<h2><SPAN name="link2HCH0046" id="link2HCH0046"></SPAN> CHAPTER XLVI.<br/>OF DARKNESSE FROM VAIN PHILOSOPHY, AND FABULOUS TRADITIONS </h2>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0677" id="link2H_4_0677"></SPAN> What Philosophy Is </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0678" id="link2H_4_0678"></SPAN> Prudence No Part Of Philosophy </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0679" id="link2H_4_0679"></SPAN> No False Doctrine Is Part Of Philosophy </h3>
<p>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:</p>
<p>No More Is Revelation Supernaturall</p>
<p>Nor to that which any man knows by supernaturall Revelation; because it is
not acquired by Reasoning:</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0680" id="link2H_4_0680"></SPAN> Nor Learning Taken Upon Credit Of Authors </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0681" id="link2H_4_0681"></SPAN> Of The Beginnings And Progresse Of Philosophy </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0682" id="link2H_4_0682"></SPAN> Of The Schools Of Philosophy Amongst The Athenians </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0683" id="link2H_4_0683"></SPAN> Of The Schools Of The Jews </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0684" id="link2H_4_0684"></SPAN> The Schoole Of Graecians Unprofitable </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0685" id="link2H_4_0685"></SPAN> The Schools Of The Jews Unprofitable </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0686" id="link2H_4_0686"></SPAN> University What It Is </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0687" id="link2H_4_0687"></SPAN> Errors Brought Into Religion From Aristotles Metaphysiques </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0688" id="link2H_4_0688"></SPAN> Errors Concerning Abstract Essences </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0689" id="link2H_4_0689"></SPAN> Nunc-stans </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0690" id="link2H_4_0690"></SPAN> One Body In Many Places, And Many Bodies In One Place At Once </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0691" id="link2H_4_0691"></SPAN> Absurdities In Naturall Philosophy, As Gravity The Cause Of Heavinesse </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0692" id="link2H_4_0692"></SPAN> Quantity Put Into Body Already Made </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0693" id="link2H_4_0693"></SPAN> Powring In Of Soules </h3>
<p>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.”</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0694" id="link2H_4_0694"></SPAN> Ubiquity Of Apparition </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0695" id="link2H_4_0695"></SPAN> Will, The Cause Of Willing </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0696" id="link2H_4_0696"></SPAN> Ignorance An Occult Cause </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0697" id="link2H_4_0697"></SPAN> One Makes The Things Incongruent, Another The Incongruity </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0698" id="link2H_4_0698"></SPAN> Private Appetite The Rule Of Publique Good: </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0699" id="link2H_4_0699"></SPAN> And That Lawfull Marriage Is Unchastity </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0700" id="link2H_4_0700"></SPAN> And That All Government But Popular, Is Tyranny </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0701" id="link2H_4_0701"></SPAN> That Not Men, But Law Governs </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0702" id="link2H_4_0702"></SPAN> Laws Over The Conscience </h3>
<p>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?</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0703" id="link2H_4_0703"></SPAN> Private Interpretation Of Law </h3>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0704" id="link2H_4_0704"></SPAN> Language Of Schoole-Divines </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0705" id="link2H_4_0705"></SPAN> Errors From Tradition </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<h3><SPAN name="link2H_4_0706" id="link2H_4_0706"></SPAN> Suppression Of Reason </h3>
<p>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.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.