No More Learning

Paul (1
Cor. 15. 29. ) "What shall they doe which are Baptized for the dead, if
the dead rise not at all? why also are they Baptized for the dead? " a
man may probably inferre, as some have done, that in St. Pauls time,
there was a custome by receiving Baptisme for the dead, (as men that now
beleeve, are Sureties and Undertakers for the Faith of Infants, that
are not capable of beleeving,) to undertake for the persons of their
deceased friends, that they should be ready to obey, and receive our
Saviour for their King, at his coming again; and then the forgivenesse
of sins in the world to come, has no need of a Purgatory. But in both
these interpretations, there is so much of paradox, that I trust not
to them; but propound them to those that are throughly versed in the
Scripture, to inquire if there be no clearer place that contradicts
them. Onely of thus much, I see evident Scripture, to perswade men, that
there is neither the word, nor the thing of Purgatory, neither in this,
nor any other text; nor any thing that can prove a necessity of a place
for the Soule without the Body; neither for the Soule of Lazarus during
the four days he was dead; nor for the Soules of them which the Romane
Church pretend to be tormented now in Purgatory. For God, that could
give a life to a peece of clay, hath the same power to give life again
to a dead man, and renew his inanimate, and rotten Carkasse, into a
glorious, spirituall, and immortall Body.

Another place is that of 1 Cor. 3. where it is said that they which
built Stubble, Hay, &c. on the true Foundation, their work shall perish;
but "they themselves shall be saved; but as through Fire:" This Fire, he
will have to be the Fire of Purgatory. The words, as I have said before,
are an allusion to those of Zach. 13. 9. where he saith, "I will bring
the third part through the Fire, and refine them as Silver is refined,
and will try them as Gold is tryed;" Which is spoken of the comming of
the Messiah in Power and Glory; that is, at the day of Judgment, and
Conflagration of the present world; wherein the Elect shall not be
consumed, but be refined; that is, depose their erroneous Doctrines, and
Traditions, and have them as it were sindged off; and shall afterwards
call upon the name of the true God. In like manner, the Apostle saith
of them, that holding this Foundation Jesus Is The Christ, shall build
thereon some other Doctrines that be erroneous, that they shall not be
consumed in that fire which reneweth the world, but shall passe through
it to Salvation; but so, as to see, and relinquish their former Errours.
The Builders, are the Pastors; the Foundation, that Jesus Is The Christ;
the Stubble and Hay, False Consequences Drawn From It Through Ignorance,
Or Frailty; the Gold, Silver, and pretious Stones, are their True
Doctrines; and their Refining or Purging, the Relinquishing Of Their
Errors. In all which there is no colour at all for the burning of
Incorporeall, that is to say, Impatible Souls.




Baptisme For The Dead, How Understood

A third place is that of 1 Cor. 15. before mentioned, concerning
Baptisme for the Dead: out of which he concludeth, first, that Prayers
for the Dead are not unprofitable; and out of that, that there is a Fire
of Purgatory: But neither of them rightly. For of many interpretations
of the word Baptisme, he approveth this in the first place, that by
Baptisme is meant (metaphorically) a Baptisme of Penance; and that men
are in this sense Baptized, when they Fast, and Pray, and give Almes:
And so Baptisme for the Dead, and Prayer of the Dead, is the same thing.
But this is a Metaphor, of which there is no example, neither in
the Scripture, nor in any other use of language; and which is also
discordant to the harmony, and scope of the Scripture. The word Baptisme
is used (Mar. 10. 38. & Luk. 12. 59. ) for being Dipped in ones own
bloud, as Christ was upon the Cross, and as most of the Apostles
were, for giving testimony of him. But it is hard to say, that Prayer,
Fasting, and Almes, have any similitude with Dipping. The same is used
also Mat. 3. 11. (which seemeth to make somewhat for Purgatory) for
a Purging with Fire. But it is evident the Fire and Purging here
mentioned, is the same whereof the Prophet Zachary speaketh (chap. 13.
v. 9. ) "I will bring the third part through the Fire, and will Refine
them, &c. " And St. Peter after him (1 Epist. 1. 7. ) "That the triall
of your Faith, which is much more precious than of Gold that perisheth,
though it be tryed with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour,
and glory at the Appearing of Jesus Christ;" And St. Paul (1 Cor. 3.
13. ) The Fire shall trie every mans work of what sort it is. " But
St. Peter, and St. Paul speak of the Fire that shall be at the Second
Appearing of Christ; and the Prophet Zachary of the Day of Judgment: And
therefore this place of S. Mat. may be interpreted of the same; and then
there will be no necessity of the Fire of Purgatory.

Another interpretation of Baptisme for the Dead, is that which I
have before mentioned, which he preferreth to the second place of
probability; And thence also he inferreth the utility of Prayer for the
Dead. For if after the Resurrection, such as have not heard of Christ,
or not beleeved in him, may be received into Christs Kingdome; it is
not in vain, after their death, that their friends should pray for them,
till they should be risen. But granting that God, at the prayers of the
faithfull, may convert unto him some of those that have not heard Christ
preached, and consequently cannot have rejected Christ, and that the
charity of men in that point, cannot be blamed; yet this concludeth
nothing for Purgatory, because to rise from Death to Life, is one thing;
to rise from Purgatory to Life is another; and being a rising from Life
to Life, from a Life in torments to a Life in joy.

A fourth place is that of Mat. 5. 25. "Agree with thine Adversary
quickly, whilest thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the
Adversary deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till
thou has paid the uttermost farthing. " In which Allegory, the Offender
is the Sinner; both the Adversary and the Judge is God; the Way is
this Life; the Prison is the Grave; the Officer, Death; from which, the
sinner shall not rise again to life eternall, but to a second Death,
till he have paid the utmost farthing, or Christ pay it for him by his
Passion, which is a full Ransome for all manner of sin, as well lesser
sins, as greater crimes; both being made by the passion of Christ
equally veniall.

The fift place, is that of Matth. 5. 22. "Whosoever is angry with his
Brother without a cause, shall be guilty in Judgment. And whosoever
shall say to his Brother, RACHA, shall be guilty in the Councel. But
whosoever shall say, Thou Foole, shall be guilty to hell fire. " From
which words he inferreth three sorts of Sins, and three sorts of
Punishments; and that none of those sins, but the last, shall be
punished with hell fire; and consequently, that after this life, there
is punishment of lesser sins in Purgatory. Of which inference, there is
no colour in any interpretation that hath yet been given to them: Shall
there be a distinction after this life of Courts of Justice, as there
was amongst the Jews in our Saviours time, to hear, and determine
divers sorts of Crimes; as the Judges, and the Councell? Shall not
all Judicature appertain to Christ, and his Apostles? To understand
therefore this text, we are not to consider it solitarily, but jointly
with the words precedent, and subsequent. Our Saviour in this Chapter
interpreteth the Law of Moses; which the Jews thought was then
fulfilled, when they had not transgressed the Grammaticall sense
thereof, howsoever they had transgressed against the sentence, or
meaning of the Legislator. Therefore whereas they thought the Sixth
Commandement was not broken, but by Killing a man; nor the Seventh, but
when a man lay with a woman, not his wife; our Saviour tells them, the
inward Anger of a man against his brother, if it be without just cause,
is Homicide: You have heard (saith hee) the Law of Moses, "Thou shalt
not Kill," and that "Whosoever shall Kill, shall be condemned before the
Judges," or before the Session of the Seventy: But I say unto you, to
be Angry with ones Brother without cause; or to say unto him Racha, or
Foole, is Homicide, and shall be punished at the day of Judgment, and
Session of Christ, and his Apostles, with Hell fire: so that those words
were not used to distinguish between divers Crimes, and divers Courts
of Justice, and divers Punishments; but to taxe the distinction between
sin, and sin, which the Jews drew not from the difference of the Will
in Obeying God, but from the difference of their Temporall Courts of
Justice; and to shew them that he that had the Will to hurt his Brother,
though the effect appear but in Reviling, or not at all, shall be cast
into hell fire, by the Judges, and by the Session, which shall be the
same, not different Courts at the day of Judgment. This Considered, what
can be drawn from this text, to maintain Purgatory, I cannot imagine.

The sixth place is Luke 16. 9. "Make yee friends of the unrighteous
Mammon, that when yee faile, they may receive you into Everlasting
Tabernacles. " This he alledges to prove Invocation of Saints departed.
But the sense is plain, That we should make friends with our Riches, of
the Poore, and thereby obtain their Prayers whilest they live. "He that
giveth to the Poore, lendeth to the Lord. "The seventh is Luke 23. 42.
"Lord remember me when thou commest into thy Kingdome:" Therefore, saith
hee, there is Remission of sins after this life. But the consequence
is not good. Our Saviour then forgave him; and at his comming againe in
Glory, will remember to raise him againe to Life Eternall.

The Eight is Acts 2. 24. where St. Peter saith of Christ, "that God
had raised him up, and loosed the Paines of Death, because it was not
possible he should be holden of it;" Which hee interprets to bee a
descent of Christ into Purgatory, to loose some Soules there from their
torments; whereas it is manifest, that it was Christ that was loosed;
it was hee that could not bee holden of Death, or the Grave; and not the
Souls in Purgatory. But if that which Beza sayes in his notes on this
place be well observed, there is none that will not see, that in stead
of Paynes, it should be Bands; and then there is no further cause to
seek for Purgatory in this Text.



CHAPTER XLV. OF DAEMONOLOGY, AND OTHER RELIQUES OF THE RELIGION OF THE
GENTILES




The Originall Of Daemonology

The impression made on the organs of Sight, by lucide Bodies, either in
one direct line, or in many lines, reflected from Opaque, or refracted
in the passage through Diaphanous Bodies, produceth in living Creatures,
in whom God hath placed such Organs, an Imagination of the Object, from
whence the Impression proceedeth; which Imagination is called Sight; and
seemeth not to bee a meer Imagination, but the Body it selfe without
us; in the same manner, as when a man violently presseth his eye, there
appears to him a light without, and before him, which no man perceiveth
but himselfe; because there is indeed no such thing without him, but
onely a motion in the interiour organs, pressing by resistance
outward, that makes him think so. And the motion made by this pressure,
continuing after the object which caused it is removed, is that we call
Imagination, and Memory, and (in sleep, and sometimes in great distemper
of the organs by Sicknesse, or Violence) a Dream: of which things I have
already spoken briefly, in the second and third Chapters.

This nature of Sight having never been discovered by the ancient
pretenders to Naturall Knowledge; much lesse by those that consider not
things so remote (as that Knowledge is) from their present use; it was
hard for men to conceive of those Images in the Fancy, and in the Sense,
otherwise, than of things really without us: Which some (because they
vanish away, they know not whither, nor how,) will have to be absolutely
Incorporeall, that is to say Immateriall, of Formes without Matter;
Colour and Figure, without any coloured or figured Body; and that they
can put on Aiery bodies (as a garment) to make them Visible when
they will to our bodily Eyes; and others say, are Bodies, and living
Creatures, but made of Air, or other more subtile and aethereall Matter,
which is, then, when they will be seen, condensed. But Both of them
agree on one generall appellation of them, DAEMONS. As if the Dead of
whom they Dreamed, were not Inhabitants of their own Brain, but of the
Air, or of Heaven, or Hell; not Phantasmes, but Ghosts; with just
as much reason, as if one should say, he saw his own Ghost in a
Looking-Glasse, or the Ghosts of the Stars in a River; or call the
ordinary apparition of the Sun, of the quantity of about a foot, the
Daemon, or Ghost of that great Sun that enlighteneth the whole visible
world: And by that means have feared them, as things of an unknown, that
is, of an unlimited power to doe them good, or harme; and consequently,
given occasion to the Governours of the Heathen Common-wealths to
regulate this their fear, by establishing that DAEMONOLOGY (in which
the Poets, as Principal Priests of the Heathen Religion, were specially
employed, or reverenced) to the Publique Peace, and to the Obedience of
Subjects necessary thereunto; and to make some of them Good Daemons,
and others Evill; the one as a Spurre to the Observance, the other, as
Reines to withhold them from Violation of the Laws.




What Were The Daemons Of The Ancients

What kind of things they were, to whom they attributed the name of
Daemons, appeareth partly in the Genealogie of their Gods, written by
Hesiod, one of the most ancient Poets of the Graecians; and partly in
other Histories; of which I have observed some few before, in the 12.
Chapter of this discourse.




How That Doctrine Was Spread

The Graecians, by their Colonies and Conquests, communicated their
Language and Writings into Asia, Egypt, and Italy; and therein, by
necessary consequence their Daemonology, or (as St. Paul calles it)
"their Doctrines of Devils;" And by that meanes, the contagion was
derived also to the Jewes, both of Judaea, and Alexandria, and other
parts, whereinto they were dispersed. But the name of Daemon they did
not (as the Graecians) attribute to Spirits both Good, and Evill; but
to the Evill onely: And to the Good Daemons they gave the name of the
Spirit of God; and esteemed those into whose bodies they entred to be
Prophets. In summe, all singularity if Good, they attributed to the
Spirit of God; and if Evill, to some Daemon, but a kakodaimen, an Evill
Daemon, that is, a Devill. And therefore, they called Daemoniaques, that
is, possessed by the Devill, such as we call Madmen or Lunatiques; or
such as had the Falling Sicknesse; or that spoke any thing, which they
for want of understanding, thought absurd: As also of an Unclean person
in a notorious degree, they used to say he had an Unclean Spirit; of a
Dumbe man, that he had a Dumbe Devill; and of John Baptist (Math. 11.
18. ) for the singularity of his fasting, that he had a Devill; and of
our Saviour, because he said, hee that keepeth his sayings should not
see Death In Aeternum, (John 8. 52. ) "Now we know thou hast a Devill;
Abraham is dead, and the Prophets are dead:" And again, because he said
(John 7. 20. ) "They went about to kill him," the people answered, "Thou
hast a Devill, who goeth about to kill thee? " Whereby it is manifest,
that the Jewes had the same opinions concerning Phantasmes, namely, that
they were not Phantasmes that is, Idols of the braine, but things reall,
and independent on the Fancy.




Why Our Saviour Controlled It Not

Which doctrine if it be not true, why (may some say) did not our Saviour
contradict it, and teach the Contrary? nay why does he use on diverse
occasions, such forms of speech as seem to confirm it? To this I answer,
that first, where Christ saith, "A Spirit hath not flesh and bone,"
though hee shew that there be Spirits, yet he denies not that they are
Bodies: And where St. Paul sais, "We shall rise Spirituall Bodies," he
acknowledgeth the nature of Spirits, but that they are Bodily Spirits;
which is not difficult to understand. For Air and many other things
are Bodies, though not Flesh and Bone, or any other grosse body, to bee
discerned by the eye. But when our Saviour speaketh to the Devill, and
commandeth him to go out of a man, if by the Devill, be meant a Disease,
as Phrenesy, or Lunacy, or a corporeal Spirit, is not the speech
improper? can Diseases heare? or can there be a corporeall Spirit in a
Body of Flesh and Bone, full already of vitall and animall Spirits?
Are there not therefore Spirits, that neither have Bodies, nor are meer
Imaginations? To the first I answer, that the addressing of our Saviours
command to the Madnesse, or Lunacy he cureth, is no more improper, then
was his rebuking of the Fever, or of the Wind, and Sea; for neither
do these hear: Or than was the command of God, to the Light, to the
Firmament, to the Sunne, and Starres, when he commanded them to bee; for
they could not heare before they had a beeing. But those speeches are
not improper, because they signifie the power of Gods Word: no more
therefore is it improper, to command Madnesse, or Lunacy (under the
appellation of Devils, by which they were then commonly understood,)
to depart out of a mans body. To the second, concerning their being
Incorporeall, I have not yet observed any place of Scripture, from
whence it can be gathered, that any man was ever possessed with any
other Corporeal Spirit, but that of his owne, by which his body is
naturally moved.




The Scriptures Doe Not Teach That Spirits Are Incorporeall

Our Saviour, immediately after the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the
form of a Dove, is said by St. Matthew (Chapt. 4. 1. ) to have been "led
up by the Spirit into the Wildernesse;" and the same is recited (Luke 4.
1. ) in these words, "Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, was led in
the Spirit into the Wildernesse;" Whereby it is evident, that by
Spirit there, is meant the Holy Ghost. This cannot be interpreted for
a Possession: For Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are but one and the same
substance; which is no possession of one substance, or body, by another.
And whereas in the verses following, he is said "to have been taken
up by the Devill into the Holy City, and set upon a pinnacle of the
Temple," shall we conclude thence that hee was possessed of the Devill,
or carryed thither by violence? And again, "carryed thence by the Devill
into an exceeding high mountain, who shewed him them thence all the
Kingdomes of the world:" herein, wee are not to beleeve he was either
possessed, or forced by the Devill; nor that any Mountaine is high
enough, (according to the literall sense,) to shew him one whole
Hemisphere. What then can be the meaning of this place, other than that
he went of himself into the Wildernesse; and that this carrying of him
up and down, from the Wildernesse to the City, and from thence into a
Mountain, was a Vision? Conformable whereunto, is also the phrase of St.
Luke, that hee was led into the Wildernesse, not By, but In the Spirit:
whereas concerning His being Taken up into the Mountaine, and unto the
Pinnacle of the Temple, hee speaketh as St. Matthew doth. Which suiteth
with the nature of a Vision.

Again, where St. Luke sayes of Judas Iscariot, that "Satan entred into
him, and thereupon that he went and communed with the Chief Priests, and
Captaines, how he might betray Christ unto them:" it may be answered,
that by the Entring of Satan (that is the Enemy) into him, is meant, the
hostile and traiterous intention of selling his Lord and Master. For as
by the Holy Ghost, is frequently in Scripture understood, the Graces and
good Inclinations given by the Holy Ghost; so by the Entring of
Satan, may bee understood the wicked Cogitations, and Designes of the
Adversaries of Christ, and his Disciples. For as it is hard to say,
that the Devill was entred into Judas, before he had any such hostile
designe; so it is impertinent to say, he was first Christs Enemy in his
heart, and that the Devill entred into him afterwards. Therefore the
Entring of Satan, and his Wicked Purpose, was one and the same thing.

But if there be no Immateriall Spirit, nor any Possession of mens bodies
by any Spirit Corporeall, it may again be asked, why our Saviour and his
Apostles did not teach the People so; and in such cleer words, as they
might no more doubt thereof. But such questions as these, are more
curious, than necessary for a Christian mans Salvation. Men may as well
aske, why Christ that could have given to all men Faith, Piety, and all
manner of morall Vertues, gave it to some onely, and not to all: and
why he left the search of naturall Causes, and Sciences, to the naturall
Reason and Industry of men, and did not reveal it to all, or any man
supernaturally; and many other such questions: Of which neverthelesse
there may be alledged probable and pious reasons. For as God, when he
brought the Israelites into the Land of Promise, did not secure them
therein, by subduing all the Nations round about them; but left many of
them, as thornes in their sides, to awaken from time to time their
Piety and Industry: so our Saviour, in conducting us toward his heavenly
Kingdome, did not destroy all the difficulties of Naturall Questions;
but left them to exercise our Industry, and Reason; the Scope of
his preaching, being onely to shew us this plain and direct way to
Salvation, namely, the beleef of this Article, "that he was the Christ,
the Son of the living God, sent into the world to sacrifice himselfe for
our Sins, and at his comming again, gloriously to reign over his Elect,
and to save them from their Enemies eternally:" To which, the opinion
of Possession by Spirits, or Phantasmes, are no impediment in the way;
though it be to some an occasion of going out of the way, and to follow
their own Inventions. If wee require of the Scripture an account of all
questions, which may be raised to trouble us in the performance of Gods
commands; we may as well complaine of Moses for not having set downe the
time of the creation of such Spirits, as well as of the Creation of the
Earth, and Sea, and of Men, and Beasts. To conclude, I find in Scripture
that there be Angels, and Spirits, good and evill; but not that they are
Incorporeall, as are the Apparitions men see in the Dark, or in a Dream,
or Vision; which the Latines call Spectra, and took for Daemons. And I
find that there are Spirits Corporeal, (though subtile and Invisible;)
but not that any mans body was possessed, or inhabited by them; And that
the Bodies of the Saints shall be such, namely, Spirituall Bodies, as
St. Paul calls them.




The Power Of Casting Out Devills, Not The Same It Was In The Primitive

Church

Neverthelesse, the contrary Doctrine, namely, that there be Incorporeall
Spirits, hath hitherto so prevailed in the Church, that the use of
Exorcisme, (that is to say, of ejection of Devills by Conjuration) is
thereupon built; and (though rarely and faintly practised) is not yet
totally given over. That there were many Daemoniaques in the Primitive
Church, and few Mad-men, and other such singular diseases; whereas in
these times we hear of, and see many Mad-men, and few Daemoniaques,
proceeds not from the change of Nature; but of Names. But how it comes
to passe, that whereas heretofore the Apostles, and after them for a
time, the Pastors of the Church, did cure those singular Diseases, which
now they are not seen to doe; as likewise, why it is not in the power of
every true Beleever now, to doe all that the Faithfull did then, that is
to say, as we read (Mark 16. 17. ) "In Christs name to cast out Devills,
to speak with new Tongues, to take up Serpents, to drink deadly Poison
without harm taking, and to cure the Sick by the laying on of their
hands," and all this without other words, but "in the Name of Jesus,"
is another question. And it is probable, that those extraordinary gifts
were given to the Church, for no longer a time, than men trusted wholly
to Christ, and looked for their felicity onely in his Kingdome to come;
and consequently, that when they sought Authority, and Riches, and
trusted to their own Subtilty for a Kingdome of this world, these
supernaturall gifts of God were again taken from them.




Another Relique Of Gentilisme, Worshipping Images, Left In The Church

Not Brought Into It

Another relique of Gentilisme, is the Worship of Images, neither
instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor
yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had
given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the
generall Religion of the Gentiles, to worship for Gods, those Apparences
that remain in the Brain from the impression of externall Bodies upon
the organs of their Senses, which are commonly called Ideas, Idols,
Phantasmes, Conceits, as being Representations of those externall
Bodies, which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more
than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a Dream:
And this is the reason why St. Paul says, "Wee know that an Idol is
Nothing:" Not that he thought that an Image of Metall, Stone, or Wood,
was nothing; but that the thing which they honored, or feared in
the Image, and held for a God, was a meer Figment, without place,
habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the Brain.
And the worship of these with Divine Honour, is that which is in the
Scripture called Idolatry, and Rebellion against God. For God being King
of the Jews, and his Lieutenant being first Moses, and afterward the
High Priest; if the people had been permitted to worship, and pray to
Images, (which are Representations of their own Fancies,) they had
had no farther dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no
similitude; nor on his prime Ministers, Moses, and the High Priests;
but every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the
utter eversion of the Common-wealth, and their own destruction for want
of Union. And therefore the first Law of God was, "They should not take
for Gods, ALIENOS DEOS, that is, the Gods of other nations, but that
onely true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give
them laws and directions, for their peace, and for their salvation
from their enemies. " And the second was, that "they should not make to
themselves any Image to Worship, of their own Invention. " For it is the
same deposing of a King, to submit to another King, whether he be set up
by a neighbour nation, or by our selves.




Answer To Certain Seeming Texts For Images

The places of Scripture pretended to countenance the setting up of
Images, to worship them; or to set them up at all in the places where
God is worshipped, are First, two Examples; one of the Cherubins over
the Ark of God; the other of the Brazen Serpent: Secondly, some texts
whereby we are commanded to worship certain Creatures for their relation
to God; as to worship his Footstool: And lastly, some other texts, by
which is authorized, a religious honoring of Holy things. But before I
examine the force of those places, to prove that which is pretended, I
must first explain what is to be understood by Worshipping, and what by
Images, and Idols.




What Is Worship

I have already shewn in the 20 Chapter of this Discourse, that to Honor,
is to value highly the Power of any person: and that such value is
measured, by our comparing him with others. But because there is nothing
to be compared with God in Power; we Honor him not but Dishonour him
by any Value lesse than Infinite. And thus Honor is properly of its own
nature, secret, and internall in the heart. But the inward thoughts of
men, which appeare outwardly in their words and actions, are the signes
of our Honoring, and these goe by the name of WORSHIP, in Latine,
CULTUS. Therefore, to Pray to, to Swear by, to Obey, to bee Diligent,
and Officious in Serving: in summe, all words and actions that betoken
Fear to Offend, or Desire to Please, is Worship, whether those words
and actions be sincere, or feigned: and because they appear as signes of
Honoring, are ordinarily also called Honor.




Distinction Between Divine And Civill Worship

The Worship we exhibite to those we esteem to be but men, as to Kings,
and men in Authority, is Civill Worship: But the worship we exhibite
to that which we think to bee God, whatsoever the words, ceremonies,
gestures, or other actions be, is Divine Worship. To fall prostrate
before a King, in him that thinks him but a Man, is but Civill Worship:
And he that but putteth off his hat in the Church, for this cause, that
he thinketh it the House of God, worshippeth with Divine Worship. They
that seek the distinction of Divine and Civill Worship, not in the
intention of the Worshipper, but in the Words douleia, and latreia,
deceive themselves. For whereas there be two sorts of Servants; that
sort, which is of those that are absolutely in the power of their
Masters, as Slaves taken in war, and their Issue, whose bodies are not
in their own power, (their lives depending on the Will of their Masters,
in such manner as to forfeit them upon the least disobedience,) and that
are bought and sold as Beasts, were called Douloi, that is properly,
Slaves, and their Service, Douleia: The other, which is of those that
serve (for hire, or in hope of benefit from their Masters) voluntarily;
are called Thetes; that is, Domestique Servants; to whose service the
Masters have no further right, than is contained in the Covenants made
betwixt them. These two kinds of Servants have thus much common to them
both, that their labour is appointed them by another, whether, as a
Slave, or a voluntary Servant: And the word Latris, is the general name
of both, signifying him that worketh for another, whether, as a Slave,
or a voluntary Servant: So that Latreia signifieth generally all
Service; but Douleia the service of Bondmen onely, and the condition of
Slavery: And both are used in Scripture (to signifie our Service of God)
promiscuously. Douleia, because we are Gods Slaves; Latreia, because
wee Serve him: and in all kinds of Service is contained, not onely
Obedience, but also Worship, that is, such actions, gestures, and words,
as signifie Honor.




An Image What Phantasmes

An IMAGE (in the most strict signification of the word) is the
Resemblance of some thing visible: In which sense the Phantasticall
Formes, Apparitions, or Seemings of Visible Bodies to the Sight, are
onely Images; such as are the Shew of a man, or other thing in the
Water, by Reflexion, or Refraction; or of the Sun, or Stars by Direct
Vision in the Air; which are nothing reall in the things seen, nor in
the place where thy seem to bee; nor are their magnitudes and figures
the same with that of the object; but changeable, by the variation of
the organs of Sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our
Imagination, and in our Dreams, when the object is absent; or changed
into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend onely upon the
Fancy. And these are the Images which are originally and most properly
called Ideas, and IDOLS, and derived from the language of the Graecians,
with whom the word Eido signifieth to See. They are also called
PHANTASMES, which is in the same language, Apparitions. And from these
Images it is that one of the faculties of mans Nature, is called the
Imagination. And from hence it is manifest, that there neither is, nor
can bee any Image made of a thing Invisible.

It is also evident, that there can be no Image of a thing Infinite: for
all the Images, and Phantasmes that are made by the Impression of things
visible, are figured: but Figure is a quantity every way determined: And
therefore there can bee no Image of God: nor of the Soule of Man; nor of
Spirits, but onely of Bodies Visible, that is, Bodies that have light in
themselves, or are by such enlightened.




Fictions; Materiall Images

And whereas a man can fancy Shapes he never saw; making up a Figure out
of the parts of divers creatures; as the Poets make their Centaures,
Chimaeras, and other Monsters never seen: So can he also give Matter to
those Shapes, and make them in Wood, Clay or Metall. And these are also
called Images, not for the resemblance of any corporeall thing, but for
the resemblance of some Phantasticall Inhabitants of the Brain of the
Maker. But in these Idols, as they are originally in the Brain, and
as they are painted, carved, moulded, or moulten in matter, there is a
similitude of the one to the other, for which the Materiall Body made
by Art, may be said to be the Image of the Phantasticall Idoll made by
Nature.

But in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any
Representation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be
called the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an
earthly Soveraign. And many times in the Idolatry of the Gentiles there
was little regard to the similitude of their Materiall Idoll to the
Idol in their fancy, and yet it was called the Image of it. For a
Stone unhewn has been set up for Neptune, and divers other shapes far
different from the shapes they conceived of their Gods. And at this
day we see many Images of the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, unlike one
another, and without correspondence to any one mans Fancy; and yet serve
well enough for the purpose they were erected for; which was no more but
by the Names onely, to represent the Persons mentioned in the History;
to which every man applyeth a Mentall Image of his owne making, or
none at all. And thus an Image in the largest sense, is either the
Resemblance, or the Representation of some thing Visible; or both
together, as it happeneth for the most part.

But the name of Idoll is extended yet further in Scripture, to
signifie also the Sunne, or a Starre, or any other Creature, visible or
invisible, when they are worshipped for Gods.




Idolatry What

Having shewn what is Worship, and what an Image; I will now put them
together, and examine what that IDOLATRY is, which is forbidden in the
Second Commandement, and other places of the Scripture.
To worship an Image, is voluntarily to doe those externall acts, which
are signes of honoring either the matter of the Image, which is Wood,
Stone, or Metall, or some other visible creature; or the Phantasme of
the brain, for the resemblance, or representation whereof, the matter
was formed and figured; or both together, as one animate Body, composed
of the Matter and the Phantasme, as of a Body and Soule.

To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the
Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that
purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill
Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the
Person; and is not Idolatry. But if hee that doth it, should suppose the
Soule of the Prince to be in the Stool, or should present a Petition to
the Stool, it were Divine Worship, and Idolatry.

To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though
we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we
acknowledge no other power in him, but humane: But voluntarily to pray
unto him for fair weather, or for any thing which God onely can doe
for us, is Divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the other side, if a King
compell a man to it by the terrour of Death, or other great corporall
punishment, it is not Idolatry: For the Worship which the Soveraign
commandeth to bee done unto himself by the terrour of his Laws, is not
a sign that he that obeyeth him, does inwardly honour him as a God, but
that he is desirous to save himselfe from death, or from a miserable
life; and that which is not a sign of internall honor, is no Worship;
and therefore no Idolatry. Neither can it bee said, that hee that does
it, scandalizeth, or layeth any stumbling block before his Brother;
because how wise, or learned soever he be that worshippeth in that
manner, another man cannot from thence argue, that he approveth it; but
that he doth it for fear; and that it is not his act, but the act of the
Soveraign.

To worship God, in some peculiar Place, or turning a mans face towards
an Image, or determinate Place, is not to worship, or honor the Place,
or Image; but to acknowledge it Holy, that is to say, to acknowledge
the Image, or the Place to be set apart from common use: for that is the
meaning of the word Holy; which implies no new quality in the Place, or
Image; but onely a new Relation by Appropriation to God; and therefore
is not Idolatry; no more than it was Idolatry to worship God before
the Brazen Serpent; or for the Jews when they were out of their owne
countrey, to turn their faces (when they prayed) toward the Temple of
Jerusalem; or for Moses to put off his Shoes when he was before the
Flaming Bush, the ground appertaining to Mount Sinai; which place God
had chosen to appear in, and to give his Laws to the People of Israel,
and was therefore Holy ground, not by inhaerent sanctity, but by
separation to Gods use; or for Christians to worship in the Churches,
which are once solemnly dedicated to God for that purpose, by the
Authority of the King, or other true Representant of the Church. But to
worship God, is inanimating, or inhibiting, such Image, or place; that
is to say, an infinite substance in a finite place, is Idolatry: for
such finite Gods, are but Idols of the brain, nothing reall; and are
commonly called in the Scripture by the names of Vanity, and Lyes, and
Nothing. Also to worship God, not as inanimating, or present in the
place, or Image; but to the end to be put in mind of him, or of some
works of his, in case the Place, or Image be dedicated, or set up
by private authority, and not by the authority of them that are our
Soveraign Pastors, is Idolatry. For the Commandement is, "Thou shalt not
make to thy selfe any graven image. " God commanded Moses to set up the
Brazen Serpent; hee did not make it to himselfe; it was not therefore
against the Commandement. But the making of the Golden Calfe by Aaron,
and the People, as being done without authority from God, was Idolatry;
not onely because they held it for God, but also because they made it
for a Religious use, without warrant either from God their Soveraign, or
from Moses, that was his Lieutenant.

The Gentiles worshipped for Gods, Jupiter, and others; that living, were
men perhaps that had done great and glorious Acts; and for the Children
of God, divers men and women, supposing them gotten between an Immortall
Deity, and a mortall man. This was Idolatry, because they made them so
to themselves, having no authority from God, neither in his eternall Law
of Reason, nor in his positive and revealed Will. But though our Saviour
was a man, whom wee also beleeve to bee God Immortall, and the Son of
God; yet this is no Idolatry; because wee build not that beleef upon
our own fancy, or judgment, but upon the Word of God revealed in the
Scriptures. And for the adoration of the Eucharist, if the words of
Christ, "This is my Body," signifie, "that he himselfe, and the seeming
bread in his hand; and not onely so, but that all the seeming morsells
of bread that have ever since been, and any time hereafter shall bee
consecrated by Priests, bee so many Christs bodies, and yet all of them
but one body," then is that no Idolatry, because it is authorized by our
Saviour: but if that text doe not signifie that, (for there is no other
that can be alledged for it,) then, because it is a worship of humane
institution, it is Idolatry. For it is not enough to say, God can
transubstantiate the Bread into Christs Body: For the Gentiles also held
God to be Omnipotent; and might upon that ground no lesse excuse their
Idolatry, by pretending, as well as others, as transubstantiation of
their Wood, and Stone into God Almighty.

Whereas there be, that pretend Divine Inspiration, to be a supernaturall
entring of the Holy Ghost into a man, and not an acquisition of Gods
grace, by doctrine, and study; I think they are in a very dangerous
Dilemma. For if they worship not the men whom they beleeve to be so
inspired, they fall into Impiety; as not adoring Gods supernaturall
Presence. And again, if they worship them, they commit Idolatry; for the
Apostles would never permit themselves to be so worshipped. Therefore
the safest way is to beleeve, that by the Descending of the Dove upon
the Apostles; and by Christs Breathing on them, when hee gave them
the Holy Ghost; and by the giving of it by Imposition of Hands, are
understood the signes which God hath been pleased to use, or ordain to
be used, of his promise to assist those persons in their study to
Preach his Kingdome, and in their Conversation, that it might not be
Scandalous, but Edifying to others.




Scandalous Worship Of Images

Besides the Idolatrous Worship of Images, there is also a Scandalous
Worship of them; which is also a sin; but not Idolatry. For Idolatry is
to worship by signes of an internall, and reall honour: but Scandalous
Worship, is but Seeming Worship; and may sometimes bee joined with
an inward, and hearty detestation, both of the Image, and of the
Phantasticall Daemon, or Idol, to which it is dedicated; and proceed
onely from the fear of death, or other grievous punishment; and is
neverthelesse a sin in them that so worship, in case they be men whose
actions are looked at by others, as lights to guide them by; because
following their ways, they cannot but stumble, and fall in the way of
Religion: Whereas the example of those we regard not, works not on us
at all, but leaves us to our own diligence and caution; and consequently
are no causes of our falling.

If therefore a Pastor lawfully called to teach and direct others, or any
other, of whose knowledge there is a great opinion, doe externall honor
to an Idol for fear; unlesse he make his feare, and unwillingnesse to
it, as evident as the worship; he Scandalizeth his Brother, by seeming
to approve Idolatry. For his Brother, arguing from the action of his
teacher, or of him whose knowledge he esteemeth great, concludes it
to bee lawfull in it selfe. And this Scandall, is Sin, and a Scandall
given. But if one being no Pastor, nor of eminent reputation for
knowledge in Christian Doctrine, doe the same, and another follow him;
this is no Scandall given; for he had no cause to follow such example:
but is a pretence of Scandall which hee taketh of himselfe for an excuse
before men: For an unlearned man, that is in the power of an idolatrous
King, or State, if commanded on pain of death to worship before an
Idoll, hee detesteth the Idoll in his heart, hee doth well; though if he
had the fortitude to suffer death, rather than worship it, he should
doe better. But if a Pastor, who as Christs Messenger, has undertaken to
teach Christs Doctrine to all nations, should doe the same, it were
not onely a sinfull Scandall, in respect of other Christian mens
consciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge.

The summe of that which I have said hitherto, concerning the Worship of
Images, is that, that he that worshippeth in an Image, or any Creature,
either the Matter thereof, or any Fancy of his own, which he thinketh
to dwell in it; or both together; or beleeveth that such things hear
his Prayers, or see his Devotions, without Ears, or Eyes, committeth
Idolatry: and he that counterfeiteth such Worship for fear of
punishment, if he bee a man whose example hath power amongst his
Brethren, committeth a sin: But he that worshippeth the Creator of the
world before such an Image, or in such a place as he hath not made, or
chosen of himselfe, but taken from the commandement of Gods Word, as the
Jewes did in worshipping God before the Cherubins, and before the Brazen
Serpent for a time, and in, or towards the Temple of Jerusalem, which
was also but for a time, committeth not Idolatry.

Now for the Worship of Saints, and Images, and Reliques, and other
things at this day practised in the Church of Rome, I say they are not
allowed by the Word of God, not brought into the Church of Rome, from
the Doctrine there taught; but partly left in it at the first conversion
of the Gentiles; and afterwards countenanced, and confirmed, and
augmented by the Bishops of Rome.




Answer To The Argument From The Cherubins, And Brazen Serpent

As for the proofs alledged out of Scripture, namely, those examples
of Images appointed by God to bee set up; They were not set up for the
people, or any man to worship; but that they should worship God himselfe
before them: as before the Cherubins over the Ark, and the Brazen
Serpent. For we read not, that the Priest, or any other did worship the
Cherubins; but contrarily wee read (2 Kings 18. 4. ) that Hezekiah brake
in pieces the Brazen Serpent which Moses had set up, because the
People burnt incense to it. Besides, those examples are not put for
our Imitation, that we also should set up Images, under pretence
of worshipping God before them; because the words of the second
Commandement, "Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven Image, &c. "
distinguish between the Images that God commanded to be set up, and
those which wee set up to our selves. And therefore from the Cherubins,
or Brazen Serpent, to the Images of mans devising; and from the Worship
commanded by God, to the Will-Worship of men, the argument is not good.
This also is to bee considered, that as Hezekiah brake in pieces the
Brazen Serpent, because the Jews did worship it, to the end they should
doe so no more; so also Christian Soveraigns ought to break down the
Images which their Subjects have been accustomed to worship; that there
be no more occasion of such Idolatry. For at this day, the ignorant
People, where Images are worshipped, doe really beleeve there is a
Divine Power in the Images; and are told by their Pastors, that some
of them have spoken; and have bled; and that miracles have been done by
them; which they apprehend as done by the Saint, which they think either
is the Image it self, or in it. The Israelites, when they worshipped the
Calfe, did think they worshipped the God that brought them out of Egypt;
and yet it was Idolatry, because they thought the Calfe either was
that God, or had him in his belly. And though some man may think it
impossible for people to be so stupid, as to think the Image to be
God, or a Saint; or to worship it in that notion; yet it is manifest
in Scripture to the contrary; where when the Golden Calfe was made, the
people said, (Exod. 32. 2. ) "These are thy Gods O Israel;" and where the
Images of Laban (Gen. 31. 30. ) are called his Gods. And wee see daily by
experience in all sorts of People, that such men as study nothing but
their food and ease, are content to beleeve any absurdity, rather than
to trouble themselves to examine it; holding their faith as it were by
entaile unalienable, except by an expresse and new Law.




Painting Of Fancies No Idolatry: Abusing Them To Religious Worship Is

But they inferre from some other places, that it is lawfull to paint
Angels, and also God himselfe: as from Gods walking in the Garden; from
Jacobs seeing God at the top of the ladder; and from other Visions, and
Dreams. But Visions, and Dreams whether naturall, or supernaturall, are
but Phantasmes: and he that painteth an Image of any of them, maketh not
an Image of God, but of his own Phantasm, which is, making of an Idol. I
say not, that to draw a Picture after a fancy, is a Sin; but when it
is drawn, to hold it for a Representation of God, is against the second
Commandement; and can be of no use, but to worship. And the same may be
said of the Images of Angels, and of men dead; unlesse as Monuments of
friends, or of men worthy remembrance: For such use of an Image, is not
Worship of the Image; but a civill honoring of the Person, not that is,
but that was: But when it is done to the Image which we make of a Saint,
for no other reason, but that we think he heareth our prayers, and is
pleased with the honour wee doe him, when dead, and without sense, wee
attribute to him more than humane power; and therefore it is Idolatry.

Seeing therefore there is no authority, neither in the Law of Moses,
nor in the Gospel, for the religious Worship of Images, or other
Representations of God, which men set up to themselves; or for the
Worship of the Image of any Creature in Heaven, or Earth, or under the
Earth: And whereas Christian Kings, who are living Representants of God,
are not to be worshipped by their Subjects, by any act, that signifieth
a greater esteem of his power, than the nature of mortall man is capable
of; It cannot be imagined, that the Religious Worship now in use,
was brought into the Church, by misunderstanding of the Scripture. It
resteth therefore, that it was left in it, by not destroying the Images
themselves, in the conversion of the Gentiles that worshipped them.




How Idolatry Was Left In The Church

The cause whereof, was the immoderate esteem, and prices set upon the
workmanship of them, which made the owners (though converted, from
worshipping them as they had done Religiously for Daemons) to retain
them still in their houses, upon pretence of doing it in the honor of
Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the Apostles, and other the Pastors
of the Primitive Church; as being easie, by giving them new names, to
make that an Image of the Virgin Mary, and of her Sonne 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, grow more and more Idolatrous;
save that somewhat after the time of Constantine, divers Emperors, and
Bishops, and generall Councells observed, and opposed the unlawfulnesse
thereof; but too late, or too weakly.




Canonizing Of Saints

The Canonizing of Saints, is another Relique of Gentilisme: It is
neither a misunderstanding of Scripture, nor a new invention of the
Roman Church, but a custome as ancient as the Common-wealth of Rome it
self. 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 Quirinius, and would be propitious to
the State of their new City: And thereupon the Senate gave Publique
Testimony of his Sanctity. Julius Caesar, and other Emperors after him,
had the like Testimony; that is, were Canonized for Saints; now defined;
and is the same with the Apotheosis of the Heathen.




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 Common-wealth of Rome, had the Supreme Authority under
the Senate and People, of regulating all Ceremonies, and Doctrines
concerning their Religion: And when Augustus Caesar changed the State
into a Monarchy, he took to himselfe no more but this office, and that
of Tribune of the People, (than is to say, the Supreme Power both in
State, and Religion;) and the succeeding Emperors enjoyed the same. But
when the Emperour 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 doe 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 Priviledge of St. Peter, but the Priviledge
of the City of Rome, which the Emperors were alwaies 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 Emperour made
that City the Seat of the Empire, pretended to bee equall to the Bishop
of Rome; though at last, not without contention, the Pope carryed it,
and became the Pontifex Maximus; but in right onely of the Emperour; and
not without the bounds of the Empire; nor any where, after the Emperour
had lost his power in Rome; though it were the Pope himself that took
his power from him. From whence wee 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 Civill Soveraign; and where
the Emperour having Soveraign Power Civill, hath expressely chosen the
Pope for the chief Pastor under himselfe, of his Christian Subjects.




Procession Of Images

The carrying about of Images in Procession, is another Relique 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 Latines 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 Honors
which were given to Julius Caesar by the Senate, this was one, that in
the Pompe (or Procession) at the Circaean games, he should have Thensam
& 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 Canopie.




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 honor; 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 wayes
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 Dadouchiais, that is, with Torches; for Dadochoi
were they that amongst the Greeks carried Torches lighted in the
Processions of their Gods: And in processe of time, the devout, but
ignorant People, did many times honor their Bishops with the like
pompe of Wax Candles, and the Images of our Saviour, and the Saints,
constantly, in the Church it self. And thus came in the use of Wax
Candles; and was also established by some of the ancient Councells.

The Heathens had also their Aqua Lustralis, that is to say, Holy Water.
The Church of Rome imitates them also in their Holy Dayes. They had
their Bacchanalia; and we have our Wakes, answering to them: They
their Saturnalia, and we our Carnevalls, and Shrove-tuesdays liberty
of Servants: They their Procession of Priapus; wee 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 wel observe that which is
delivered in the Histories, concerning the Religious Rites of the Greeks
and Romanes, I doubt not but he might find many more of these old empty
Bottles of Gentilisme, which the Doctors of the Romane Church, either
by Negligence, or Ambition, have filled up again with the new Wine of
Christianity, that will not faile in time to break them.



CHAPTER XLVI. OF DARKNESSE FROM VAIN PHILOSOPHY, AND FABULOUS TRADITIONS




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 bee able to produce, as far as matter, and humane force permit,
such Effects, as humane 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
Starres, 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.




Prudence No Part Of Philosophy

By which Definition it is evident, that we are not to account as any
part thereof, that originall 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
generall, eternall, and immutable Truth.




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:



No More Is Revelation Supernaturall

Nor to that which any man knows by supernaturall Revelation; because it
is not acquired by Reasoning:




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.




Of The Beginnings And Progresse Of Philosophy

The faculty of Reasoning being consequent to the use of Speech, it was
not possible, but that there should have been some generall Truthes
found out by Reasoning, as ancient almost as Language it selfe. The
Savages of America, are not without some good Morall Sentences; also
they have a little Arithmetick, to adde, 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 vertue, or made use of them for their nourishment,
or planted them apart in Fields, and Vineyards; in which time they
fed on Akorns, and drank Water: so also there have been divers true,
generall, and profitable Speculations from the beginning; as being the
naturall plants of humane Reason: But they were at first but few in
number; men lived upon grosse Experience; there was no Method; that is
to say, no Sowing, nor Planting of Knowledge by it self, apart from the
Weeds, and common Plants of Errour and Conjecture: And the cause of it
being the want of leasure from procuring the necessities of life, and
defending themselves against their neighbours, it was impossible, till
the erecting of great Common-wealths, it should be otherwise. Leasure
is the mother of Philosophy; and Common-wealth, the mother of Peace, and
Leasure: 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 Countreys were the most ancient of Kingdomes.
Philosophy was not risen to the Graecians, and other people of the West,
whose Common-wealths (no greater perhaps then Lucca, or Geneva) had
never Peace, but when their fears of one another were equall; nor the
Leasure to observe any thing but one another. At length, when Warre had
united many of these Graecian lesser Cities, into fewer, and greater;
then began Seven Men, of severall parts of Greece, to get the reputation
of being Wise; some of them for Morall and Politique 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.




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
17. 21. ) "in telling and hearing news," or in discoursing of Philosophy
publiquely to the youth of the City. Every Master took some place for
that purpose. Plato in certaine publique Walks called Academia, from one
Academus: Aristotle in the Walk of the Temple of Pan, called Lycaeum:
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 Leasure, 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 Ambassadour: which caused Cato to advise the Senate to dispatch
him quickly, for feare 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 Leasure; and their
Disputations, Diatribae, 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 Academiques; The followers of Aristotle, Peripatetiques, from the
Walk hee taught in; and those that Zeno taught, Stoiques, from the Stoa:
as if we should denominate men from More-fields, from Pauls-Church, and
from the Exchange, because they meet there often, to prate and loyter.

Neverthelesse, men were so much taken with this custome, that in time
it spread it selfe over all Europe, and the best part of Afrique; so as
there were Schools publiquely erected, and maintained for Lectures, and
Disputations, almost in every Common-wealth.




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 in as much as the Law was every Sabbath day read, expounded,
and disputed in them, they differed not in nature, but in name onely
from Publique Schools; and were not onely in Jerusalem, but in every
City of the Gentiles, where the Jews inhabited. There was such a Schoole
at Damascus, whereinto Paul entred, to persecute. There were others at
Antioch, Iconium and Thessalonica, whereinto he entred, to dispute:
And such was the Synagogue of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians,
Cilicians, and those of Asia; that is to say, the Schoole of Libertines,
and of Jewes, that were strangers in Jerusalem: And of this Schoole they
were that disputed with Saint Steven.




The Schoole Of Graecians Unprofitable

But what has been the Utility of those Schools? what Science is there
at this day acquired by their Readings and Disputings? That wee have
of Geometry, which is the Mother of all Naturall Science, wee are not
indebted for it to the Schools. Plato that was the best Philosopher
of the Greeks, forbad entrance into his Schoole, 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 passe under the name of Philosophers. The naturall Philosophy
of those Schools, was rather a Dream than Science, and set forth in
senselesse 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 Wayes,
and Degrees whereof cannot be known, without the knowledge of the
Proportions and Properties of Lines, and Figures. Their Morall
Philosophy is but a description of their own Passions. For the rule of
Manners, without Civill Government, is the Law of Nature; and in it,
the Law Civill; that determineth what is Honest, and Dishonest; what is
Just, and Unjust; and generally what is Good, and Evill: 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 Common-wealth. Their Logique
which should bee the Method of Reasoning, is nothing else but Captions
of Words, and Inventions how to puzzle such as should goe 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 beleeve that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said
in naturall Philosophy, than that which now is called Aristotles
Metaphysiques, nor more repugnant to Government, than much of that hee
hath said in his Politiques; nor more ignorantly, than a great part of
his Ethiques.




The Schools Of The Jews Unprofitable

The Schoole of the Jews, was originally a Schoole of the Law of Moses;
who commanded (Deut. 31. 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 Commandements
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; for which the Prophets prophecyed. So that by their Lectures and
Disputations in their Synagogues, they turned the Doctrine of their Law
into a Phantasticall kind of Philosophy, concerning the incomprehensible
nature of God, and of Spirits; which they compounded of the Vain
Philosophy and Theology of the Graecians, mingled with their own
fancies, drawn from the obscurer places of the Scripture, and which
might most easily bee wrested to their purpose; and from the Fabulous
Traditions of their Ancestors.




University What It Is

That which is now called an University, is a Joyning together, and an
Incorporation under one Government of many Publique 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 Romane Religion, of the
Romane Law, and of the Art of Medicine. And for the study of Philosophy
it hath no otherwise place, then as a handmaid to the Romane Religion:
And since the Authority of Aristotle is onely 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 rigide Truth.
And if any man by the ingenuity of his owne nature, had attained to any
degree of perfection therein, hee was commonly thought a Magician, and
his Art Diabolicall.




Errors Brought Into Religion From Aristotles Metaphysiques

Now to descend to the particular Tenets of Vain Philosophy, derived to
the Universities, and thence into the Church, partly from Aristotle,
partly from Blindnesse 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 Universall: Which Limitations serve to avoid
ambiguity, and aequivocation in Reasoning; and are commonly called
Definitions; such as are the Definitions of Body, Time, Place, Matter,
Forme, Essence, Subject, Substance, Accident, Power, Act, Finite,
Infinite, Quantity, Quality, Motion, Action, Passion, and divers others,
necessary to the explaining of a mans Conceptions concerning the Nature
and Generation of Bodies. The Explication (that is, the setling of the
meaning) of which, and the like Terms, is commonly in the Schools called
Metaphysiques; 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 naturall Philosophy:"
But the Schools take them for Books Of Supernaturall Philosophy: for the
word Metaphysiques 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 naturall Reason, that whosoever
thinketh there is any thing to bee understood by it, must needs think it
supernaturall.




Errors Concerning Abstract Essences

From these Metaphysiques, which are mingled with the Scripture to make
Schoole Divinity, wee are told, there be in the world certaine
Essences separated from Bodies, which they call Abstract Essences, and
Substantiall Formes: 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 my selfe to those that are. The World, (I mean not the Earth
onely, that denominates the Lovers of it Worldly Men, but the Universe,
that is, the whole masse of all things that are) is Corporeall, that
is to say, Body; and hath the dimensions of Magnitude, namely, Length,
Bredth, 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 onely, as are
visible, or palpable; that is, that have some degree of Opacity: But for
Spirits, they call them Incorporeall; which is a name of more honour,
and may therefore with more piety bee attributed to God himselfe; in
whom wee 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
Substantiall Formes, wee are to consider what those words do properly
signifie. The use of Words, is to register to our selves, 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 mentall Images we have of all things
wee see, or remember: And others againe are names of Names; or of
different sorts of Speech: As Universall, Plurall, Singular, Negation,
True, False, Syllogisme, Interrogation, Promise, Covenant, are the names
of certain Forms of Speech. Others serve to shew the Consequence, or
Repugnance of one name to another; as when one saith, "A Man is a Body,"
hee intendeth that the name of Body is necessarily consequent to the
name of Man; as being but severall names of the same thing, Man; which
Consequence is signified by coupling them together with the word Is.
And as wee use the Verbe Is; so the Latines use their Verbe Est, and
the Greeks their Esti through all its Declinations. Whether all other
Nations of the world have in their severall 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 signifie their
Consequence, if it were the custome, (for Custome is it, that give words
their force,) as well as the words Is, or Bee, or Are, and the like.

And if it were so, that there were a Language without any Verb
answerable to Est, or Is, or Bee; yet the men that used it would bee
not a jot the lesse capable of Inferring, Concluding, and of all kind of
Reasoning, than were the Greeks, and Latines. But what then would become
of these Terms, of Entity, Essence, Essentiall, Essentially, that are
derived from it, and of many more that depend on these, applyed as most
commonly they are? They are therefore no Names of Things; but Signes, by
which wee make known, that wee conceive the Consequence of one name or
Attribute to another: as when we say, "a Man, is, a living Body," wee
mean not that the Man is one thing, the Living Body another, and the Is,
or Beeing a third: but that the Man, and the Living Body, is the same
thing: because the Consequence, "If hee bee a Man, hee is a living
Body," is a true Consequence, signified by that word Is. Therefore, to
bee a Body, to Walke, to bee Speaking, to Live, to See, and the like
Infinitives; also Corporeity, Walking, Speaking, Life, Sight, and the
like, that signifie 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 subtilty 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 Countrey,
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 Soule (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 Tast of
a peece of Bread, has a being, there, where they say there is no Bread:
And upon the same ground they say, that Faith, and Wisdome, and other
Vertues are sometimes powred into a man, sometimes blown into him from
Heaven; as if the Vertuous, and their Vertues could be asunder; and a
great many other things that serve to lessen the dependance of Subjects
on the Soveraign Power of their Countrey. For who will endeavour to obey
the Laws, if he expect Obedience to be Powred or Blown into him? Or who
will not obey a Priest, that can make God, rather than his Soveraign;
nay than God himselfe? 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 reall, they are obliged to
assign them some place. But because they hold them Incorporeall, without
all dimension of Quantity, and all men know that Place is Dimension, and
not to be filled, but by that which is Corporeall; they are driven to
uphold their credit with a distinction, that they are not indeed any
where Circumscriptive, but Definitive: Which Terms being meer Words, and
in this occasion insignificant, passe onely in Latine, that the vanity
of them may bee 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 Soule, 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 Soule 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 beleeve,
to those that will beleeve the Existence of an Incorporeall Soule,
Separated from the Body.

And when they come to give account, how an Incorporeall 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 Soules.

Again, whereas Motion is change of Place, and Incorporeall Substances
are not capable of Place, they are troubled to make it seem possible,
how a Soule can goe hence, without the Body to Heaven, Hell, or
Purgatory; and how the Ghosts of men (and I may adde of their clothes
which they appear in) can walk by night in Churches, Church-yards, and
other places of Sepulture. To which I know not what they can answer,
unlesse they will say, they walke Definitive, not Circumscriptive, or
Spiritually, not Temporally: for such egregious distinctions are equally
applicable to any difficulty whatsoever.




Nunc-stans

For the meaning of Eternity, they will not have it to be an Endlesse
Succession of Time; for then they should not be able to render a reason
how Gods Will, and Praeordaining of things to come, should not be before
his Praescience 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 greatnesse of Place.




One Body In Many Places, And Many Bodies In One Place At Once

And whereas men divide a Body in their thought, by numbring parts of
it, and in numbring those parts, number also the parts of the Place
it filled; it cannot be, but in making many parts, wee make also many
places of those parts; whereby there cannot bee conceived in the mind of
any man, more, or fewer parts, than there are places for: yet they will
have us beleeve, 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, in stead of admiring,
and adoring of the Divine and Incomprehensible Nature; whose Attributes
cannot signifie what he is, but ought to signifie 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, comming into the
presence of a greater Person than he is used to speak to, and stumbling
at his entrance, to save himselfe from falling, lets slip his Cloake;
to recover his Cloake, lets fall his Hat; and with one disorder after
another, discovers his astonishment and rusticity.




Absurdities In Naturall Philosophy, As Gravity The Cause Of Heavinesse

Then for Physiques, that is, the knowledge of the subordinate, and
secundary causes of naturall 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 goe naturally from it; The
Schools will tell you out of Aristotle, that the bodies that sink
downwards, are Heavy; and that this Heavinesse is it that causes them to
descend: But if you ask what they mean by Heavinesse, they will define
it to bee an endeavour to goe to the center 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 doe.
Or they will tell you the center of the Earth is the place of Rest, and
Conservation for Heavy things; and therefore they endeavour to be there:
As if Stones, and Metalls had a desire, or could discern the place they
would bee at, as Man does; or loved Rest, as Man does not; or that a
peece of Glasse were lesse safe in the Window, than falling into the
Street.




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 lesse, it is Condensed;
when greater, Rarefied. What is that Condensed, and Rarefied? Condensed,
is when there is in the very same Matter, lesse Quantity than before;
and Rarefied, 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 lesse were put
into it, according as it is intended the Body should be more, or lesse
Dense.




Powring In Of Soules

For the cause of the Soule of Man, they say, Creatur Infundendo, and
Creando Infunditur: that is, "It is Created by Powring it in," and
"Powred in by Creation. "




Ubiquity Of Apparition

For the Cause of Sense, an ubiquity of Species; that is, of the Shews
or Apparitions of objects; which when they be Apparitions to the Eye, is
Sight; when to the Eare, Hearing; to the Palate, Tast; to the Nostrill,
Smelling; and to the rest of the Body, Feeling.




Will, The Cause Of Willing

For cause of the Will, to doe any particular action, which is called
Volitio, they assign the Faculty, that is to say, the Capacity in
generall, 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 evill Acts of men, their
Ability to doe them.




Ignorance An Occult Cause

And in many occasions they put for cause of Naturall 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 thinke)
to no Man else. And to Sympathy, Antipathy, Antiperistasis, Specificall
Qualities, and other like Termes, which signifie neither the Agent that
produceth them, nor the Operation by which they are produced.

If such Metaphysiques, and Physiques as this, be not Vain Philosophy,
there was never any; nor needed St. Paul to give us warning to avoid it.




One Makes The Things Incongruent, Another The Incongruity

And for their Morall, and Civill Philosophy, it hath the same, or
greater absurdities. If a man doe 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 streight 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 distinction was made to maintain the
Doctrine of Free-Will, that is, of a Will of man, not subject to the
Will of God.




Private Appetite The Rule Of Publique Good:

Aristotle, and other Heathen Philosophers define Good, and Evill, 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 generall Rule of Good, and
Evill Actions. But in a Common-wealth 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 Goodnesse, or Wickednesse of their own, and of other mens
actions, and of the actions of the Common-wealth it selfe, by their own
Passions; and no man calleth Good or Evill, but that which is so in his
own eyes, without any regard at all to the Publique Laws; except onely
Monks, and Friers, that are bound by Vow to that simple obedience to
their Superiour, to which every Subject ought to think himself bound by
the Law of Nature to the Civill Soveraign. And this private measure of
Good, is a Doctrine, not onely Vain, but also Pernicious to the Publique
State.




And That Lawfull 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
Morall Vices; as they doe, that pretend Chastity, and Continence, for
the ground of denying Marriage to the Clergy. For they confesse 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 continuall Abstinence from women, under the name of
continuall Chastity, Continence, and Purity. Therefore they call the
lawfull 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 naturall, necessary, and daily works which
all men doe, render men unworthy to bee 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 errours in Morall
Philosophy; nor yet upon the preference of single life, to the estate of
Matrimony; which proceeded from the wisdome 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
countrey 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 Kingdome 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 Kingdome
the Children of God shall "neither Marry, nor bee given in Marriage, but
shall bee as the Angels in heaven;" that is to say, Spirituall. Seeing
then they had taken on them the name of Spirituall, to have allowed
themselves (when there was no need) the propriety of Wives, had been an
Incongruity.




And That All Government But Popular, Is Tyranny

From Aristotles Civill Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner
of Common-wealths 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 Governours 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 parts of Greece that
kind of government was abolished, the name began to signifie, not onely
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 naturall to all men,
to conceive some great Fault to be signified in any Attribute, that is
given in despight, 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 expresse
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 himselfe, but as the Publique Representant, be it one Man, or an
Assembly of men thinks fit; that is, by an Arbitrary government: for
which they give evill names to their Superiors; never knowing (till
perhaps a little after a Civill warre) that without such Arbitrary
government, such Warre must be perpetuall; and that it is Men, and Arms,
not Words, and Promises, that make the Force and Power of the Laws.




That Not Men, But Law Governs

And therefore this is another Errour of Aristotles Politiques, that in
a wel ordered Common-wealth, not Men should govern, but the Laws.