqu.' More"over, in the times of Ambrofe and Auguftin this cuftome prevailed, that the people brought Banquets for the Commemo'ration of the Martyrs, which that it was not done by the bet'ter Chriftians, but prohibited by Ambrofe at Milan, Auguftin teftifies, Confeff. l. 6. c. 2. And that thefe and fuch-like Imitamens of the Pagan Serdauuovia, Demon-worship, gave a great and effectual entrance to the Popish Canonifed Saints, and their ázoratgeía is confeffed by fome ingenuous Papifts. So Ludovicus Vives, on these words of Auguftin, de Civit. Dei, l. 8. c. 27. But thefe are not the facrifices of Martyrs. Many Chriftians, faies 'he, often offend in a good mater, in that they worship their "He-and-She-Saints as God: neither can I difcerne any difference in many things between this their opinion of Saints, and that which the Gentiles had of their Gods. Which is indeed a great and most true Confeffion, and is taken notice of by feveral of our Writers: as by Reignolds in his Conference with Hart, where he tels, That Ludovicus Vives faith in his Comment on Auguftin, l. 8. c. 27. that Saints are estimed and worshipped by many as were the Gods amongst the Gentiles. The like Confeffion I find in Caffander, that moderate Papift, in his Confultation, Art. 21. where quoting this place of Augustin, he faith, That the ignorance of the commun people hath attributed Di'vine honor to the Saints; as when Temples, Altars, Sacrifi'ces, Priesthoods, Vows, Festivals are conceived to be confecrated not only to the memorie, as the Ancients speak, but 'to the honor and worship of the Saints. Which Error Augu'ftin now and then refutes: We, faies he, build not Temples to the Martyrs, as to Gods, but memorials for them as dead men. Where Grotius obferves wel, That we should take diligent? heed, left under too favorable inclinations in this mater, the Pa'gan cuftomes be reduced into Chriftianifme.

The Origine of Popish Saints the fame with that of the Pa

gen Demons.

Thus we fee how Antichrifts Canenifed Saints were but Imitamens or Apes of the Gentile Demons. And to make the parallel yet more exact and clear, we fhal fhew how thefe Popifh Saints had the very fame origine amongst Chriftians, as the Deified Demons had amongst the Pagans. We have already, C. 1. §. 3. trea

ted