The cause whereof, was the immoderate es_The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 03 (of 11)

workmanship of them, which made the owners, though converted from

worshipping them as they had done religiously for demons, to retain them

still in their houses, upon pretence of doing it in the honour of

Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the Apostles, and other the pastors

of the primitive Church; as being easy, by giving them new names, to

make that an image of the Virgin Mary, and of her son our Saviour, which

before perhaps was called the image of Venus, and Cupid; and so of a

Jupiter to make a Barnabas, and of Mercury a Paul, and the like. And as

worldly ambition creeping by degrees into the pastors, drew them to an

endeavour of pleasing the new-made Christians; and also to a liking of

this kind of honour, which they also might hope for after their decease,

as well as those that had already gained it: so the worshipping of the

images of Christ and his apostles, grew more and more idolatrous; save

that somewhat after the time of Constantine, divers emperors, and

bishops, and general councils, observed and opposed the unlawfulness

thereof; but too late, or too weakly.

[Sidenote: Canonizing of saints.]

The canonizing of saints, is another relic of Gentilism: it is neither a

misunderstanding of Scripture, nor a new invention of the Roman Church,

but a custom as ancient as the commonwealth of Rome itself. The first

that ever was canonized at Rome, was Romulus, and that upon the

narration of Julius Proculus, that swore before the senate, he spake

with him after his death, and was assured by him, he dwelt in heaven,

and was there called _Quirinus_, and would be propitious to the state of

their new city: and thereupon the senate gave _public testimony_ of his

sanctity. Julius Cæsar, and other emperors after him, had the like

_testimony_; that is, were canonized for saints; for by such testimony

is CANONIZATION now defined; and is the same with the ἀποθέωσις of the

heathen.

[Sidenote: The name of Pontifex.]

It is also from the Roman Heathen, that the Popes have received the

name, and power of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. This was the name of him that in

the ancient commonwealth of Rome, had the supreme authority under the

senate and people, of regulating all ceremonies and doctrines concerning

their religion: and when Augustus Cæsar changed the state into a

monarchy, he took to himself no more but this office, and that of

tribune of the people, that is to say, the supreme power both in state,

and religion; and the succeeding emperors enjoyed the same. But when the

emperor Constantine lived, who was the first that professed and

authorized Christian religion, it was consonant to his profession, to

cause religion to be regulated, under his authority, by the Bishop of

Rome: though it do not appear they had so soon the name of Pontifex; but

rather, that the succeeding bishops took it of themselves, to

countenance the power they exercised over the bishops of the Roman

provinces. For it is not any privilege of St. Peter, but the privilege

of the city of Rome, which the emperors were always willing to uphold,

that gave them such authority over other bishops; as may be evidently

seen by that, that the bishop of Constantinople, when the emperor made

that city the seat of the empire, pretended to be equal to the bishop of

Rome; though at last, not without contention, the Pope carried it, and

became the _Pontifex Maximus_; but in right only of the emperor; and not

without the bounds of the empire; nor any where, after the emperor had

lost his power in Rome; though it were the Pope himself that took his

power from him. From whence we may by the way observe, that there is no

place for the superiority of the Pope over other bishops, except in the

territories whereof he is himself the civil sovereign, and where the

emperor having sovereign power civil, hath expressly chosen the Pope for

the chief pastor under himself, of his Christian subjects.

[Sidenote: Procession of images.]

The carrying about of images in _procession_, is another relic of the

religion of the Greeks, and Romans. For they also carried their idols

from place to place, in a kind of chariot, which was peculiarly

dedicated to that use, which the Latins called _thensa_, and _vehiculum

Deorum_; and the image was placed in a frame, or shrine, which they

called _ferculum_: and that which they called _pompa_, is the same that

now is named _procession_. According whereunto, amongst the divine

honours which were given to Julius Cæsar by the senate, this was one,

that in the pomp, or procession, at the Circæan games, he should have

_thensam et ferculum_, a sacred chariot and a shrine; which was as much,

as to be carried up and down as a god: just as at this day the Popes are

carried by Switzers under a canopy.

[Sidenote: Wax candles, and torches lighted.]

To these processions also belonged the bearing of burning torches, and

candles, before the images of the gods, both amongst the Greeks, and

Romans. For afterwards the emperors of Rome received the same honour; as

we read of Caligula, that at his reception to the empire, he was carried

from Misenum to Rome, in the midst of a throng of people, the ways beset

with altars, and beasts for sacrifice, and burning _torches_: and of

Caracalla, that was received into Alexandria with incense, and with

casting of flowers, and δαδοῦχίαις, that is, with torches; for δαδοῦχοι

were they that amongst the Greeks carried torches lighted in the

processions of their gods. And in process of time, the devout, but

ignorant people, did many times honour their bishops with the like pomp

of wax candles, and the images of our Saviour, and the saints,

constantly, in the church itself. And thus came in the use of wax

candles; and was also established by some of the ancient Councils.

The heathens had also their _aqua lustralis_, that is to say, _holy

water_. The Church of Rome imitates them also in their _holy days_. They

had their _bacchanalia_; and we have our _wakes_, answering to them:

they their _saturnalia_, and we our _carnivals_, and Shrove-Tuesday’s

liberty of servants: they their procession of _Priapus_; we our fetching

in, erection, and dancing about _May-poles_; and dancing is one kind of

worship: they had their procession called _Ambarvalia_; and we our

procession about the fields in the _Rogation-week_. Nor do I think that

these are all the ceremonies that have been left in the Church, from the

first conversion of the Gentiles; but they are all that I can for the

present call to mind; and if a man would well observe that which is

delivered in the histories, concerning the religious rites of the Greeks

and Romans, I doubt not but he might find many more of these old empty

bottles of Gentilism, which the doctors of the Roman Church, either by

negligence or ambition, have filled up again with the new wine of

Christianity, that will not fail in time to break them.

-------

CHAP. XLVI.

OF DARKNESS FROM VAIN PHILOSOPHY, AND

FABULOUS TRADITIONS.

[Sidenote: What philosophy is.]

By PHILOSOPHY is understood _the knowledge acquired by reasoning, from

the manner of the generation of any thing, to the properties: or from

the properties, to some possible way of generation of the same; to the

end to be able to produce, as far as matter, and human force permit,

such effects, as human life requireth_. So the geometrician, from the

construction of figures, findeth out many properties thereof; and from

the properties, new ways of their construction, by reasoning; to the end

to be able to measure land, and water; and for infinite other uses. So

the astronomer, from the rising, setting, and moving of the sun, and

stars, in divers parts of the heavens, findeth out the causes of day,

and night, and of the different seasons of the year; whereby he keepeth

an account of time; and the like of other sciences.

[Sidenote: Prudence no part of philosophy.]

By which definition it is evident, that we are not to account as any

part thereof, that original knowledge called experience, in which

consisteth prudence; because it is not attained by reasoning, but found

as well in brute beasts, as in man; and is but a memory of successions

of events in times past, wherein the omission of every little

circumstance altering the effect, frustrateth the expectation of the

most prudent: whereas nothing is produced by reasoning aright, but

general, eternal, and immutable truth.

[Sidenote: No false doctrine is part of philosophy.]

Nor are we therefore to give that name to any false conclusions: for he

that reasoneth aright in words he understandeth, can never conclude an

error:

[Sidenote: No more is revelation supernatural.]

Nor to that which any man knows by supernatural revelation; because it

is not acquired by reasoning:

[Sidenote: Nor learning taken upon credit of authors.]

Nor that which is gotten by reasoning from the authority of books;

because it is not by reasoning from the cause to the effect, nor from

the effect to the cause; and is not knowledge but faith.

[Sidenote: Of the beginnings and progress of philosophy.]

The faculty of reasoning being consequent to the use of speech, it was

not possible, but that there should have been some general truths found

out by reasoning, as ancient almost as language itself. The savages of

America, are not without some good moral sentences; also they have a

little arithmetic, to add, and divide in numbers not too great: but they

are not, therefore, philosophers. For as there were plants of corn and

wine in small quantity dispersed in the fields and woods, before men

knew their virtue, or made use of them for their nourishment, or planted

them apart in fields and vineyards; in which time they fed on acorns,

and drank water: so also there have been divers true, general, and

profitable speculations from the beginning; as being the natural plants

of human reason. But they were at first but few in number; men lived

upon gross experience; there was no method; that is to say, no sowing,

nor planting of knowledge by itself, apart from the weeds, and common

plants of error and conjecture. And the cause of it being the want of

leisure from procuring the necessities of life, and defending themselves

against their neighbours, it was impossible, till the erecting of great

commonwealths, it should be otherwise. _Leisure_ is the mother of

_philosophy_; and _Commonwealth_, the mother of _peace_ and _leisure_.

Where first were great and flourishing _cities_, there was first the

study of _philosophy_. The _Gymnosophists_ of India, the _Magi_ of

Persia, and the _Priests_ of Chaldea and Egypt, are counted the most

ancient philosophers; and those countries were the most ancient of

kingdoms. _Philosophy_ was not risen to the Grecians, and other people

of the west, whose _commonwealths_, no greater perhaps than Lucca or

Geneva, had never _peace_, but when their fears of one another were

equal; nor the _leisure_ to observe anything but one another. At length,

when war had united many of these Grecian lesser cities, into fewer, and

greater; then began _seven men_, of several parts of Greece, to get the

reputation of being _wise_; some of them for _moral_ and _politic_

sentences; and others for the learning of the Chaldeans and Egyptians,

which was _astronomy_, and _geometry_. But we hear not yet of any

_schools_ of _philosophy_.

[Sidenote: Of the schools of philosophy amongst the Athenians.]

After the Athenians, by the overthrow of the Persian armies, had gotten

the dominion of the sea; and thereby, of all the islands, and maritime

cities of the Archipelago, as well of Asia as Europe; and were grown

wealthy; they that had no employment, neither at home nor abroad, had

little else to employ themselves in, but either (as St. Luke says,

_Acts_ xvii. 21), _in telling and hearing news_, or in discoursing of

_philosophy_ publicly to the youth of the city. Every master took some

place for that purpose. Plato, in certain public walks called

_Academia_, from one _Academus_: Aristotle in the walk of the temple of

Pan, called _Lyceum_: others in the _Stoa_, or covered walk, wherein the

merchants’ goods were brought to land: others in other places; where

they spent the time of their leisure, in teaching or in disputing of

their opinions: and some in any place, where they could get the youth of

the city together to hear them talk. And this was it which Carneades

also did at Rome, when he was ambassador: which caused Cato to advise

the senate to dispatch him quickly, for fear of corrupting the manners

of the young men, that delighted to hear him speak, as they thought,

fine things.

From this it was, that the place where any of them taught, and disputed,

was called _schola_, which in their tongue signifieth _leisure_; and

their disputations, _diatribæ_, that is to say, _passing of the time_.

Also the philosophers themselves had the name of their sects, some of

them from these their Schools: for they that followed Plato’s doctrine,

were called _Academics_; the followers of Aristotle _Peripatetics_, from

the walk he taught in; and those that Zeno taught _Stoics_, from the

_Stoa_; as if we should denominate men from _Moor-fields_, from _Paul’s

Church_, and from the _Exchange_, because they meet there often, to

prate and loiter.

Nevertheless, men were so much taken with this custom, that in time it

spread itself over all Europe, and the best part of Afric; so as there

were schools publicly erected and maintained, for lectures and

disputations, almost in every commonwealth.

[Sidenote: Of the schools of the Jews.]

There were also schools, anciently, both before and after the time of

our Saviour, amongst the Jews; but they were schools of their law. For

though they were called _synagogues_, that is to say, congregations of

the people; yet, inasmuch as the law was every sabbath-day read,

expounded, and disputed in them, they differed not in nature, but in

name only, from public schools; and were not only in Jerusalem, but in

every city of the Gentiles, where the Jews inhabited. There was such a

school at Damascus, whereinto Paul entered, to persecute. There were

others at Antioch, Iconium, and Thessalonica, whereinto he entered to

dispute: and such was the synagogue of the _Libertines_, _Cyrenians_,

_Alexandrians_, _Cilicians_, and those of Asia; that is to say, the

school of _Libertines_, and of _Jews_ that were strangers in Jerusalem;

and of this school they were that disputed (_Acts_ vi. 9) with St.

Stephen.

[Sidenote: The schools of the Grecians unprofitable.]

But what has been the utility of those schools? What science is there at

this day acquired by their readings and disputings? That we have of

geometry, which is the mother of all natural science, we are not

indebted for it to the schools. Plato, that was the best philosopher of

the Greeks, forbad entrance into his school to all that were not already

in some measure geometricians. There were many that studied that science

to the great advantage of mankind: but there is no mention of their

schools; nor was there any sect of geometricians; nor did they then pass

under the name of philosophers. The natural philosophy of those schools

was rather a dream than science, and set forth in senseless and

insignificant language; which cannot be avoided by those that will teach

philosophy, without having first attained great knowledge in geometry.

For nature worketh by motion; the ways and degrees whereof cannot be

known, without the knowledge of the proportions and properties of lines

and figures. Their moral philosophy is but a description of their own

passions. For the rule of manners, without civil government, is the law

of nature; and in it, the law civil, that determineth what is _honest_

and _dishonest_, what is _just_ and _unjust_, and generally what is

_good_ and _evil_. Whereas they make the rules of _good_ and _bad_, by

their own _liking_ and _disliking_: by which means, in so great

diversity of taste, there is nothing generally agreed on; but every one

doth, as far as he dares, whatsoever seemeth good in his own eyes, to

the subversion of commonwealth. Their _logic_, which should be the

method of reasoning, is nothing else but captions of words, and

inventions how to puzzle such as should go about to pose them. To

conclude, there is nothing so absurd, that the old philosophers, as

Cicero saith, (who was one of them,) have not some of them maintained.

And I believe that scarce anything can be more absurdly said in natural

philosophy, than that which now is called _Aristotle’s Metaphysics_; nor

more repugnant to government, than much of that he hath said in his

_Politics_; nor more ignorantly, than a great part of his _Ethics_.

[Sidenote: The schools of the Jews unprofitable.]

The school of the Jews was originally a school of the law of Moses; who

commanded (_Deut._ xxxi. 10) that at the end of every seventh year, at

the Feast of the Tabernacles, it should be read to all the people, that

they might hear and learn it. Therefore the reading of the law, which

was in use after the captivity, every Sabbath day, ought to have had no

other end, but the acquainting of the people with the Commandments which

they were to obey, and to expound unto them the writings of the

prophets. But it is manifest, by the many reprehensions of them by our

Saviour, that they corrupted the text of the law with their false

commentaries, and vain traditions; and so little understood the

prophets, that they did neither acknowledge Christ, nor the works he

did, of which the prophets prophesied. So that by their lectures and

disputations in their synagogues, they turned the doctrine of their law

into a fantastical kind of philosophy, concerning the incomprehensible

nature of God, and of spirits; which they compounded of the vain

philosophy and theology of the Grecians, mingled with their own fancies,

drawn from the obscurer places of the Scripture, and which might most

easily be wrested to their purpose; and from the fabulous traditions of

their ancestors.

[Sidenote: University, what it is.]

That which is now called an _University_, is a joining together, and an

incorporation under one government, of many public schools, in one and

the same town or city. In which, the principal schools were ordained for

the three professions, that is to say, of the Roman religion, of the

Roman law, and of the art of medicine. And for the study of philosophy,

it hath no otherwise place, than as a hand-maid to the Roman religion:

and since the authority of Aristotle is only current there, that study

is not properly philosophy, (the nature whereof dependeth not on

authors,) but _Aristotelity_. And for geometry, till of very late times

it had no place at all; as being subservient to nothing but rigid truth.

And if any man by the ingenuity of his own nature, had attained to any

degree of perfection therein, he was commonly thought a magician, and

his art diabolical.

[Sidenote: Errors brought into religion from Aristotle’s metaphysics.]

Now to descend to the particular tenets of vain philosophy, derived to

the Universities, and thence into the Church, partly from Aristotle,

partly from blindness of understanding; I shall first consider their

principles. There is a certain _philosophia prima_, on which all other

philosophy ought to depend; and consisteth principally, in right

limiting of the significations of such appellations, or names, as are of

all others the most universal; which limitations serve to avoid

ambiguity and equivocation in reasoning; and are commonly called

definitions; such as are the definitions of body, time, place, matter,

form, essence, subject, substance, accident, power, act, finite,

infinite, quantity, quality, motion, action, passion, and divers others,

necessary to the explaining of a man’s conceptions concerning the nature

and generation of bodies. The explication, that is, the settling of the

meaning, of which, and the like terms, is commonly in the Schools called

_metaphysics_; as being a part of the philosophy of Aristotle, which

hath that for title. But it is in another sense; for there it signifieth

as much as _books written or placed after his natural philosophy_: but

the schools take them for _books of supernatural philosophy_: for the

word _metaphysics_ will bear both these senses. And indeed that which is

there written, is for the most part so far from the possibility of being

understood, and so repugnant to natural reason, that whosoever thinketh

there is any thing to be understood by it, must needs think it

supernatural.

[Sidenote: Errors concerning abstract essences.]

From these metaphysics, which are mingled with the Scripture to make

school divinity, we are told, there be in the world certain essences

separated from bodies, which they call _abstract essences, and

substantial forms_. For the interpreting of which jargon, there is need

of somewhat more than ordinary attention in this place. Also I ask

pardon of those that are not used to this kind of discourse, for

applying myself to those that are. The world, (I mean not the earth

only, that denominates the lovers of it _worldly men_, but the

_universe_, that is, the whole mass of all things that are), is

corporeal, that is to say, body; and hath the dimensions of magnitude,

namely, length, breadth, and depth: also every part of body, is likewise

body, and hath the like dimensions; and consequently every part of the

universe, is body, and that which is not body, is no part of the

universe: and because the universe is all, that which is no part of it,

is _nothing_; and consequently _no where_. Nor does it follow from

hence, that spirits are _nothing_: for they have dimensions, and are

therefore really _bodies_; though that name in common speech be given to

such bodies only, as are visible, or palpable; that is, that have some

degree of opacity. But for spirits, they call them incorporeal; which is

a name of more honour, and may therefore with more piety be attributed

to God himself; in whom we consider not what attribute expresseth best

his nature, which is incomprehensible; but what best expresseth our

desire to honour Him.

To know now upon what grounds they say there be _essences abstract_, or

_substantial forms_, we are to consider what those words do properly

signify. The use of words, is to register to ourselves, and make

manifest to others the thoughts and conceptions of our minds. Of which

words, some are the names of the things conceived; as the names of all

sorts of bodies, that work upon the senses, and leave an impression in

the imagination. Others are the names of the imaginations themselves;

that is to say, of those ideas, or mental images we have of all things

we see, or remember. And others again are names of names; or of

different sorts of speech: as _universal_, _plural_, _singular_, are the

names of names; and _definition_, _affirmation_, _negation_, _true_,

_false_, _syllogism_, _interrogation_, _promise_, _covenant_, are the

names of certain forms of speech. Others serve to show the consequence,

or repugnance of one name to another; as when one saith, _a man is a

body_, he intendeth that the name of _body_ is necessarily consequent to

the name of _man_; as being but several names of the same thing, _man_;

which consequence is signified by coupling them together with the word

_is_. And as we use the verb _is_, so the Latins use their verb _est_,

and the Greeks their Ἔστι through all its declinations. Whether all

other nations of the world have in their several languages a word that

answereth to it, or not, I cannot tell; but I am sure they have not need

of it. For the placing of two names in order may serve to signify their

consequence, if it were the custom, (for custom is it, that gives words

their force,) as well as the words _is_, or _be_, or _are_, and the

like.

And if it were so, that there were a language without any verb

answerable to _est_, or _is_, or _be_; yet the men that used it would be

not a jot the less capable of inferring, concluding, and of all kind of

reasoning, than were the Greeks, and Latins. But what then would become

of these terms, of _entity_, _essence_, _essential_, _essentiality_,

that are derived from it, and of many more than depend on these, applied

as most commonly they are? They are therefore no names of things; but

signs, by which we make known, that we conceive the consequence of one

name or attribute to another: as when we say, _a man is a living body_,

we mean not that the _man_ is one thing, the _living body_ another, and

the _is_, or _being_ a third; but that the _man_, and the _living body_,

is the same thing; because the consequence, _if he be a man, he is a

living body_, is a true consequence, signified by that word _is_.

Therefore, _to be a body_, _to walk_, _to be speaking_, _to live_, _to

see_, and the like infinitives; also _corporeity_, _walking_,

_speaking_, _life_, _sight_, and the like, that signify just the same,

are the names of _nothing_; as I have elsewhere more amply expressed.

But to what purpose, may some man say, is such subtlety in a work of

this nature, where I pretend to nothing but what is necessary to the

doctrine of government and obedience? It is to this purpose, that men

may no longer suffer themselves to be abused, by them, that by this

doctrine of _separated essences_, built on the vain philosophy of

Aristotle, would fright them from obeying the laws of their country,

with empty names; as men fright birds from the corn with an empty

doublet, a hat, and a crooked stick. For it is upon this ground, that

when a man is dead and buried, they say his soul, that is his life, can

walk separated from his body, and is seen by night amongst the graves.

Upon the same ground they say, that the figure, and colour, and taste of

a piece of bread, has a being, there, where they say there is no bread.

And upon the same ground they say, that faith, and wisdom, and other

virtues, are sometimes _poured_ into a man, sometimes _blown_ into him

from Heaven, as if the virtuous and their virtues could be asunder; and

a great many other things that serve to lessen the dependance of

subjects on the sovereign power of their country. For who will endeavour

to obey the laws, if he expect obedience to be poured or blown into him?

Or who will not obey a priest, that can make God, rather than his

sovereign, nay than God himself? Or who, that is in fear of ghosts, will

not bear great respect to those that can make the holy water, that

drives them from him? And this shall suffice for an example of the

errors, which are brought into the Church, from the _entities_ and

_essences_ of Aristotle: which it may be he knew to be false philosophy;

but writ it as a thing consonant to, and corroborative of their

religion; and fearing the fate of Socrates.

Being once fallen into this error of _separated essences_, they are

thereby necessarily involved in many other absurdities that follow it.

For seeing they will have these forms to be real, they are obliged to

assign them _some place_. But because they hold them incorporeal,

without all dimension of quantity, and all men know that place is

dimension, and not to be filled, but by that which is corporeal; they

are driven to uphold their credit with a distinction, that they are not

indeed anywhere _circumscriptivè_, but _definitivè_; which terms being

mere words, and in this occasion insignificant, pass only in Latin, that

the vanity of them may be concealed. For the circumscription of a thing,

is nothing else but the determination, or defining of its place; and so

both the terms of the distinction are the same. And in particular, of

the essence of a man, which, they say, is his soul, they affirm it, to

be all of it in his little finger, and all of it in every other part,

how small soever, of his body; and yet no more soul in the whole body,

than in any one of those parts. Can any man think that God is served

with such absurdities? And yet all this is necessary to believe, to

those that will believe the existence of an incorporeal soul, separated

from the body.

And when they come to give account how an incorporeal substance can be

capable of pain, and be tormented in the fire of hell or purgatory, they

have nothing at all to answer, but that it cannot be known how fire can

burn souls.

Again, whereas motion is change of place, and incorporeal substances are

not capable of place, they are troubled to make it seem possible, how a

soul can go hence, without the body, to heaven, hell, or purgatory; and

how the ghosts of men, and I may add of their clothes which they appear

in, can walk by night in churches, churchyards, and other places of

sepulture. To which I know not what they can answer, unless they will

say, they walk _definitivè_, not _circumscriptivè_, or _spiritually_,

not _temporally_: for such egregious distinctions are equally applicable

to any difficulty whatsoever.

[Sidenote: Nunc-stans.]

For the meaning of _eternity_, they will not have it to be an endless

succession of time; for then they should not be able to render a reason

how God’s will, and preordaining of things to come, should not be before

his prescience of the same, as the efficient cause before the effect, or

agent before the action; nor of many other their bold opinions

concerning the incomprehensible nature of God. But they will teach us,

that eternity is the standing still of the present time, a _nunc-stans_,

as the Schools call it; which neither they, nor any else understand, no

more than they would a _hic-stans_ for an infinite greatness of place.

[Sidenote: One body in many places, and many bodies in one place at

once.]

And whereas men divide a body in their thought, by numbering parts of

it, and, in numbering those parts, number also the parts of the place it

filled; it cannot be, but in making many parts, we make also many places

of those parts; whereby there cannot be conceived in the mind of any

man, more, or fewer parts, than there are places for: yet they will have

us believe, that by the Almighty power of God, one body may be at one

and the same time in many places; and many bodies at one and the same

time in one place: as if it were an acknowledgment of the Divine Power

to say, that which is, is not; or that which has been, has not been. And

these are but a small part of the incongruities they are forced to, from

their disputing philosophically, instead of admiring, and adoring of the

divine and incomprehensible nature; whose attributes cannot signify what

he is, but ought to signify our desire to honour him, with the best

appellations we can think on. But they that venture to reason of his

nature, from these attributes of honour, losing their understanding in

the very first attempt, fall from one inconvenience into another,

without end, and without number; in the same manner, as when a man

ignorant of the ceremonies of court, coming into the presence of a

greater person than he is used to speak to, and stumbling at his

entrance, to save himself from falling, lets slip his cloak; to recover

his cloak, lets fall his hat; and with one disorder after another,

discovers his astonishment and rusticity.

[Sidenote: Absurdities in natural philosophy, as gravity the cause of

heaviness.]

Then for _physics_, that is, the knowledge of the subordinate and

secondary causes of natural events; they render none at all, but empty

words. If you desire to know why some kind of bodies sink naturally

downwards toward the earth, and others go naturally from it; the Schools

will tell you out of Aristotle, that the bodies that sink downwards, are

_heavy_; and that this heaviness is it that causes them to descend. But

if you ask what they mean by _heaviness_, they will define it to be an

endeavour to go to the centre of the earth. So that the cause why things

sink downward, is an endeavour to be below: which is as much as to say,

that bodies descend, or ascend, because they do. Or they will tell you

the centre of the earth is the place of rest, and conservation for heavy

things; and therefore they endeavour to be there: as if stones and

metals had a desire, or could discern the place they would be at, as man

does; or loved rest, as man does not; or that a piece of glass were less

safe in the window, than falling into the street.

[Sidenote: Quantity put into body already made.]

If we would know why the same body seems greater, without adding to it,

one time, than another; they say, when it seems less, it is _condensed_;

when greater, _rarified_. What is that _condensed_, and _rarified_?

Condensed, is when there is in the very same matter, less quantity than

before; and rarified, when more. As if there could be matter, that had

not some determined quantity; when quantity is nothing else but the

determination of matter; that is to say, of body, by which we say, one

body is greater or lesser than another, by thus, or thus much. Or as if

a body were made without any quantity at all, and that afterwards more

or less were put into it, according as it is intended the body should be

more or less dense.

[Sidenote: Pouring in of souls.]

For the cause of the soul of man, they say, _creatur infundendo_, and

_creando infunditur_: that is, _it is created by pouring it in_, and

_poured in by creation_.

[Sidenote: Ubiquity of apparition.]

For the cause of sense, an ubiquity of _species_; that is, of the

_shows_ or _apparitions_ of objects; which when they be apparitions to

the eye, is _sight_; when to the ear, _hearing_; to the palate, _taste_;

to the nostril, _smelling_; and to the rest of the body, _feeling_.

[Sidenote: Will, the cause of willing.]

For cause of the will, to do any particular action, which is called

_volitio_, they assign the faculty, that is to say, the capacity in

general, that men have, to will sometimes one thing, sometimes another,

which is called _voluntas_; making the _power_ the cause of the _act_.

As if one should assign for cause of the good or evil acts of men, their

ability to do them.

[Sidenote: Ignorance an occult cause.]

And in many occasions they put for cause of natural events, their own

ignorance; but disguised in other words: as when they say, fortune is

the cause of things contingent; that is, of things whereof they know no

cause: and as when they attribute many effects to _occult qualities_;

that is, qualities not known to them; and therefore also, as they think,

to no man else. And to _sympathy_, _antipathy_, _antiperistasis_,

_specifical qualities_, and other like terms, which signify neither the

agent that produceth them, nor the operation by which they are produced.

If such _metaphysics_, and _physics_ as this, be not _vain philosophy_,

there was never any; nor needed St. Paul to give us warning to avoid it.

[Sidenote: One makes the things incongruent, another the incongruity.]

And for their moral, and civil philosophy, it hath the same, or greater

absurdities. If a man do an action of injustice, that is to say, an

action contrary to the law, God they say is the prime cause of the law,

and also the prime cause of that, and all other actions; but no cause at

all of the injustice; which is the inconformity of the action to the

law. This is vain philosophy. A man might as well say, that one man

maketh both a straight line, and a crooked, and another maketh their

incongruity. And such is the philosophy of all men that resolve of their

conclusions, before they know their premises; pretending to comprehend,

that which is incomprehensible; and of attributes of honour to make

attributes of nature; as this dictinction was made to maintain the

doctrine of free-will, that is, of a will of man, not subject to the

will of God.

[Sidenote: Private appetite the rule of public good.]

Aristotle, and other heathen philosophers, define good and evil, by the

appetite of men; and well enough, as long as we consider them governed

every one by his own law; for in the condition of men that have no other

law but their own appetites, there can be no general rule of good, and

evil actions. But in a commonwealth this measure is false: not the

appetite of private men, but the law, which is the will and appetite of

the state, is the measure. And yet is this doctrine still practised; and

men judge the goodness or wickedness of their own, and of other men’s

actions, and of the actions of the commonwealth itself, by their own

passions; and no man calleth good or evil, but that which is so in his

own eyes, without any regard at all to the public laws; except only

monks, and friars, that are bound by vow to that simple obedience to

their superior, to which every subject ought to think himself bound by

the law of nature to the civil sovereign. And this private measure of

good, is a doctrine, not only vain, but also pernicious to the public

state.

[Sidenote: And that lawful marriage is unchastity.]

It is also vain and false philosophy, to say the work of marriage is

repugnant to chastity, or continence, and by consequence to make them

moral vices; as they do, that pretend chastity, and continence, for the

ground of denying marriage to the clergy. For they confess it is no

more, but a constitution of the Church, that requireth in those holy

orders that continually attend the altar and administration of the

eucharist, a continual abstinence from women, under the name of

continual chastity, continence, and purity. Therefore they call the

lawful use of wives, want of chastity and continence; and so make

marriage a sin, or at least a thing so impure, and unclean, as to render

a man unfit for the altar. If the law were made because the use of wives

is incontinence, and contrary to chastity, then all marriage is vice: if

because it is a thing too impure, and unclean, for a man consecrated to

God; much more should other natural, necessary, and daily works which

all men do, render men unworthy to be priests, because they are more

unclean.

But the secret foundation of this prohibition of marriage of priests, is

not likely to have been laid so slightly, as upon such errors in moral

philosophy; nor yet upon the preference of single life, to the estate of

matrimony; which proceeded from the wisdom of St. Paul, who perceived

how inconvenient a thing it was, for those that in those times of

persecution were preachers of the gospel, and forced to fly from one

country to another, to be clogged with the care of wife and children;

but upon the design of the Popes, and priests of after times, to make

themselves the clergy, that is to say, sole heirs of the kingdom of God

in this world; to which it was necessary to take from them the use of

marriage; because our Saviour saith, that at the coming of his kingdom

the children of God _shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but

shall be as the angels in heaven_; that is to say, spiritual. Seeing

then they had taken on them the name of spiritual, to have allowed

themselves, when there was no need, the propriety of wives, had been an

incongruity.

[Sidenote: And that all government but popular is tyranny.]

From Aristotle’s civil philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner

of commonwealths but the popular, (such as was at that time the state of

Athens), _tyranny_. All kings they called tyrants; and the aristocracy

of the thirty governors set up there by the Lacedemonians that subdued

them, the thirty tyrants. As also to call the condition of the people

under the democracy, _liberty_. _A tyrant_ originally signified no more

simply, but a _monarch_. But when afterwards in most part of Greece that

kind of government was abolished, the name began to signify, not only

the thing it did before, but with it, the hatred which the popular

states bare towards it. As also the name of king became odious after the

deposing of the kings in Rome, as being a thing natural to all men, to

conceive some great fault to be signified in any attribute, that is

given in despite, and to a great enemy. And when the same men shall be

displeased with those that have the administration of the democracy, or

aristocracy, they are not to seek for disgraceful names to express their

anger in; but call readily the one _anarchy_, and the other _oligarchy_,

or the _tyranny of a few_. And that which offendeth the people, is no

other thing, but that they are governed, not as every one of them would

himself, but as the public representant, be it one man, or an assembly

of men, thinks fit; that is, by an arbitrary government: for which they

give evil names to their superiors; never knowing, till perhaps a little

after a civil war, that without such arbitrary government, such war must

be perpetual; and that it is men, and arms, not words and promises, that

make the force and power of the laws.

[Sidenote: That not men, but law governs.]

And therefore this is another error of Aristotle’s politics, that in a

well-ordered commonwealth, not men should govern, but the laws. What

man, that has his natural senses, though he can neither write nor read,

does not find himself governed by them he fears, and believes can kill

or hurt him when he obeyeth not? Or that believes the law can hurt him;

that is, words and paper, without the hands and swords of men? And this

is of the number of pernicious errors: for they induce men, as oft as

they like not their governors, to adhere to those that call them

tyrants, and to think it lawful to raise war against them: and yet they

are many times cherished from the pulpit, by the clergy.

[Sidenote: Laws over the conscience.]

There is another error in their civil philosophy, which they never

learned of Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor any other of the heathen, to

extend the power of the law, which is the rule of actions only, to the

very thoughts and consciences of men, by examination, and _inquisition_

of what they hold, notwithstanding the conformity of their speech and

actions. By which, men are either punished for answering the truth of

their thoughts, or constrained to answer an untruth for fear of

punishment. It is true, that the civil magistrate, intending to employ a

minister in the charge of teaching, may enquire of him, if he be content

to preach such and such doctrines; and in case of refusal, may deny him

the employment. But to force him to accuse himself of opinions, when his

actions are not by law forbidden, is against the law of nature; and

especially in them, who teach, that a man shall be damned to eternal and

extreme torments, if he die in a false opinion concerning an article of

the Christian faith. For who is there, that knowing there is so great

danger in an error, whom the natural care of himself, compelleth not to

hazard his soul upon his own judgment, rather than that of any other man

that is unconcerned in his damnation?

[Sidenote: Private interpretation of law.]

For a private man, without the authority of the commonwealth, that is to

say, without permission from the representant thereof, to interpret the

law by his own spirit, is another error in the politics: but not drawn

from Aristotle, nor from any other of the heathen philosophers. For none

of them deny, but that in the power of making laws, is comprehended also

the power of explaining them when there is need. And are not the

Scriptures, in all places where they are law, made law by the authority

of the commonwealth, and consequently, a part of the civil law?

Of the same kind it is also, when any but the sovereign restraineth in

any man that power which the commonwealth hath not restrained; as they

do, that impropriate the preaching of the gospel to one certain order of

men, where the laws have left it free. If the state give me leave to

preach, or teach; that is, if it forbid me not, no man can forbid me. If

I find myself amongst the idolaters of America, shall I that am a

Christian, though not in orders, think it a sin to preach Jesus Christ,

till I have received orders from Rome? Or when I have preached, shall

not I answer their doubts, and expound the Scriptures to them; that is,

shall I not teach? But for this may some say, as also for administering

to them the sacraments, the necessity shall be esteemed for a sufficient

mission; which is true: but this is true also, that for whatsoever, a

dispensation is due for the necessity, for the same there needs no

dispensation, when there is no law that forbids it. Therefore to deny

these functions to those, to whom the civil sovereign hath not denied

them, is a taking away of a lawful liberty, which is contrary to the

doctrine of civil government.

[Sidenote: Language of School divines.]

More examples of vain philosophy, brought into religion by the doctors

of School-divinity, might be produced; but other men may if they please

observe them of themselves. I shall only add this, that the writings of

School-divines, are nothing else for the most part, but insignificant

trains of strange and barbarous words, or words otherwise used, than in

the common use of the Latin tongue; such as would pose Cicero, and

Varro, and all the grammarians of ancient Rome. Which if any man would

see proved, let him, as I have said once before, see whether he can

translate any School-divine into any of the modern tongues, as French,

English, or any other copious language: for that which cannot in most of

these be made intelligible, is not intelligible in the Latin. Which

insignificancy of language, though I cannot note it for false

philosophy; yet it hath a quality, not only to hide the truth, but also

to make men think they have it, and desist from further search.

[Sidenote: Errors from tradition.]

Lastly, for the errors brought in from false, or uncertain history, what

is all the legend of fictitious miracles, in the lives of the saints;

and all the histories of apparitions, and ghosts, alleged by the doctors

of the Roman Church, to make good their doctrines of hell, and

purgatory, the power of exorcism, and other doctrines which have no

warrant, neither in reason, nor Scripture; as also all those traditions

which they call the unwritten word of God: but old wives’ fables?

Whereof, though they find dispersed somewhat in the writings of the

ancient fathers; yet those fathers were men, that might too easily

believe false reports; and the producing of their opinions for testimony

of the truth of what they believed, hath no other force with them that,

according to the counsel of St. John (_1 Epist._ iv. 1), examine

spirits, than in all things that concern the power of the Roman Church,

(the abuse whereof either they suspected not, or had benefit by it), to

discredit their testimony, in respect of too rash belief of reports;

which the most sincere men, without great knowledge of natural causes,

such as the fathers were, are commonly the most subject to. For

naturally, the best men are the least suspicious of fraudulent purposes.

Gregory the Pope, and St. Bernard have somewhat of apparitions of

ghosts, that said they were in purgatory; and so has our Bede: but no

where, I believe, but by report from others. But if they, or any other,

relate any such stories of their own knowledge, they shall not thereby

confirm the more such vain reports; but discover their own infirmity, or

fraud.

[Sidenote: Suppression of reason.]

With the introduction of false, we may join also the suppression of true

philosophy, by such men, as neither by lawful authority, nor sufficient

study, are competent judges of the truth. Our own navigations make

manifest, and all men learned in human sciences, now acknowledge there

are antipodes: and every day it appeareth more and more, that years and

days are determined by motions of the earth. Nevertheless, men that have

in their writings but supposed such doctrine, as an occasion to lay open

the reasons for, and against it, have been punished for it by authority

ecclesiastical. But what reason is there for it? Is it because such

opinions are contrary to true religion? That cannot be, if they be true.

Let therefore the truth be first examined by competent judges, or

confuted by them that pretend to know the contrary. Is it because they

be contrary to the religion established? Let them be silenced by the

laws of those, to whom the teachers of them are subject; that is, by the

laws civil. For disobedience may lawfully be punished in them, that

against the laws teach even true philosophy. Is it because they tend to

disorder in government, as countenancing rebellion, or sedition? Then

let them be silenced, and the teachers punished by virtue of his power

to whom the care of the public quiet is committed; which is the

authority civil. For whatsoever power ecclesiastics take upon

themselves, (in any place where they are subject to the state), in their

own right, though they call it God’s right, is but usurpation.

-------

CHAPTER XLVII.

OF THE BENEFIT THAT PROCEEDETH FROM SUCH

DARKNESS, AND TO WHOM IT ACCRUETH.

[Sidenote: He that receiveth benefit by a fact, is presumed to be the

author.]

Cicero maketh honourable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe judge

amongst the Romans, for a custom he had, in criminal causes, when the

testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient, to ask the accusers, _cui

bono_; that is to say, what profit, honour, or other contentment, the

accused obtained, or expected by the fact. For amongst presumptions,

there is none that so evidently declareth the author, as doth the

benefit of the action. By the same rule I intend in this place to

examine, who they may be that have possessed the people so long in this

part of Christendom, with these doctrines, contrary to the peaceable

societies of mankind.

[Sidenote: That the Church militant is the kingdom of God, was first

taught by the Church of Rome:]

And first, to this error, _that the present Church now militant on

earth, is the kingdom of God_, (that is, the kingdom of glory, or the

land of promise; not the kingdom of grace, which is but a promise of the

land), are annexed these worldly benefits; first, that the pastors and

teachers of the Church, are entitled thereby, as God’s public ministers,

to a right of governing the Church; and consequently, because the Church

and commonwealth are the same persons, to be rectors, and governors of

the commonwealth. By this title it is, that the Pope prevailed with the

subjects of all Christian princes, to believe, that to disobey him, was

to disobey Christ himself; and in all differences between him and other

princes, (charmed with the word _power spiritual_), to abandon their

lawful sovereigns; which is in effect an universal monarchy over all

Christendom. For though they were first invested in the right of being

supreme teachers of Christian doctrine, by and under Christian emperors,

within the limits of the Roman empire, as is acknowledged by themselves,

by the title of _Pontifex Maximus_, who was an officer subject to the

civil state; yet after the empire was divided, and dissolved, it was not

hard to obtrude upon the people already subjected to them, another

title, namely, the right of St. Peter; not only to save entire their

pretended power; but also to extend the same over the same Christian

provinces, though no more united in the empire of Rome. This benefit of

an universal monarchy, (considering the desire of men to bear rule), is

a sufficient presumption, that the Popes that pretended to it, and for a

long time enjoyed it, were the authors of the doctrine, by which it was

obtained; namely, that the Church now on earth, is the kingdom of

Christ. For that granted, it must be understood, that Christ hath some

lieutenant amongst us, by whom we are to be told what are his

commandments.

After that certain Churches had renounced this universal power of the

Pope, one would expect in reason, that the civil sovereigns in all those

Churches, should have recovered so much of it, as before they had

unadvisedly let it go, was their own right, and in their own hands. And

in England it was so in effect; saving that they, by whom the kings

administered the government of religion, by maintaining their employment

to be in God’s right, seemed to usurp, if not a supremacy, yet an

independency on the civil power: and they but seemed to usurp it,

inasmuch as they acknowledged a right in the king, to deprive them of

the exercise of their functions at his pleasure.

[Sidenote: And maintained also by the Presbytery.]

But in those places where the presbytery took that office, though many

other doctrines of the Church of Rome were forbidden to be taught; yet

this doctrine, that the kingdom of Christ is already come, and that it

began at the resurrection of our Saviour, was still retained. But _cui

bono_? What profit did they expect from it? The same which the Popes

expected: to have a sovereign power over the people. For what is it for

men to excommunicate their lawful king, but to keep him from all places

of God’s public service in his own kingdom; and with force to resist

him, when he with force endeavoureth to correct them? Or what is it,

without authority from the civil sovereign, to excommunicate any person,

but to take from him his lawful liberty, that is, to usurp an unlawful

power over their brethren? The authors therefore of this darkness in

religion, are the Roman, and the presbyterian clergy.

[Sidenote: Infallibility.]

To this head, I refer also all those doctrines, that serve them to keep

the possession of this spiritual sovereignty after it is gotten, As

first, that the _Pope in his public capacity cannot err_. For who is

there, that believing this to be true, will not readily obey him in

whatsoever he commands?

[Sidenote: Subjection of bishops.]

Secondly, that all other bishops, in what commonwealth soever, have not

their right, neither immediately from God, nor mediately from their

civil sovereigns, but from the Pope, is a doctrine, by which there comes

to be in every Christian commonwealth many potent men, (for so are

bishops), that have their dependance on the Pope, and owe obedience to

him, though he be a foreign prince; by which means he is able, as he

hath done many times, to raise a civil war against the state that

submits not itself to be governed accordingly to his pleasure and

interest.

[Sidenote: Exemptions of the clergy.]

Thirdly, the exemption of these, and of all other priests, and of all

monks, and friars, from the power of the civil laws. For by this means,

there is a great part of every commonwealth, that enjoy the benefit of

the laws, and are protected by the power of the civil state, which

nevertheless pay no part of the public expense; nor are liable to the

penalties, as other subjects, due to their crimes; and consequently,

stand not in fear of any man, but the Pope; and adhere to him only, to

uphold his universal monarchy.

[Sidenote: The names of sacerdotes, and sacrificers.]

Fourthly, the giving to their priests, which is no more in the New

Testament but presbyters, that is, elders, the name of _sacerdotes_,

that is, sacrificers, which was the title of the civil sovereign, and

his public ministers, amongst the Jews, whilst God was their king. Also,

the making the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice, serveth to make the people

believe the Pope hath the same power over all Christians, that Moses and

Aaron had over the Jews; that is to say, all power, both civil and

ecclesiastical, as the high-priest then had.

[Sidenote: The sacramentation of marriage.]

Fifthly, the teaching that matrimony is a sacrament, giveth to the

clergy the judging of the lawfulness of marriages; and thereby, of what

children are legitimate; and consequently, of the right of succession to

hereditary kingdoms.

[Sidenote: The single life of priests.]

Sixthly, the denial of marriage to priests, serveth to assure this power

of the Pope over kings. For if a king be a priest, he cannot marry, and

transmit his kingdom to his posterity; if he be not a priest, then the

Pope pretendeth this authority ecclesiastical over him, and over his

people.

[Sidenote: Auricular confession.]

Seventhly, from auricular confession, they obtain, for the assurance of

their power, better intelligence of the designs of princes, and great

persons in the civil state, than these can have of the designs of the

state ecclesiastical.

[Sidenote: Canonization of saints, and declaring of martyrs.]

Eighthly, by the canonization of saints, and declaring who are martyrs,

they assure their power, in that they induce simple men into an

obstinacy against the laws and commands of their civil sovereigns even

to death, if by the Pope’s excommunication, they be declared heretics or

enemies to the Church; that is, as they interpret it, to the Pope.

[Sidenote: Transubstantiation, penance, absolution.]

Ninthly, they assure the same, by the power they ascribe to every

priest, of making Christ; and by the power of ordaining penance; and of

remitting, and retaining of sins.

[Sidenote: Purgatory, indulgences, external works.]

Tenthly, by the doctrine of purgatory, of justification by external

works, and of indulgences, the clergy is enriched.

[Sidenote: Demonology and exorcism.]

Eleventhly, by their demonology, and the use of exorcism, and other

things appertaining thereto, they keep, or think they keep, the people

The cause whereof, was the immoderate esteem, and prices set upon the