Darkness from Empty Philosophy and Mythical Traditions

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.

Philosophy means “knowledge gained through reasoning from how something is produced to its properties. Or reasoning can lead from those properties to some possible way of producing the same thing. The aim is to produce the effects human life requires, as far as materials and human strength allow.” Thus, by reasoning from how figures are constructed, the geometer discovers many properties of those figures. And by reasoning from those properties, the geometer discovers new ways to construct the figures. The aim is to measure land and water, and to serve countless other purposes. Likewise, the astronomer studies the rising, setting, and movement of the Sun and stars in different parts of the heavens. From these observations, the astronomer discovers the causes of day and night and the different seasons of the year. This knowledge allows the astronomer to keep track of time. The same applies to other sciences.

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.

This definition makes clear that the original knowledge called experience is not part of what is being defined. Prudence consists in experience. For experience is not gained through reasoning, but is found in animals as well as humans. Experience is only a memory of sequences of past events. Overlooking even a small circumstance that changes the outcome defeats the expectations of even the most prudent. By contrast, correct reasoning produces nothing but general, eternal, and unchanging truth.

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:

Nor should we therefore give that name to any false conclusions. For anyone who reasons correctly using words they understand can never reach a false conclusion.

No More Is Revelation Supernaturall

Nor Is Revelation Supernatural

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

Nor to what anyone knows through supernatural revelation, because that knowledge is not gained through reasoning:

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.

Nor does reasoning based on the authority of books count as knowledge. This is because such reasoning moves neither from cause to effect nor from effect to cause. Such reasoning is not knowledge, but faith.

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.

The ability to reason follows from the use of speech. So some general truths must have been discovered through reasoning almost as long ago as language itself began. The Indigenous peoples of America have some good moral sayings. They also know a little arithmetic, enough to add and divide numbers that are not too large. But such knowledge does not make them philosophers. Grain and grapevines once grew in small quantities, scattered through fields and woods. People did not yet know their value, use them for food, or grow them separately in fields and vineyards. At that time, people ate acorns and drank water. In the same way, various true, general, and useful ideas have existed from the beginning. These ideas were the natural plants of human reason. But at first, such ideas were few, and people relied on rough experience. There was no method. Knowledge was not sown or planted separately from the weeds and ordinary plants of error and guesswork. People lacked the leisure for such work because they had to obtain life's necessities and defend themselves against their neighbors. So until large states were established, things could not have been otherwise. Leisure is the mother of philosophy. And the state is the mother of peace and leisure. The study of philosophy first arose where large, flourishing cities first appeared. The Gymnosophists of India, the Magi of Persia, and the priests of Chaldea and Egypt are considered the earliest philosophers. And those countries were the earliest kingdoms. Philosophy had not yet arisen among the Greeks and other peoples of the West. Their states, perhaps no larger than Lucca or Geneva, had peace only when their fears of one another were equal. Nor did their people have leisure to observe anything but one another. Eventually, war united many of these smaller Greek cities into fewer, larger ones. Then seven men from different parts of Greece began to gain reputations for wisdom. Some became known for their moral and political sayings. Others became known for their knowledge of Chaldean and Egyptian learning, which consisted of astronomy and geometry. But we still hear nothing of any schools of philosophy.

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.

After defeating the Persian armies, the Athenians gained control of the sea. Through this, they also controlled all the islands and coastal cities of the Archipelago, in both Asia and Europe. They also became wealthy. Those with no work at home or abroad had little else to occupy them. As St. Luke says (Acts 17.21), they spent their time “in telling and hearing news,” or publicly discussing philosophy with the city’s young people. Each teacher chose a place for this purpose. Plato taught in certain public walks called Academia, named after a man called Academus. Aristotle taught in the walk at the Temple of Pan, called Lycaeum. Others taught in the Stoa, a covered walk where merchants’ goods were brought ashore. Others chose other places, spending their leisure time teaching or debating their opinions. Some spoke wherever they could gather the city’s young people to listen. Carneades did the same at Rome when he was an ambassador. Because of this, Cato advised the Senate to send Carneades away quickly. Cato feared that Carneades would corrupt the character of the young men who enjoyed hearing him speak. These young men thought he said 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.

For this reason, the places where any of them taught and debated were called Schola, meaning leisure in their language. Their debates were called Diatribae, meaning passing the time. Some philosophers also took the names of their schools as the names of their sects. Followers of Plato’s teachings were called Academiques. Followers of Aristotle were called Peripatetiques, after the walkway where he taught. Those taught by Zeno were called Stoiques, after the Stoa. It is as if we named men after More-fields, Pauls-Church, and the Exchange because they often meet there to chatter and idle.

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.

Nevertheless, people were so taken with this custom that it eventually spread throughout all Europe and most of Africa. As a result, schools were publicly established and maintained for lectures and debates in almost every commonwealth.

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.

In ancient times, the Jews also had schools, both before and after the time of our Saviour. But these were schools of Jewish Law. Although called Synagogues, meaning Congregations of the People, they differed from public schools only in name, not in nature. For every Sabbath, the Law was read, explained, and debated in them. These schools existed not only in Jerusalem but in every city of the Gentiles where Jews lived. There was such a school at Damascus, which Paul entered to persecute the Jews. There were others at Antioch, Iconium and Thessalonica, which he entered to debate. The Synagogue of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and those of Asia was also such a school. In other words, it was the school of Libertines and of Jews who were foreigners in Jerusalem. Those who debated with Saint Steven belonged to this school.

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.

But what use have those schools been? What scientific knowledge has been gained through their lectures and debates up to the present day? We do not owe our knowledge of geometry, the mother of all natural science, to the schools. Plato, the best philosopher among the Greeks, barred anyone from his school who did not already know some geometry. Many people studied geometry to humanity’s great benefit. But there is no mention of their schools, nor was there any sect of geometers. Nor were geometers then called philosophers. The natural philosophy of those schools was more a dream than a science, expressed in senseless and meaningless language. Such language is unavoidable for anyone who teaches philosophy without first gaining extensive knowledge of geometry. For nature works through motion. The ways and degrees of motion cannot be understood without knowing the proportions and properties of lines and figures. Their moral philosophy is nothing but a description of their own passions. For outside civil government, the rule of conduct is the law of nature. Within civil government, civil law determines what is honorable and dishonorable, just and unjust, and generally good and evil. Yet these philosophers make their own likes and dislikes the rules of good and bad. With such differences in taste, nothing is generally agreed upon. Instead, everyone does whatever seems good in their own eyes, as far as they dare, undermining the commonwealth. Their logic should be a method of reasoning. Instead, it consists only of verbal tricks and devices for confusing anyone who tries to stump them. In short, nothing is so absurd that some ancient philosopher has not defended it. Cicero says this, and he was one of them. And I believe hardly anything in natural philosophy can be more absurd than what is now called Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Hardly anything can be more opposed to government than much of what he says in his Politics. Nor can hardly anything be more ignorant than a great part of his Ethics.

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.

The school of the Jews was originally a school for teaching the Law of Moses. Moses commanded that the Law be read to all the people at the end of every seventh year (Deut. 31.10.). This reading was to take place at the Feast of the Tabernacles, so the people could hear and learn the Law. After the Captivity, the Law was read every Sabbath day. Therefore, these readings should have served only to teach people the commandments they had to obey and explain the Prophets’ writings. But our Saviour’s many rebukes make it clear that these teachers corrupted the Law’s text with false commentaries and empty traditions. They understood the Prophets so poorly that they recognized neither Christ nor his works, which the Prophets had foretold. So, through lectures and debates in their synagogues, these teachers turned the teachings of their Law into a fanciful philosophy. This philosophy concerned the incomprehensible nature of God and of spirits. They constructed it from the empty philosophy and theology of the Greeks, mixed with their own imaginings. These imaginings came from the more obscure passages of Scripture, the passages most easily twisted to suit their purposes. They also drew on the fabled traditions of their ancestors.

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.

What we now call a university combines many public schools in the same town or city under one governing body. The main schools were established for three professions: Roman religion, Roman law, and medicine. Philosophy has a place there only as a servant to Roman religion. And since Aristotle is the only accepted authority there, the subject is not properly philosophy, but Aristotelity. Philosophy, by its nature, does not depend on the authority of authors. As for geometry, until very recently it had no place at all, since it serves nothing but strict truth. And if any man achieved any degree of mastery in geometry through his own natural ability, people commonly thought him a magician. They also thought his art was diabolical.

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.

I now turn to the specific doctrines of empty philosophy, passed into the universities and from there into the Church. These doctrines came partly from Aristotle and partly from a failure to understand. I will first examine their principles. There is a first philosophy, or Philosophia Prima, on which all other philosophy ought to depend. It consists mainly in setting precise meanings for the most universal terms or names. These precise meanings prevent ambiguity and double meanings in reasoning. They are commonly called definitions. Examples include definitions of body, time, place, matter, form, essence, subject, substance, accident, power, act, finite, infinite, quantity, quality, motion, action, and passion. These and various other definitions are needed to explain a person's ideas about the nature and formation of bodies. Explaining these and similar terms, that is, fixing their meanings, is commonly called metaphysics in the schools. The name comes from a part of Aristotle's philosophy with that title. But the title has a different meaning there: “Books written, or placed after his natural philosophy.” The schools, however, take these to be books about supernatural philosophy. The word metaphysics can bear both meanings. Indeed, most of what is written there is so impossible to understand, and so contrary to natural reason, that anyone who thinks it means anything must necessarily think it supernatural.

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.

Metaphysics is mixed with Scripture to produce scholastic theology. From this mixture, we are told that certain essences exist in the world separately from bodies. These are called Abstract Essences and Substantial Forms. Explaining this jargon requires more than ordinary attention here. I also ask readers unfamiliar with this kind of discussion to forgive me for addressing those familiar with it. The world is physical, that is, body. By “world,” I do not mean only the earth, whose lovers are called worldly people. I mean the universe, the whole mass of everything that exists. The universe has three dimensions: length, width, and depth. Every part of a body is also a body and has the same dimensions. Consequently, every part of the universe is a body. Whatever is not a body is no part of the universe. And because the universe is everything, whatever is no part of the universe is nothing, and therefore exists nowhere. But this does not mean that spirits are nothing. Spirits have dimensions and are therefore real bodies. In ordinary speech, however, the name “body” is given only to bodies that can be seen or touched. That is, bodies with some degree of opacity. But spirits are called incorporeal. This is a more honorable name and may therefore be applied to God himself with greater reverence. For when speaking of God, we do not consider which attribute best expresses his nature, since his nature is incomprehensible. Instead, we consider which attribute best expresses our desire to honor 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.

To understand the grounds for claiming that Abstract Essences or Substantial Forms exist, we must consider what those words actually mean. We use words to record our thoughts and ideas for ourselves and communicate them to others. Some words name the things we think about. These include names for all kinds of bodies that affect our senses and leave an impression in our imagination. Other words name the imagined images themselves. These are the ideas or mental images we have of everything we see or remember. Still other words name names or different kinds of speech. Universal, Plural, Singular, Negation, True, False, Syllogism, Question, Promise, and Covenant are names for certain forms of speech. Other words show whether one name follows from another or conflicts with another. For example, someone who says, “A man is a body,” means that the name body necessarily follows from the name man. The two words are simply different names for the same thing, a man. Joining the names with the word is expresses this connection. Just as we use the verb is, the Latins use their verb est, and the Greeks use esti in all its forms. I cannot say whether every other nation has a corresponding word in its language. But I am sure no nation needs such a word. Placing two names in order could express the same connection, if that were customary. Such an arrangement could work as well as the words is, be, are, and the like. For custom is what gives words their force.

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.

Suppose there were a language without any verb corresponding to Est, Is, or Be. Even then, its speakers would be no less capable of drawing inferences, reaching conclusions, and reasoning of every kind than the Greeks and Latins. But what would become of terms like Entity, Essence, Essential, and Essentially, which come from that verb? And what about the many other terms that depend on these, as they are most commonly used? These terms therefore name no things. They are signs showing that we understand one name or attribute to follow from another. For example, when we say, “a man is a living body,” we do not mean that the man is one thing, the living body another, and Is or Being a third. Instead, we mean that the man and the living body are the same thing. This is because the inference, “If he is a man, he is a living body,” is valid. The word Is expresses that inference. Therefore, infinitives such as to be a body, to walk, to be speaking, to live, and to see name nothing. The same holds for Corporeity, Walking, Speaking, Life, Sight, and similar terms, which mean exactly the same as those infinitives. I have explained this more fully elsewhere.

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.

But someone may ask what purpose such fine distinctions serve in a work like this. I claim to discuss only what is necessary to explain government and obedience. My purpose is to stop people from letting themselves be deceived by those who teach the doctrine of Separated Essences. Built on Aristotle’s empty philosophy, this doctrine uses empty names to frighten people out of obeying their country’s laws. It is like frightening birds away from grain with an empty jacket, a hat, and a crooked stick. On this basis, these teachers say that a dead and buried man’s soul, meaning his life, can walk without his body. They say his soul can be seen at night among the graves. On the same basis, they say bread’s shape, colour, and taste exist where they claim no bread exists. On the same basis, they say faith, wisdom, and other virtues are sometimes poured into a person. At other times, these virtues are supposedly blown into him from Heaven. As if virtuous people and their virtues could exist apart! These teachers make many other claims that weaken subjects’ dependence on their country’s sovereign power. For who will try to obey the laws if he expects obedience to be poured or blown into him? Or who would not obey a priest who can make God, rather than obey his sovereign, or even God himself? Or who, if afraid of ghosts, would not greatly respect those who can make holy water to drive ghosts away? This is enough to illustrate the errors brought into the Church by Aristotle’s entities and essences. Perhaps Aristotle knew his philosophy was false. Yet he wrote it because it agreed with and supported their religion, and because he feared 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.

Once they fall into this error of Separated Essences, they necessarily become caught in many further absurdities. Because they insist these Forms are real, they must assign them a place. But they also hold that these Forms are incorporeal, with no dimensions at all. And everyone knows that place has dimensions and can be filled only by something bodily. So, to protect their credibility, they resort to a distinction. They claim these Forms are nowhere Circumscriptive, but are somewhere Definitive. These terms are mere words and, in this context, meaningless. They are used only in Latin to conceal their emptiness. For the circumscription of a thing means nothing more than determining or defining its place. So both terms in this distinction mean the same thing. In particular, they say that a person's essence is the soul. They claim the whole soul is in the little finger, and in every other body part, however small. Yet they claim there is no more soul in the whole body than in any one of those parts. Can anyone think that such absurdities serve God? Yet anyone who believes in an incorporeal soul, separate from the body, must believe all this.

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.

And when they must explain how a substance without a body can feel pain, they have no answer. Nor can they explain how such a substance can suffer in the fire of Hell or Purgatory. Their only answer is that no one can know how fire can burn souls.

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.

Again, motion is a change of place, and substances without bodies cannot occupy a place. So they struggle to explain how a soul can leave this world without its body for Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. They also struggle to explain how people’s ghosts can walk at night in churches, churchyards, and other burial places. And I might add the ghosts of the clothes those people appear in. I do not know how they can answer, unless they say the ghosts walk Definitive, not Circumscriptive, or spiritually, not temporally. For such absurd distinctions can be applied equally well to any difficulty whatsoever.

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.

They refuse to define Eternity as an endless succession of time. For then they could not explain why God’s will and his predetermining of future events do not precede his foreknowledge. A cause precedes its effect, or an agent its action. Nor could they explain many of their other bold opinions about God’s incomprehensible nature. Instead, they teach us that Eternity is the present moment standing still, a Nunc-stans, as the Schools call it. Neither they nor anyone else understands this Nunc-stans. They would no more understand a Hic-stans as an explanation of infinite size in space.

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.

When people divide a body in their minds, they count its parts. In counting those parts, they also count the parts of the space the body occupied. So dividing a body into many parts necessarily means dividing its space into many places for those parts. No one can therefore imagine more or fewer parts than there are places for them. Yet they would have us believe that God’s almighty power allows one body to occupy many places at once. They also claim that many bodies can occupy one place at once. This is as if acknowledging God’s power meant saying that what exists does not exist, or what happened never happened. These are only a few of the absurdities they are driven to by arguing philosophically about God’s nature. Instead, they should admire and worship his divine and incomprehensible nature. His attributes cannot tell us what he is. Rather, those attributes should express our desire to honor him with the finest titles we can think of. But some dare to reason about his nature from these titles of honor. They lose their way at the very first attempt, then fall into endless, countless difficulties. They resemble a man unfamiliar with court etiquette, approaching someone of higher rank than he usually speaks to. He stumbles as he enters and, trying to avoid falling, lets his cloak slip. Trying to recover his cloak, he drops his hat. With one blunder after another, he reveals his bewilderment and lack of refinement.

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.

As for physics, the study of the subordinate and secondary causes of natural events, they offer nothing but empty words. Suppose you want to know why some kinds of bodies naturally sink toward the Earth, while others naturally move away. The Schools, following Aristotle, will tell you that bodies that sink are heavy, and their heaviness makes them descend. But ask what heaviness means, and they will define it as a tendency to move toward the Earth's center. So the reason things sink downward is a tendency to be below. This amounts to saying that bodies descend or ascend because they do. Or they will tell you that the Earth's center is where heavy things rest and are preserved. Therefore, heavy things strive to be there. As if stones and metals had desires, or could recognize where they wanted to be, as people do. Or as if stones and metals loved rest, as people do not. Or as if a piece of glass were less safe in a window than falling into the street.

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.

Suppose we ask why the same body seems larger at one time than another, without anything being added to it. They say that when the body seems smaller, it is condensed, and when larger, rarefied. What do condensed and rarefied mean? Condensed means that the very same matter has less quantity than before, and rarefied means that it has more. As if matter could exist without having a definite quantity. Quantity is nothing more than the measure of matter, or body. By that measure, we say how much larger or smaller one body is than another. Or as if a body were made without any quantity at all, and more or less quantity were added afterward. The amount added would depend on how dense the body was intended to be.

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.”

To explain the origin of the human soul, they say, Creatur Infundendo, and Creando Infunditur. This means, “The soul is created by being poured in,” and “Poured in by being created.”

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.

The cause of sensation is the presence of Species everywhere, meaning the images or appearances of objects. When these appearances are perceived by the eye, the sensation is sight. When perceived by the ear, the sensation is hearing. When perceived by the palate, the sensation is taste. When perceived by the nostrils, the sensation is smell. When perceived by the rest of the body, the sensation is touch.

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.

They explain the will to perform a particular action, called Volitio, by pointing to the general ability to will. This ability, called Voluntas, lets people will one thing at one time and another at another time. They thus make the power to act the cause of the act. It is as if someone explained people’s good or evil actions by their ability to perform them.

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.

On many occasions, they present their own ignorance as the cause of natural events, but disguise it in other words. For example, they say Fortune causes things that happen by chance, meaning things whose causes they do not know. They also attribute many effects to Occult Qualities, meaning qualities unknown to them. They therefore think these qualities are unknown to anyone else as well. They also attribute effects to Sympathy, Antipathy, Antiperistasis, Specific Qualities, and other similar terms. These terms identify neither what produces the effects nor the process by which the effects 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.

If metaphysics and physics like these are not empty philosophy, then no philosophy ever was. Nor, in that case, did St. Paul need to warn us to avoid empty philosophy.

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.

Their moral and civil philosophy contains the same absurdities, or even greater ones. If a man acts unjustly, meaning he acts against the law, they say God is the first cause of the law. They also say God is the first cause of that action and all other actions. But they say God is no cause at all of the injustice, meaning the action’s failure to follow the law. This is empty philosophy. One might as well say that one man makes both a straight line and a crooked line. Yet another man makes the difference between the two. Such is the philosophy of all who settle on their conclusions before knowing their premises. They claim to understand what cannot be understood. They also turn attributes that express honor into attributes that describe nature. This distinction was made to defend the doctrine of free will, meaning a human will not subject to God’s will.

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.

Aristotle and other pagan philosophers define good and evil by human desires. This definition works well enough as long as we consider each person governed by their own law. For when people have no law but their own desires, there can be no general rule for judging actions as good or evil. But in a commonwealth, this standard is false. The standard is not the desires of private individuals but the law, which expresses the state's will and desires. Yet people still follow this doctrine. They judge their own actions, other people's actions, and even the commonwealth's actions as good or wicked by their own passions. Everyone calls things good or evil only according to how those things appear in their own eyes. They pay no attention at all to public laws. The only exceptions are monks and friars, whose vows bind them to unquestioning obedience to their superior. Every subject ought to consider themselves bound by natural law to the same obedience to the civil sovereign. This doctrine of judging good by private standards is not only groundless but also harmful to the state.

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.

It is also empty and false philosophy to say that marital sex conflicts with chastity or sexual restraint. To say so is to make marital sex a moral vice. Those who cite chastity and sexual restraint as reasons to forbid clergy to marry do just that. For they admit that the requirement is merely a Church rule. The rule applies to those in holy orders who continually serve at the altar and administer the Eucharist. It requires them to abstain continually from women, calling this continual chastity, restraint, and purity. They therefore call lawful sex with one’s wife a failure of chastity and restraint. In doing so, they make marriage a sin. Or at least they make marriage so impure and unclean that it makes a man unfit for the altar. If the rule was made because marital sex shows a lack of restraint and conflicts with chastity, all marriage is vice. If marital sex is too impure and unclean for a man consecrated to God, the same reasoning applies even more elsewhere. Other natural, necessary, daily bodily functions performed by all men should make men even less worthy to be priests. For those functions 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.

But the hidden basis for banning priests from marrying was probably not as flimsy as these errors in moral philosophy. Nor was the ban based on a preference for single life over marriage. That preference came from the wisdom of St. Paul. He saw how inconvenient marriage was for preachers of the Gospel during those times of persecution. Forced to flee from one country to another, they would be burdened with caring for wives and children. Rather, the ban rested on a plan devised by the Popes and priests of later times. They aimed to make themselves the Clergy, meaning the sole heirs of the Kingdom of God in this world. To achieve that aim, they had to give up marriage. For our Saviour says that when his Kingdom comes, the Children of God shall “neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in heaven.” That is to say, they shall be spiritual. Since the clergy had adopted the name Spiritual, allowing themselves wives would have been inconsistent, when there was no need.

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.

From Aristotle’s political philosophy, they have learned to call every form of government except popular government a tyranny. Athens at that time was an example of popular government. They called all kings tyrants. They also called the aristocracy of thirty governors the Thirty Tyrants. These governors were installed in Athens by the Lacedemonians, who had conquered the Athenians. They also learned to call the people’s condition under democracy liberty. Originally, a tyrant meant simply a monarch, nothing more. But later, monarchy was abolished in most parts of Greece. The name then came to express not only monarchy but also the hatred popular states felt toward monarchy. Similarly, the name king became hated after the kings of Rome were deposed. All people naturally assume that a label expresses some great fault when used insultingly against a great enemy. And when these same people become displeased with those running a democracy or aristocracy, insulting names come readily to hand. They call democracy anarchy, and aristocracy oligarchy, or the tyranny of a few. What offends the people is simply that they are governed differently from how each person would wish. Instead, they are governed as the public representative thinks fit, whether that representative is one person or an assembly. In other words, they live under a government that acts according to its own judgment. For this, they give their rulers abusive names. They never understand, until perhaps shortly after a civil war, that without such government, civil war must be perpetual. Nor do they understand that men and weapons, not words and promises, give laws their force and power.

And therefore this is another Errour of Aristotles Politiques, that in a wel ordered Common-wealth, not Men should govern, but the Laws. What man, that has his naturall Senses, though he can neither write nor read, does not find himself governed by them he fears, and beleeves can kill or hurt him when he obeyeth not? or that beleeves 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 Governours, to adhaere to those that call them Tyrants, and to think it lawfull to raise warre against them: And yet they are many times cherished from the Pulpit, by the Clergy.

And so this is another error in Aristotle’s Politics: that a well-ordered commonwealth should be governed by laws, not men. What man in his right mind fails to recognize that he is governed by those he fears? Even if he cannot read or write, he believes they can kill or hurt him if he disobeys. Or who believes that the law can hurt him? That is, can words and paper hurt him without the hands and swords of men? This is one of those dangerous errors. For such errors lead people, whenever they dislike their rulers, to side with those who call those rulers tyrants. Such errors also lead people to think it lawful to wage war against their rulers. And yet the clergy often encourage such errors from the pulpit.

There is another Errour in their Civill 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 onely, 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 Civill Magistrate, intending to employ a Minister in the charge of Teaching, may enquire of him, if hee bee content to Preach such, and such Doctrines; and in case of refusall, may deny him the employment: But to force him to accuse himselfe 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 bee damned to Eternall and extream 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, when the naturall care of himself, compelleth not to hazard his Soule upon his own judgement, rather than that of any other man that is unconcerned in his damnation?

There is another error in their political philosophy. They never learned this error from Aristotle, Cicero, or any other pagan thinker. They extend the power of law, which governs actions alone, to people’s very thoughts and consciences. They do so by examining and investigating people’s beliefs, even when their words and actions obey the law. As a result, people are either punished for honestly stating their thoughts or forced to lie for fear of punishment. It is true that a civil official intending to employ a minister as a teacher may question the minister. The official may ask whether the minister is willing to preach particular doctrines. If the minister refuses, the official may deny him the position. But forcing someone to accuse himself of holding opinions, when his actions are not forbidden by law, violates natural law. This is especially true of those who teach that a person may die holding a false belief about Christian doctrine. They teach that anyone who dies with such a belief will be condemned to eternal and extreme torment. For who, knowing the great danger of error, would not be compelled by concern for himself to trust his own judgment? Would he not risk his soul on that judgment rather than another person’s, when that person is unconcerned about his damnation?

For a Private man, without the Authority of the Common-wealth, that is to say, without permission from the Representant thereof, to Interpret the Law by his own Spirit, is another Error in the Politiques; 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 Common-wealth, and consequently, a part of the Civill Law?

Another political error is for a private person to interpret the law through personal inspiration without the state's authority. That means without permission from the state's representative. But this error does not come from Aristotle or any other pagan philosopher. For none of these philosophers deny that the power to make laws includes the power to explain them when necessary. And wherever the Scriptures have the force of law, isn't the state's authority what makes them law? Aren't they therefore part of civil law?

Of the same kind it is also, when any but the Soveraign restraineth in any man that power which the Common-wealth hath not restrained: as they do, that impropriate the Preaching of the Gospell 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 my selfe 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 administring 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 Civill Soveraigne hath not denyed them, is a taking away of a lawfull Liberty, which is contrary to the Doctrine of Civill Government.

The same applies when anyone other than the sovereign limits a power that the Commonwealth has not restricted. Some do this by reserving the preaching of the Gospel for one particular religious order, where the law leaves preaching free. If the state allows me to preach or teach, meaning it does not forbid me, no one can forbid me. Suppose I find myself among the idolaters of America. As a Christian, though not ordained, should I think preaching Jesus Christ is a sin until Rome ordains me? Or, after preaching, should I not answer their doubts and explain the Scriptures to them? In other words, should I not teach? But some may say that necessity provides sufficient authorization to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments to them. That is true. But it is also true that anything deserving an exemption out of necessity needs no exemption when no law forbids it. Therefore, denying these duties to people whom the civil sovereign has not forbidden to perform them takes away a lawful freedom. Taking away that freedom is contrary to the principles of civil government.

More examples of Vain Philosophy, brought into Religion by the Doctors of Schoole-Divinity, might be produced; but other men may if they please observe them of themselves. I shall onely adde this, that the Writings of Schoole-Divines, are nothing else for the most part, but insignificant Traines of strange and barbarous words, or words otherwise used, then in the common use of the Latine 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 Schoole-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 no Intelligible in the Latine. Which Insignificancy of language, though I cannot note it for false Philosophy; yet it hath a quality, not onely to hide the Truth, but also to make men think they have it, and desist from further search.

More examples could be given of empty philosophy brought into religion by the teachers of scholastic theology. But others may notice these examples for themselves if they wish. I will add only this: scholastic theologians’ writings are mostly nothing but meaningless strings of strange and barbarous words. Or they use words in ways that depart from ordinary Latin usage. Such language would puzzle Cicero, Varro, and all the grammarians of ancient Rome. If anyone wants proof, let him try a test I have already suggested. Let him see whether he can translate any scholastic theologian into French, English, or any other language with a rich vocabulary. For whatever cannot be made understandable in most of these languages is not understandable in Latin either. Although I cannot classify this meaningless language as false philosophy, such language does more than hide the truth. It also makes people think they possess the truth and stop searching further.

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, alledged by the Doctors of the Romane Church, to make good their Doctrines of Hell, and purgatory, the power of Exorcisme, 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 beleeve false reports; and the producing of their opinions for testimony of the truth of what they beleeved, hath no other force with them that (according to the Counsell of St. John 1 Epist. chap. 4. verse 1.) examine Spirits, than in all things that concern the power of the Romane Church, (the abuse whereof either they suspected not, or had benefit by it,) to discredit their testimony, in respect of too rash beleef of reports; which the most sincere men, without great knowledge of naturall 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 S. Bernard have somewhat of Apparitions of Ghosts, that said they were in Purgatory; and so has our Beda: but no where, I beleeve, 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.

Finally, consider the errors introduced by false or unreliable history. What are all the legends of invented miracles in the lives of the Saints but old wives’ tales? The same is true of all the stories of apparitions and ghosts cited by teachers of the Roman Church. They use these stories to support their doctrines of Hell and purgatory, the power of exorcism, and other doctrines. These doctrines have no support in either reason or Scripture. And what are all the traditions they call the unwritten Word of God but old wives’ tales? Although some traces of these stories appear throughout the writings of the ancient Fathers, those Fathers were human. They could too easily believe false reports. Citing their opinions as evidence does not establish the truth of what they believed. Consider those who test spirits, following St. John’s advice in his first Epistle, chapter 4, verse 1. For such readers, these opinions only discredit the Fathers’ testimony on all matters concerning the Roman Church’s power. The Fathers either did not suspect abuses of that power or benefited from it. Their testimony is discredited because they believed reports too readily. The most sincere people commonly fall into this error most easily when they lack extensive knowledge of natural causes. The Fathers were such people. For the best people are naturally the least suspicious of dishonest intentions. Pope Gregory and St. Bernard wrote something about apparitions of ghosts who said they were in purgatory. So did our Beda. But nowhere, I believe, did they rely on anything except reports from others. But suppose they, or anyone else, tell such stories from their own knowledge. They would not thereby give these groundless reports any greater credibility. They would only reveal their own weakness or deceit.

With the Introduction of False, we may joyn also the suppression of True Philosophy, by such men, as neither by lawfull authority, nor sufficient study, are competent Judges of the truth. Our own Navigations make manifest, and all men learned in humane Sciences, now acknowledge there are Antipodes: And every day it appeareth more and more, that Years, and Dayes are determined by Motions of the Earth. Neverthelesse, 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 Ecclesiasticall. 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 Civill: 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 vertue of his power to whom the care of the Publique quiet is committed; which is the Authority Civill. For whatsoever Power Ecclesiastiques take upon themselves (in any place where they are subject to the State) in their own Right, though they call it Gods Right, is but Usurpation.

Alongside the introduction of false philosophy, we may also count the suppression of true philosophy. Those responsible have neither the lawful authority nor the learning needed to judge what is true. Our own sea voyages prove that people live on the opposite side of the Earth. All scholars of the human sciences now acknowledge this. And every day, it becomes clearer that the Earth’s movements determine years and days. Nevertheless, church authorities have punished writers merely for considering such ideas to explain the arguments for and against them. But what reason is there for such punishment? Is it because these opinions conflict with true religion? They cannot, if they are true. So let qualified judges first examine whether these opinions are true. Or let those who claim to know otherwise disprove them. Is it because these opinions conflict with the established religion? Then let them be silenced under the laws governing those who teach them, namely, the civil laws. For people who break the law by teaching even true philosophy may lawfully be punished for their disobedience. Is it because these opinions threaten public order by encouraging rebellion or sedition? Then let these opinions be silenced and their teachers punished by the power entrusted with keeping the public peace. That power belongs to the civil authorities. For wherever church officials are subject to the state, any power they claim in their own right is merely usurpation. This remains true even if they call it God’s right.

Cicero maketh honorable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe Judge amongst the Romans, for a custome 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, Honor, or other Contentment, the accused obtained, or expected by the Fact. For amongst Praesumptions, 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 Christendome, with these Doctrines, contrary to the Peaceable Societies of Mankind.

Cicero speaks highly of one of the Cassii, a stern Roman judge, for his practice in criminal cases. When witness testimony was insufficient, the judge would ask the accusers, Cui Bono, meaning “Who benefits?” What profit, honor, or other satisfaction had the accused gained, or expected to gain, from the act? For no other circumstantial evidence points so clearly to the person responsible as the BENEFIT of the action. By the same rule, I intend here to examine who may have filled people’s minds with these doctrines for so long. I mean the people in this part of Christendom, and doctrines contrary to peaceful human society.

And first, to this Error, That The Present Church Now Militant On Earth, Is The Kingdome Of God, (that is, the Kingdome of Glory, or the Land of Promise; not the Kingdome 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 Gods Publique Ministers, to a Right of Governing the Church; and consequently (because the Church, and Common-wealth are the same Persons) to be Rectors, and Governours of the Common-wealth. By this title it is, that the Pope prevailed with the subjects of all Christian Princes, to beleeve, that to disobey him, was to disobey Christ himselfe; and in all differences between him and other Princes, (charmed with the word Power Spirituall,) to abandon their lawfull Soveraigns; which is in effect an universall Monarchy over all Christendome. 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 Romane Empire (as is acknowledged by themselves) by the title of Pontifex Maximus, who was an Officer subject to the Civill State; yet after the Empire was divided, and dissolved, it was not hard to obtrude upon the people already subject to them, another Title, namely, the Right of St. Peter; not onely 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 Universall 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 Kingdome 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 Commandements.

First, consider the worldly benefits attached to this error: that the Church now struggling on Earth is the Kingdom of God. This means the Kingdom of Glory, or the Promised Land, not the Kingdom of Grace, which merely promises that land. The first benefit is that pastors and teachers, as God’s public ministers, are thereby entitled to govern the Church. Consequently, they are also entitled to govern the commonwealth, because the Church and the commonwealth consist of the same people. On this basis, the Pope persuaded the subjects of all Christian princes that disobeying him meant disobeying Christ himself. Whenever the Pope and other princes disagreed, those subjects abandoned their lawful sovereigns, enchanted by the phrase spiritual power. In effect, this amounts to a universal monarchy over all Christendom. Yet the popes first received their authority as supreme teachers of Christian doctrine from Christian emperors, and under their rule. This authority extended only within the Roman Empire, as the popes themselves acknowledge. They held it under the title Pontifex Maximus, an official subject to the civil state. But after the Empire was divided and dissolved, another claim was easily imposed on people already subject to the popes. This was the claim to the Right of St. Peter. Its purpose was not only to preserve the whole of their supposed power, but also to extend it. Their authority would still cover those same Christian provinces, although the provinces were no longer united in the Roman Empire. Consider men’s desire to rule, and the benefit of this universal monarchy. Together, these provide sufficient grounds to presume that the popes created the doctrine through which they gained that monarchy. These were the popes who claimed the monarchy and enjoyed it for a long time. The doctrine was that the Church now on Earth is the Kingdom of Christ. For if we accept that doctrine, we must understand Christ to have some deputy among us. Through that deputy, we are to be told what Christ’s commandments are.

After that certain Churches had renounced this universall Power of the Pope, one would expect in reason, that the Civill Soveraigns in all those Churches, should have recovered so much of it, as (before they had unadvisedly let it goe) was their own Right, and in their own hands. And in England it was so in effect; saving that they, by whom the Kings administred the Government of Religion, by maintaining their imployment to be in Gods Right, seemed to usurp, if not a Supremacy, yet an Independency on the Civill Power: and they but seemed to usurp it, in as much as they acknowledged a Right in the King, to deprive them of the Exercise of their Functions at his pleasure.

After certain Churches rejected the Pope’s universal power, one would reasonably expect their civil rulers to reclaim part of that power. They should have recovered whatever power was rightfully theirs and in their hands before they unwisely surrendered it. In England, this largely happened. But those through whom the Kings governed religion claimed that their authority came from God. By making this claim, they seemed to assert independence from civil power, if not supremacy over it. Yet they only seemed to claim this independence, because they acknowledged the King’s right to stop them exercising their duties whenever he wished.

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 Kingdome 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 Soveraign Power over the People. For what is it for men to excommunicate their lawful King, but to keep him from all places of Gods publique 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 Civill Soveraign, to excommunicate any person, but to take from him his Lawfull Liberty, that is, to usurpe an unlawfull Power over their Brethren? The Authors therefore of this Darknesse in Religion, are the Romane, and the Presbyterian Clergy.

But in places where the Presbytery took on that office, many other doctrines of the Church of Rome were banned. Yet the doctrine that Christ’s kingdom had already come and began at our Saviour’s resurrection was still retained. But who benefited? What gain did the Presbyterian clergy expect from this doctrine? The same gain the Popes expected: sovereign power over the people. For what does it mean to excommunicate a lawful king? Is it not to bar him from all places of public worship in his own kingdom? And to resist him by force when he uses force to try to discipline them? Or what does it mean to excommunicate anyone without the civil sovereign’s authority? Is it not to deprive that person of lawful freedom, and so seize unlawful power over their fellow Christians? The authors of this religious darkness, therefore, are the Roman and Presbyterian clergy.

To this head, I referre also all those Doctrines, that serve them to keep the possession of this spirituall Soveraignty after it is gotten. As first, that the Pope In His Publique Capacity Cannot Erre. For who is there, that beleeving this to be true, will not readily obey him in whatsoever he commands?

Under this heading, I also include all doctrines that help them keep spiritual sovereignty once they have gained it. First is the doctrine that the Pope cannot be wrong when acting in his official capacity. For who, believing this doctrine to be true, would not readily obey whatever the Pope commands?

Secondly, that all other Bishops, in what Common-wealth soever, have not their Right, neither immediately from God, nor mediately from their Civill Soveraigns, but from the Pope, is a Doctrine, by which there comes to be in every Christian Common-wealth many potent men, (for so are Bishops,) that have their dependance on the Pope, and owe obedience to him, though he be a forraign Prince; by which means he is able, (as he hath done many times) to raise a Civill War against the State that submits not it self to be governed according to his pleasure and Interest.

Secondly, consider the doctrine that all other Bishops, in whatever state, derive their authority neither directly from God nor indirectly through their civil rulers. Instead, their authority comes from the Pope. This doctrine creates many powerful men in every Christian state, for Bishops are powerful men. These men depend on the Pope and owe him obedience, though he is a foreign prince. As a result, the Pope can stir up civil war against any state refusing to follow his wishes and interests. He has done so many times.

Thirdly, the exemption of these, and of all other Priests, and of all Monkes, and Fryers, from the Power of the Civill Laws. For by this means, there is a great part of every Common-wealth, that enjoy the benefit of the Laws, and are protected by the Power of the Civill State, which neverthelesse pay no part of the Publique expence; nor are lyable 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 onely, to uphold his universall Monarchy.

Thirdly, these and all other priests, along with all monks and friars, are exempt from civil law. As a result, a large part of every commonwealth enjoys the benefits of the laws and the state's protection. Yet these people pay no share of public expenses. Nor are they subject to the penalties other subjects face for their crimes. Consequently, they fear no one but the Pope. They support him alone to uphold his universal monarchy.

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 Civill Soveraign, and his publique Ministers, amongst the Jews, whilest God was their King. Also, the making the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, serveth to make the People beleeve the Pope hath the same power over all Christian, that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews; that is to say, all power, both Civill and Ecclesiasticall, as the High Priest then had.

Fourthly, they give their priests the name Sacerdotes, meaning sacrificers. In the New Testament, priests are simply Presbyters, meaning elders. Sacerdotes was the title of the civil sovereign and his public ministers among the Jews while God was their King. Also, making the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice serves to make people believe the Pope has the same power over all Christians that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews. That means all power, both civil and religious, just as the High Priest had then.

Fiftly, the teaching that Matrimony is a Sacrament, giveth to the Clergy the Judging of the lawfulnesse of Marriages; and thereby, of what Children are Legitimate; and consequently, of the Right of Succession to haereditary Kingdomes.

Fifth, teaching that marriage is a sacrament gives the clergy the power to judge whether marriages are lawful. This power lets the clergy decide which children are legitimate. As a result, the clergy can decide who has the right to inherit the throne in hereditary kingdoms.

Sixtly, the Deniall 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 Kingdome to his Posterity; If he be not a Priest then the Pope pretendeth this Authority Ecclesiasticall over him, and over his people.

Sixth, forbidding priests to marry helps secure the pope’s power over kings. For if a king is a priest, he cannot marry and pass his kingdom on to his descendants. If he is not a priest, the pope claims religious authority over him and his people.

Seventhly, from Auricular Confession, they obtain, for the assurance of their Power, better intelligence of the designs of Princes, and great persons in the Civill State, than these can have of the designs of the State Ecclesiasticall.

Seventh, through private confession, they gain information that helps secure their power. They learn more about the plans of princes and powerful political figures than those figures learn about the Church’s plans.

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 Civill Soveraigns even to death, if by the Popes excommunication, they be declared Heretiques or Enemies to the Church; that is, (as they interpret it,) to the Pope.

Eighth, by canonizing saints and declaring who are martyrs, they secure their power. They do so by encouraging simple people to stubbornly resist their civil rulers’ laws and commands, even to death. This resistance follows if the Pope excommunicates those rulers, declaring them heretics or enemies of the Church. By enemies of the Church, they mean enemies of the Pope.

Ninthly, they assure the same, by the Power they ascribe to every Priest, of making Christ; and by the Power of ordaining Pennance; and of Remitting, and Retaining of sins.

Ninth, they secure the same thing by claiming that every priest has the power to make Christ. They also do so by claiming that every priest can impose penance and forgive sins or withhold forgiveness.

Tenthly, by the Doctrine of Purgatory, of Justification by externall works, and of Indulgences, the Clergy is enriched.

Tenth, the doctrines of Purgatory, justification through outward acts, and Indulgences enrich the clergy.

Eleventhly, by their Daemonology, and the use of Exorcisme, and other things appertaining thereto, they keep (or thinke they keep) the People more in awe of their Power.

Eleventh, through their demonology, exorcisms, and related practices, they keep people more in awe of their power. Or so they think.

Lastly, the Metaphysiques, Ethiques, and Politiques of Aristotle, the frivolous Distinctions, barbarous Terms, and obscure Language of the Schoolmen, taught in the Universities, (which have been all erected and regulated by the Popes Authority,) serve them to keep these Errors from being detected, and to make men mistake the Ignis Fatuus of Vain Philosophy, for the Light of the Gospell.

Lastly, universities teach Aristotle’s metaphysics, ethics, and politics, alongside the Schoolmen’s pointless distinctions, crude terminology, and obscure language. (All these universities were founded and regulated under the Pope’s authority.) These teachings help them keep these errors from being exposed. These teachings also make people mistake the Ignis Fatuus, or deceptive light, of empty philosophy for the Gospel’s light.

To these, if they sufficed not, might be added other of their dark Doctrines, the profit whereof redoundeth manifestly, to the setting up of an unlawfull Power over the lawfull Soveraigns of Christian People; or for the sustaining of the same, when it is set up; or to the worldly Riches, Honour, and Authority of those that sustain it. And therefore by the aforesaid rule, of Cui Bono, we may justly pronounce for the Authors of all this Spirituall Darknesse, the Pope, and Roman Clergy, and all those besides that endeavour to settle in the mindes of men this erroneous Doctrine, that the Church now on Earth, is that Kingdome of God mentioned in the Old and New Testament.

If these examples were not enough, we could add others from their obscure doctrines. These doctrines clearly serve to establish unlawful power over the lawful sovereigns of Christian peoples. Or they help maintain that power once established. Or they increase the worldly wealth, honor, and authority of those who support that power. Therefore, we may justly apply the rule already mentioned, Cui Bono (who benefits?), to identify those responsible for all this spiritual darkness. They are the Pope, the Roman clergy, and all others who try to establish this mistaken doctrine in people’s minds: that the Church now on Earth is the Kingdom of God mentioned in the Old and New Testament.

But the Emperours, and other Christian Soveraigns, under whose Government these Errours, and the like encroachments of Ecclesiastiques upon their Office, at first crept in, to the disturbance of their possessions, and of the tranquillity of their Subjects, though they suffered the same for want of foresight of the Sequel, and of insight into the designs of their Teachers, may neverthelesse bee esteemed accessories to their own, and the Publique dammage; For without their Authority there could at first no seditious Doctrine have been publiquely preached. I say they might have hindred the same in the beginning: But when the people were once possessed by those spirituall men, there was no humane remedy to be applyed, that any man could invent: And for the remedies that God should provide, who never faileth in his good time to destroy all the Machinations of men against the Truth, wee are to attend his good pleasure, that suffereth many times the prosperity of his enemies, together with their ambition, to grow to such a height, as the violence thereof openeth the eyes, which the warinesse of their predecessours had before sealed up, and makes men by too much grasping let goe all, as Peters net was broken, by the struggling of too great a multitude of Fishes; whereas the Impatience of those, that strive to resist such encroachment, before their Subjects eyes were opened, did but encrease the power they resisted. I doe not therefore blame the Emperour Frederick for holding the stirrop to our countryman Pope Adrian; for such was the disposition of his subjects then, as if hee had not doe it, hee was not likely to have succeeded in the Empire: But I blame those, that in the beginning, when their power was entire, by suffering such Doctrines to be forged in the Universities of their own Dominions, have holden the Stirrop to all the succeeding Popes, whilest they mounted into the Thrones of all Christian Soveraigns, to ride, and tire, both them, and their people, at their pleasure.

But these errors and similar intrusions by churchmen into rulers’ duties first arose under emperors and other Christian sovereigns. These intrusions threatened the rulers’ possessions and their subjects’ peace. The rulers tolerated them because they failed to foresee the consequences or understand their religious teachers’ plans. Nevertheless, these rulers may be considered accomplices in the harm done to themselves and the public. For without their authority, no seditious doctrine could have been publicly preached in the first place. I say the rulers could have prevented such preaching at the beginning. But once those spiritual leaders had gained control of the people, no one could devise any human remedy. As for the remedies God would provide, we must wait for his good pleasure. In his own good time, he never fails to destroy all human schemes against the truth. He often allows his enemies’ prosperity and ambition to grow so great that their excesses open people’s eyes. Their predecessors had kept those eyes closed by acting cautiously. By grasping at too much, these men lose everything. So Peter’s net broke as too many fish struggled within it. By contrast, some rulers impatiently tried to resist these intrusions before their subjects’ eyes were opened. Their impatience only increased the power they resisted. I therefore do not blame Emperor Frederick for holding the stirrup for our countryman, Pope Adrian. His subjects’ attitudes were such that, without doing so, he was unlikely to have succeeded as emperor. But I blame those rulers who, at the beginning, still held their full power. They allowed such doctrines to be invented in the universities within their own dominions. In doing so, they held the stirrup for all succeeding Popes as those Popes mounted the thrones of all Christian sovereigns. There the Popes could ride both rulers and people, and wear them out, as they pleased.

But as the Inventions of men are woven, so also are they ravelled out; the way is the same, but the order is inverted: The web begins at the first Elements of Power, which are Wisdom, Humility, Sincerity, and other vertues of the Apostles, whom the people converted, obeyed, out of Reverence, not by Obligation: Their Consciences were free, and their Words and Actions subject to none but the Civill Power. Afterwards the Presbyters (as the Flocks of Christ encreased) assembling to consider what they should teach, and thereby obliging themselves to teach nothing against the Decrees of their Assemblies, made it to be thought the people were thereby obliged to follow their Doctrine, and when they refused, refused to keep them company, (that was then called Excommunication,) not as being Infidels, but as being disobedient: And this was the first knot upon their Liberty. And the number of Presbyters encreasing, the Presbyters of the chief City or Province, got themselves an authority over the parochiall Presbyters, and appropriated to themselves the names of Bishops: And this was a second knot on Christian Liberty. Lastly, the Bishop of Rome, in regard of the Imperiall City, took upon him an Authority (partly by the wills of the Emperours themselves, and by the title of Pontifex Maximus, and at last when the Emperours were grown weak, by the priviledges of St. Peter) over all other Bishops of the Empire: Which was the third and last knot, and the whole Synthesis and Construction of the Pontificall Power.

But just as human inventions are woven together, so they are unravelled. The process is the same, but the order is reversed. The weaving begins with the first elements of power: wisdom, humility, sincerity, and the other virtues of the Apostles. The people the Apostles converted obeyed them out of reverence, not obligation. The converts’ consciences were free, and their words and actions were subject only to civil power. Later, as Christ’s flocks grew, the presbyters gathered to consider what they should teach. By gathering, the presbyters bound themselves to teach nothing against their assemblies’ decrees. This commitment led people to think that they too were obliged to follow the presbyters’ teaching. When people refused, the presbyters refused to associate with them. This exclusion was then called excommunication. The presbyters excluded these people not as unbelievers, but as disobedient. And this was the first knot tied around their liberty. As the number of presbyters grew, those in the chief city or province gained authority over the parish presbyters. These leading presbyters claimed the title of Bishops for themselves. And this was a second knot tied around Christian liberty. Finally, the Bishop of Rome claimed authority over all the other Bishops of the Empire because Rome was the imperial city. This authority came partly from the wishes of the Emperors themselves and from the title of Pontifex Maximus. Finally, when the Emperors had grown weak, it came from the privileges of St. Peter. This was the third and final knot, completing the whole structure of papal power.

And therefore the Analysis, or Resolution is by the same way; but beginning with the knot that was last tyed; as wee may see in the dissolution of the praeterpoliticall Church Government in England.

And so analysis, or breaking something down, follows the same path, but begins with the last knot tied. We may see this in the dismantling of Church government that stood outside civil authority in England.

First, the Power of the Popes was dissolved totally by Queen Elizabeth; and the Bishops, who before exercised their Functions in Right of the Pope, did afterwards exercise the same in Right of the Queen and her Successours; though by retaining the phrase of Jure Divino, they were thought to demand it by immediate Right from God: And so was untyed the first knot. After this, the Presbyterians lately in England obtained the putting down of Episcopacy: And so was the second knot dissolved: And almost at the same time, the Power was taken also from the Presbyterians: And so we are reduced to the Independency of the Primitive Christians to follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man as he liketh best: Which, if it be without contention, and without measuring the Doctrine of Christ, by our affection to the Person of his Minister, (the fault which the Apostle reprehended in the Corinthians,) is perhaps the best: First, because there ought to be no Power over the Consciences of men, but of the Word it selfe, working Faith in every one, not alwayes according to the purpose of them that Plant and Water, but of God himself, that giveth the Increase: and secondly, because it is unreasonable in them, who teach there is such danger in every little Errour, to require of a man endued with Reason of his own, to follow the Reason of any other man, or of the most voices of many other men; Which is little better, then to venture his Salvation at crosse and pile. Nor ought those Teachers to be displeased with this losse of their antient Authority: For there is none should know better then they, that power is preserved by the same Vertues by which it is acquired; that is to say, by Wisdome, Humility, Clearnesse of Doctrine, and sincerity of Conversation; and not by suppression of the Naturall Sciences, and of the Morality of Naturall Reason; nor by obscure Language; nor by Arrogating to themselves more Knowledge than they make appear; nor by Pious Frauds; nor by such other faults, as in the Pastors of Gods Church are not only Faults, but also scandalls, apt to make men stumble one time or other upon the suppression of their Authority.

First, Queen Elizabeth completely abolished the power of the Popes. The Bishops had previously performed their duties under the Pope’s authority. Afterward, they performed those same duties under the authority of the Queen and her successors. Yet they kept the phrase Jure Divino, meaning “by divine right.” Because of this, people thought the Bishops claimed authority directly from God. And so the first knot was untied. After this, the Presbyterians recently secured the abolition of government by Bishops in England. And so the second knot was untied. Almost at the same time, power was also taken from the Presbyterians. And so we have returned to the independence of the earliest Christians. Each person may follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, as each likes best. Perhaps this independence is best, if it brings no conflict. It must also avoid judging Christ’s teaching by our affection for the person who ministers in his name. That was the fault the Apostle condemned in the Corinthians. First, nothing should have power over people’s consciences except the Word itself, which creates faith in each person. Faith does not always develop according to the intentions of those who plant and water. Rather, it develops according to the will of God himself, who gives the growth. Second, these teachers say that every little error carries such danger. Given that claim, they cannot reasonably demand that someone with reason of their own follow another person’s reasoning. Nor can they demand that someone follow the reasoning of a majority. That is little better than risking one’s salvation on a coin toss. Nor should those teachers be displeased at losing their long-established authority. No one should know better than they that power is preserved by the same virtues that gained it. Those virtues are wisdom, humility, clear teaching, and sincerity in conduct. Power is not preserved by suppressing the natural sciences or the moral teachings of natural reason. Nor is it preserved by obscure language, or by claiming more knowledge than the teachers can demonstrate. Nor is it preserved by pious frauds or similar faults. In the pastors of God’s Church, these are not merely faults but scandals. Sooner or later, such scandals can lead people to stumble into abolishing their pastors’ authority.

But after this Doctrine, “that the Church now Militant, is the Kingdome of God spoken of in the Old and New Testament,” was received in the World; the ambition, and canvasing for the Offices that belong thereunto, and especially for that great Office of being Christs Lieutenant, and the Pompe of them that obtained therein the principal Publique Charges, became by degrees so evident, that they lost the inward Reverence due to the Pastorall Function: in so much as the Wisest men, of them that had any power in the Civill State, needed nothing but the authority of their Princes, to deny them any further Obedience. For, from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for Bishop Universall, by pretence of Succession to St. Peter, their whole Hierarchy, or Kingdome of Darknesse, may be compared not unfitly to the Kingdome of Fairies; that is, to the old wives Fables in England, concerning Ghosts and Spirits, and the feats they play in the night. And if a man consider the originall of this great Ecclesiasticall Dominion, he will easily perceive, that the Papacy, is no other, than the Ghost of the deceased Romane Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: For so did the Papacy start up on a Sudden out of the Ruines of that Heathen Power.

But then the world accepted this doctrine: “the Church now Militant is the Kingdom of God spoken of in the Old and New Testament.” Ambition and campaigning for offices in that kingdom gradually became obvious, especially for the great office of Christ’s representative. So did the pomp of those who held its highest public offices. As a result, these church leaders lost the heartfelt reverence owed to the pastoral office. The wisest men with any power in the civil state needed only their princes’ authority to refuse further obedience. For once the Bishop of Rome gained recognition as Universal Bishop, claiming succession to St. Peter, a comparison became fitting. Their whole hierarchy, or Kingdom of Darkness, may fairly be compared to the Kingdom of Fairies. By this I mean the old wives’ tales told in England about ghosts, spirits, and their nighttime tricks. And if anyone considers the origin of this great church dominion, he will easily see what the Papacy is. It is nothing other than the ghost of the dead Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the Empire’s grave. For that is how the Papacy suddenly sprang up from the ruins of that pagan power.

The Language also, which they use, both in the Churches, and in their Publique Acts, being Latine, which is not commonly used by any Nation now in the world, what is it but the Ghost of the Old Romane Language.

The language they use in churches and in their public acts is also Latin. No nation in the world today commonly uses Latin. So what is Latin but the ghost of the old Roman language?

The Fairies in what Nation soever they converse, have but one Universall King, which some Poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, Prince of Daemons. The Ecclesiastiques likewise, in whose Dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one Universall King, the Pope.

Fairies, whatever nation they live in, have only one universal king. Some of our poets call this king King Oberon, but Scripture calls him Beelzebub, Prince of Daemons. Likewise, the clergy, whoever rules the lands where they live, recognize only one universal king, the Pope.

The Ecclesiastiques are Spirituall men, and Ghostly Fathers. The Fairies are Spirits, and Ghosts. Fairies and Ghosts inhabite Darknesse, Solitudes, and Graves. The Ecclesiastiques walke in Obscurity of Doctrine, in Monasteries, Churches, and Churchyards.

The clergy are spiritual men and spiritual fathers. Fairies are spirits and ghosts. Fairies and ghosts live in darkness, lonely places, and graves. The clergy walk amid obscure teachings, in monasteries, churches, and churchyards.

The Ecclesiastiques have their Cathedral Churches; which, in what Towne soever they be erected, by vertue of Holy Water, and certain Charmes called Exorcismes, have the power to make those Townes, cities, that is to say, Seats of Empire. The Fairies also have their enchanted Castles, and certain Gigantique Ghosts, that domineer over the Regions round about them.

The clergy have their cathedrals. Through holy water and certain spells called exorcisms, these churches can turn any town containing them into a city. Such cities are seats of power. The Fairies also have their enchanted castles and certain gigantic ghosts that rule over the surrounding regions.

The fairies are not to be seized on; and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the Ecclesiastiques vanish away from the Tribunals of Civill Justice.

Fairies cannot be caught and held accountable for the harm they do. In the same way, the clergy vanish from the courts of civil justice.

The Ecclesiastiques take from young men, the use of Reason, by certain Charms compounded of Metaphysiques, and Miracles, and Traditions, and Abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else, but to execute what they command them. The Fairies likewise are said to take young Children out of their Cradles, and to change them into Naturall Fools, which Common people do therefore call Elves, and are apt to mischief.

Churchmen rob young men of their ability to reason through certain charms made from metaphysics, miracles, traditions, and misused Scripture. These charms leave young men fit for nothing but carrying out the churchmen’s commands. Fairies, likewise, are said to take young children from their cradles and turn them into people with no natural intelligence. Common people therefore call these children elves, and the children are prone to mischief.

In what Shop, or Operatory the Fairies make their Enchantment, the old Wives have not determined. But the Operatories of the Clergy, are well enough known to be the Universities, that received their Discipline from Authority Pontificall.

The old wives have not settled where the fairies have their shops or workshops for making enchantments. But the clergy’s workshops are well known. They are the universities that received their teaching from papal authority.

When the Fairies are displeased with any body, they are said to send their Elves, to pinch them. The Ecclesiastiques, when they are displeased with any Civill State, make also their Elves, that is, Superstitious, Enchanted Subjects, to pinch their Princes, by preaching Sedition; or one Prince enchanted with promises, to pinch another.

When fairies are displeased with someone, they are said to send their elves to pinch that person. When church authorities are displeased with a civil state, they also send their own elves to pinch its rulers. These elves are superstitious, enchanted subjects who pinch their rulers by preaching rebellion. Or the church authorities use one ruler, enchanted by promises, to pinch another.

The Fairies marry not; but there be amongst them Incubi, that have copulation with flesh and bloud. The Priests also marry not.

Fairies do not marry. But among them are Incubi who have sex with flesh-and-blood humans. Priests do not marry either.

The Ecclesiastiques take the Cream of the Land, by Donations of ignorant men, that stand in aw of them, and by Tythes: So also it is in the Fable of Fairies, that they enter into the Dairies, and Feast upon the Cream, which they skim from the Milk.

The clergy take the cream of the land through donations from ignorant people who fear them, and through tithes. Similarly, in tales of fairies, the fairies enter dairies and feast on the cream they skim from the milk.

What kind of Money is currant in the Kingdome of Fairies, is not recorded in the Story. But the Ecclesiastiques in their Receipts accept of the same Money that we doe; though when they are to make any Payment, it is in Canonizations, Indulgences, and Masses.

The story does not record what kind of money is used in the Kingdom of Fairies. But church officials accept the same money we do, though they pay in canonizations, indulgences, and masses.

To this, and such like resemblances between the Papacy, and the Kingdome of Fairies, may be added this, that as the Fairies have no existence, but in the Fancies of ignorant people, rising from the Traditions of old Wives, or old Poets: so the Spirituall Power of the Pope (without the bounds of his own Civill Dominion) consisteth onely in the Fear that Seduced people stand in, of their Excommunication; upon hearing of false Miracles, false Traditions, and false Interpretations of the Scripture.

To these and similar resemblances between the Papacy and the Kingdom of Fairies, we may add another. Fairies exist only in the imaginations of ignorant people, fed by the tales of old women or old poets. So too, outside his own civil territory, the Pope’s spiritual power consists only in the fear of excommunication among deceived people. Their fear comes from hearing false miracles, false traditions, and false interpretations of Scripture.

It was not therefore a very difficult matter, for Henry 8. by his Exorcisme; nor for Qu. Elizabeth by hers, to cast them out. But who knows that this Spirit of Rome, now gone out, and walking by Missions through the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies, that yeeld him little fruit, may not return, or rather an Assembly of Spirits worse than he, enter, and inhabite this clean swept house, and make the End thereof worse than the beginning? For it is not the Romane Clergy onely, that pretends the Kingdome of God to be of this World, and thereby to have a Power therein, distinct from that of the Civill State. And this is all I had a designe to say, concerning the Doctrine of the POLITIQUES. Which when I have reviewed, I shall willingly expose it to the censure of my Countrey.

So it was not very difficult for Henry 8. to cast them out through his exorcism. Nor was it difficult for Qu. Elizabeth to do so through hers. But who knows whether this Spirit of Rome, now driven out, may return? He now wanders through missions in the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies, which yield him little fruit. Or rather, might a gathering of spirits worse than he enter and inhabit this house, swept clean? Might they make its end worse than its beginning? For the Roman clergy are not alone in claiming that the Kingdom of God belongs to this world. Nor are they alone in claiming, on that basis, a power in this world separate from the civil state. And this is all I intended to say about the doctrine of POLITICS. Once I have reviewed it, I will willingly submit it to my country's judgment.