[1.] That light which by it is discovered (which, the Lord knows, is very little, weak, obscure, imperfect, uncertain, conjectural, for a great part only enabling men to quarrel with and oppose one another, to the reproach of reason, yet I say, that which is attained by it) is not in the least measure by it spiritualized, or brought into that order of living to God, and with God, wherein at first it lay. This is wholly beyond its reach. As to this end, the apostle assures us that the utmost issue that men come to, is darkness and folly, Rom. i. 21, 22. Who knows not the profound inquiries, the subtile disputations, the acute reasonings, the admirable discoveries of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and others? What, as to the purpose in hand, did they attain by all their studies and endeavours? Ἐμωράνθησαν, says the apostle, — “They became fools.” He that, by general consent, bears the crown of reputation for wisdom from them all, with whom to have lived was counted an inestimable happiness, Εἰ δέ τις τῶν ἀρετῆς ἐφιεμένων ὠφελιμωτέρῳ τινὶ Σωκράτους συνεγένετο, ἐκεῖνον ἐγὼ τὸν ἄνδρα ἀξιομακαριστότατον νομίζω. — Xenoph. apol. pro Socrat. ad finem. died like a fool, sacrificing a cock to Æsculapius. And another [apostle assures us], that Jesus Christ alone is “the true Light,” that lighteth us, John i. 9. And there is not any that hath any true light, but what is immediately from him. After all the learning of men, if they have nothing else, they are still natural men, and perceive not the things of God. Their light is still but darkness; and how great is that darkness! It is the Lord Jesus alone who is anointed to open the eyes of the blind. Men cannot spiritualize a notion, nor lay it in any order to the glorifying of God. After all their endeavours, they are still blind and dark, yea, darkness itself, knowing nothing as they should. I know how the men of these attainments are apt to say, “Are we blind also?” with great contempt of others; but God hath blasted all their pride: “O Sapientia superba irridens Christum crucifixum!” — August. Expos. In Joh. Trac. 2, de cap. 1. “Where,” saith he, “is the wise? where is the scribe,” etc., 1 Cor. i. 20. I shall not add what Paul hath farther cautioned us, to the seeming condemning of philosophy as being fitted to make spoil of souls; nor what “Hæreses a philosophiâ subornantur. Inde Æones, et formæ nescio quæ, trinitas homines apud Valentinium, Platonicus fuerat; inde Marcionis Deus melior de tranquillitate, a Stoicis venerat. Et ut anima interire dicatur, ab Epicureis observatur, et ut carnis restitutio negetur, de unâ omnium philosophorum scholâ sumitur: … Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? quid Academiæ et Ecclesiæ? quid hæreticis et Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Salomonis est. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Jesum Christum; nec inquisitione post evangelium. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc enim priùs credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.” — Tertul. de Præscript. ad Hæret. [cap. vii.]― Ἐπειδήπερ ἱκανῶς ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων τὰ τῶν φιλοσόφων ὑμῶν ἐλήλεγκατα πάσης ἀγνοίας καὶ ἀπάτης φανέντα πλήρη. κ. τ. λ. — Just. Mart. ad Græc. Cohort. [c. xi.] Μοῦνον ἐμοὶ φίλον ἔσκε λόγων κλέος, οὓς συνάγειραν Ἀντολίη τι, δύσις τε, καὶ Ἑλλάδος εὖχος Ἀθῆναι, Τοῖς ἔπι πολλ’ ἐμόγησα πολὺν χρόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὺ, Πρηνέας ἐν δαπέδῳ Χριστοῦ προπάροιθεν ἔθηκα, Εἴξαντας μεγάλοιο θεοῦ λόγῳ ὅς ῥα καλύπτει Πάντα φρενὸς βροτέης στρεπτὸν πολυειδέα μῦθον. Greg. Naz. Car. i. de Reb. Suis.Tertullian with some other of the ancients have spoken of it; being very confident that it was the abuse, and not the true use and advantage of it, that they opposed. But, —