CHAPTER XIV The impression made on the organs of sight by lucid bodies, either in one direct line or in many lines, reflected from opaque, or refracted in the passage through diaphanous bodies, producer in living creatures, in whom God hath placed such organs, an imagination of the object from whence the impression precedeth, which imagination is called sight, and seameth not to be a mere imagination, but the body itself without us, in the same manner as when a man violently presseth his eye, there appears to him a light without, and before him, which no man perceiveth but himself, because there is indeed no such thing without him, but only a motion in the interior organs, pressing by resistance outward that makes him think so. And the motion made by this pressure, continuing after the object which caused it, is removed, is that we call imagination and memory, and in sleep, and sometimes in great distemper of the organs by sickness or violence, a dream, of which things I have already spoken briefly in the second and third chapters. This nature of sight, having never been discovered by the ancient pretenders to the natural knowledge, much less by those that consider not things so remote, as that knowledge is, from their present use, it was hard for men to conceive of those images in the fancy and in the sense otherwise than of things really without us, which some, as they vanish away, they know not whither nor how, will have to be absolutely incorporeal, that is to say, immaterial, or forms without matter, color and figure, without any colored or figured body, and that they can put on airy bodies as a garment to make them visible when they will to our bodily eyes, and others say, our bodies and living creatures but made of air, or other more subtle and ethereal matter, which is then, when they will be seen, condensed. But both of them agree on one general appellation of them, demons, as if the dead of whom they dreamed were not inhabitants of their own brain but of the air, or of heaven, or hell, not fantasms but ghosts, with just as much reason as if one should say he saw his own ghost in a looking-glass, or the ghosts of the stars in a river, or call the ordinary apparition of the sun, of the quantity of about a foot, the demon or ghost of that great sun that enlighteneth the whole visible world, and by that means have feared them as things of an unknown, that is, of an unlimited power to do them good or harm, and consequently, give an occasion to the governors of the heathen commonwealths to regulate this their fear by establishing that demonology, in which the poets as principal priests of the heathen religion were specially employed or reverenced to the public peace, and to the obedience of subjects necessary therein too, and to make some of them good demons and others evil, the one as a spur to the observance, the other as reigns to withhold them from violation of the laws. What kind of things they were to whom they attributed the name of demons appeareth partly in the genealogy of their gods, written by Hesiod, one of the most ancient poets of the Grecians, and partly in other histories, of which I have observed some few before, in the twelfth chapter of this discourse. The Grecians, by their colonies and conquests, communicated their language and writings into Asia, Egypt, and Italy, and therein by necessary consequence their demonology, or as St. Paul calls it, their doctrines of evil, and by that means the contagion was derived also to the Jews, both of Judea and Alexandria and other parts, wherein too they were dispersed. But the name of demon they did not, as the Grecians attribute to spirits both good and evil, but to the evil only, and to the good demons they gave the name of the Spirit of God, and esteemed those under whose bodies they entered to be prophets. In some, all singularity, if good, they attributed to the Spirit of God, and if evil to some demon, but a cacodemon, an evil demon, that is, a devil. And therefore they called Dmanaex, that is, possessed by the devil, such as we call madmen or lunatics, or such as had the falling sickness, or that spoke anything which they, for want of understanding, thought absurd.  Matthew 11, 18. And of our Saviour, because he said, He that keepeth his sayings should not see death in a turnum. Now we know thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets are dead. John 8, 52.  John 7, 20. Whereby it is manifest that the Jews had the same opinions concerning phantasms, namely, that they were not phantasms, that is, idols of the brain, but things real and independent on the fancy. Which doctrine, if it be not true, why, may some say, did not our Saviour contradicted, and teach the contrary? Nay, why does he use on diverse occasions such forms of speech as seem to confirm it? To this I answer, that first, where Christ saith, A spirit hath not flesh and bone, Luke 24, 29, though he shows that there be spirits, yet he denies not that they are bodies. And where St. Paul says, We shall rise spiritual bodies, 1 Corinthians 15, 44, he acknowledges the nature of spirits, but that they are bodily spirits, which is not difficult to understand. For ere and many other things are bodies, though not flesh and bone, or any other gross body to be discerned by the eye. But when our Saviour speaketh to the devil, and commandeth him to go out of a man, if by the devil he meant a disease, as a frenzy, or a lunacy, or a corporeal spirit, is not the speech improper? Can diseases here? Or can there be a corporeal spirit in a body of flesh and bone, full already of vital and animal spirits? Are there not, therefore, spirits, that neither have bodies, nor are mere imaginations? To the first I answer, that the addressing of our Saviour's command to the madness or lunacy he cureth, is no more improper than was his rebuking of the fever, or of the wind and sea, for neither do these here, or, then, that was the command of God to the light, to the firmament, to the sun and stars, when he commanded them to be, for they could not hear before they had a being. But those speeches are not improper, because they signify the power of God's word. No more, therefore, is it improper to command madness or lunacy, under the appellation of devils, by which they were then commonly understood, to depart out of a man's body. To the second, concerning their being in corporeal, I have not yet observed any place of Scripture from whence it can be gathered that any man was ever possessed, with any other corporeal spirit, but that of his own, by which his body is naturally moved. Our Saviour, immediately after the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, is sent by St. Matthew to have been led up by the Spirit into the wilderness, Matthew 4.1, and the same as recited Luke 4.1 in these words. Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost, was led in the Spirit to the wilderness, whereby it is evident that by Spirit there is meant the Holy Ghost. This cannot be interpreted for a possession, for Christ and the Holy Ghost are but one in the same substance, which is no possession of one substance or body by another. And whereas in the verses following he is said to have been taken up by the devil into the holy city and set upon a pinnacle of the temple, shall we conclude thence that he was possessed of the devil or carried thither by violence? And again, carried thence by the devil into an exceeding high mountain, who showed him thence all the kingdoms of the world, wherein we are not to believe he was either possessed or forced by the devil, nor that any mountain is high enough, according to the literal sense, to show him one whole hemisphere. What then can be the meaning of this place, other than that he went of himself into the wilderness, and that this carrying of him up and down, from the wilderness to the city, and from thence into a mountain, was a vision? Conformable whereon too is also the phrase of St. Luke, that he was led into the wilderness, not by, but in the Spirit, whereas, concerning his being taken up into the mountain and unto the pinnacle of the temple, he speaketh as St. Matthew doth, which sootheth with the nature of a vision. Then where St. Luke says of Judas Iscariot that Satan entered into him, and thereupon that he went and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Christ unto them, Luke 24, 3 and 4, it may be answered that by the entering of Satan, that is, the enemy into him, is meant the hostile and traitorous intention of selling his Lord and Master. For as by the Holy Ghost is frequently in Scripture understood the graces and good inclinations given by the Holy Ghost, so by the entering of Satan may be understood the wicked cogitations and designs of the adversaries of Christ and his disciples. For as it is hard to say that the devil was entered into Judas, before he had any such hostile design, so it is impertinent to say that he was first Christ's enemy in his heart, and that the devil entered into him afterwards. Therefore the entering of Satan and his wicked purpose was one and the same thing. But if there be no immaterial spirit nor any possession of men's bodies by any spirit corporeal, it may be again asked why our Saviour and his apostles did not teach the people so, and in such clear words as they might no more doubt thereof. But such questions as these are more curious than necessary for a Christian man's salvation. Men may as well ask why Christ, that could have given to all men faith, piety, and all manner of moral virtues, gave it to some only and not to all, and why he left the search of natural causes and sciences to the natural reason and industry of man, and did not reveal it to all, or any man supernaturally, and many other such questions, of which, nevertheless, there may be alleged probable and pious reasons. For as God, when he brought the Israelites into the land of promise, did not secure them therein by subduing all the nations round about them, but left many of them, as thorns in their sides, to awaken from time to time their piety and industry, so our Saviour, in conducting us toward his heavenly kingdom, did not destroy all the difficulties of natural questions, but left them to exercise our industry and reason, the scope of his preaching being only to show us this plain and direct way to salvation, namely, the belief of this article, that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, sent into the world to sacrifice himself for our sins, and at his coming again, gloriously, to reign over his elect, and to save them from their enemies eternally, to which the opinion of possession by spirits or phantasms is no impediment in the way, though it be, to some, an occasion of going out of the way, and to follow their own inventions. If we require of the Scripture an account of all questions which may be raised to trouble us in the performance of God's commands, we may as well complain of Moses, for not having set down the time of the creation of such spirits, as well as of the creation of the earth and sea, and of men and beasts. To conclude, I find in Scripture that there be angels and spirits, good and evil, but not that they are incorporeal, as are the apparitions men see in the dark, or in a dream or vision, which the Latins call spectra, and took for demons. And I find that there are spirits corporeal, though subtle and invisible, but not that any man's body was possessed or inhabited by them, and that the bodies of the saints shall be such, namely, spiritual bodies, as St. Paul calls them. Nevertheless, the contrary doctrine, namely, that there be incorporeal spirits, hitherto so prevailed in the church, that the use of exorcism, that is to say, of ejection of devils by conjuration, is thereupon built, and though rarely and faintly practiced, is not yet totally given over. That there were many demoniacs in the primitive church, and few madmen, and other such singular diseases, whereas in these times we hear of, and see many madmen, and few demoniacs, proceeds not from the change of nature but of names. But how it comes to pass, that whereas here to fore the apostles, and after them for a time the pastors of the church, did cure those singular diseases, which now they are not seen to do, as likewise, why it is not in the power of every true believer how to do all that the faithful did then, that is to say, as we read in Christ's name to cast out devils, to speak with new tongues, to take up serpents, to drink deadly poison without harm-taking, and to cure the sick by the laying on of their hands, Mark 16, 17. And all this without other words but in the name of Jesus is another question. And it is probable that those extraordinary gifts were given to the church for no longer a time than men trusted wholly to Christ, and looked for their felicity only in his kingdom to come, and consequently, that when they sought authority in riches, and trusted to their own subtly for a kingdom of this world, these supernatural gifts of God were again taken from them. Another relic of Gentilism is the worship of images, neither instituted by Moses in the old, nor by Christ in the New Testament, nor yet brought in from the Gentiles, but left amongst them, after they had given their names to Christ. Before our Savior preached, it was the general religion of the Gentiles to worship for gods, those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream. And this is the reason why St. Paul says, we know that an idol is nothing, not that he thought that an image of metal, stone, or wood was nothing, but that the thing which they honored, or feared in the image, and held for a god was a mere figment, not place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the brain. And the worship of these with divine honor is that which is in the scripture called idolatry, and rebellion against God. For God, being king of the Jews, and His Lieutenant, being first Moses, and afterward the High Priest, if the people had been permitted to worship and pray to images, which are representations of their own fancies, they had had no further dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no similitude, nor on His Prime Ministers, Moses and the High Priests, but every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the other aversion of the commonwealth, and their own destruction for want of union. And therefore the first law of God was that they should not take for God's alien hostaeus, that is the gods of other nations, but that only true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, can buy him to give them laws and directions for their peace, and for their salvation from their enemies. And the second was that they should not make to themselves any image to worship of their own invention, for it is the same deposing of a king to submit to another king, whether he be set up by a neighbor nation or by ourselves. The places of scripture pretending to countenance the setting up of images to worship them, or to set them up at all in the places where God is worshiped, are first two examples, one of the cherubim over the Ark of God, the other of the brazen serpent, secondly some text whereby we are commanded to worship certain creatures for their relation to God, as to worship His footstool, and lastly some other text by which is authorized a religious honoring of holy things. But before I examine the force of those places, to prove that which is pretended, I must first explain what is to be understood by worshiping, and what by images and idols. I have already shown, in the twentieth chapter of this discourse, that to honor is to value highly the power of any person, and that such value is measured by our comparing him with others. But because there is nothing to be compared with God in power, we honor him not, but dishonor him by any value less than infinite. And thus honor is properly of its own nature secret and internal in the heart. But the inward thoughts of men, which appear outwardly in their words and actions, are the signs of our honoring, and these go by the name of worship, in Latin, cultus. Therefore to pray to, to swear by, to obey, to be diligent and officious in serving, in sum, all words and actions that betoken fear to offend, or desire to please, is worship, whether those words and actions be sincere or feigned, and because they appear as signs of honoring are ordinarily also called honor. The worship we exhibit to those we esteem to be but men, as to kings and men in authority, is civil worship. But the worship we exhibit to that which we think to be God, whatsoever the words, ceremonies, gestures, or other actions be, is divine worship. To fall prostrate before a king, in him that thinks him but a man, is but civil worship, and he that but putteth off his hat in the church, for this cause, that he thinketh it in the house of God, worshipeth with divine worship. They that seek the distinction of divine and civil worship, not in the intention of the worshiper, but in the words, dulea and letreia, deceive themselves. For whereas there be two sorts of servants, that sort which it is of those that are absolutely in the power of their masters, as slaves taken in war, and their issue, whose bodies are not in their own power, their lives, depending on the will of their masters, in such manner as to forfeit them upon the least disobedience, and that are bought and sold as beasts, were called doleoi, that is, properly slaves, and their service, duleia. The other, which is of those that serve for hire, or in hope of benefit from their masters voluntarily, are called thetis, that is, domestic servants, to whose service the masters have no further right than is contained in the covenants made betwixt them. These two kinds of servants have thus much common to them both, that their labor is appointed them by another, and that the word latris is the general name of both, signifying him that worketh for another, whether as a slave or as a voluntary servant. So that letreia signifyeth generally all service, but duleia, the service of bondmen only, and the condition of slavery, and both are used in scripture to signify our service of God, or muscuously. Duleia, because we are God's slaves, Latreia, because we serve him, and in all kinds of service is constrained, not only obedience, but also worship, that is, such actions, gestures, and words as signify honor. An image, in the most strict signification of the word, is the resemblance of something visible, in which sense the fantastical forms, apparitions, or seemings of visible bodies to the sight are only images, such as are the show of a man or other thing in the water, by reflection or a fraction, or of the sun or stars, by direct vision in the air, which are nothing real in the things seen, nor in the place where they seem to be, nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object, but changeable by the variation of the organs of sight, or by glasses, and are present oftentimes in our imagination and in our dreams, when the object is absent or changed into other colors and shapes, as things that depend only upon the fancy. And these are the images which are originally and most properly called ideas and idols, and derived from the language of the Grecians, with whom the word Edo signified to see. They are also called phantasms, which is, in the same language, apparitions. And from these images it is that one of the faculties of man's nature is called the imagination. And from hence it is manifest that there neither is, nor can be, any image made of a thing invisible. It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite, for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of the body, but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened. And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of diverse creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras, and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes and make them in wood, clay, or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some fantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved, molded, or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material and body, made by art, may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature. But in a larger use of the word image is contained also any representation of one thing by another. So an earthly sovereign may be called the image of God, and an inferior magistrate the image of an earthly sovereign. And many times in the idolatry of the Gentiles there was little regard to the similitude of their material idol to the idol in their fancy, and yet it was called the image of it. For a stone unhewn has been set up for Neptune, and diverse other shapes far different from the shapes they conceived of their gods. But at this day we see many images of the Virgin Mary and other saints, unlike one another, and without correspondence to any one man's fancy, and yet serve well enough for the purpose they were erected for, which was no more but by the names only to represent the persons mentioned in the history, to which every man applied the mental image of his own making, or none at all. And thus an image in the largest sense is either the resemblance or the representation of some thing visible, or both together, as it happeneth for the most part. But the name of idol is extended yet further in the scripture, to signify also the sun, or a star, or any other creature, visible or invisible, when they are worshipped for gods. End of Chapter 45 Part 1 Chapter 45 Part 2 of Leviathan. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Chapter 45 Of Demonology and Other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles Part 2 Having shown what is worship and what an image, I will now put them together and examine what that idolatry is which is forbidden in the Second Commandment and other places of the scripture. To worship an image is voluntarily to do those external acts which are signs of honoring either the matter of the image, which is wood, stone, metal, or some other visible creature, or the phantasm of the brain for the resemblance or representation whereof the matter was formed and figured, or both together as one animate body, composed of the matter and the phantasm, as of a body and soul. To be uncovered before a man of power and authority, or before the throne of a prince, or in such other places as he or Daneth to that purpose in his absence, is to worship that man or prince with civil worship, as being a sign not of honoring the stool or place, but the person and is not idolatry. But if he that doth it should suppose the soul of the prince to be in the stool, or should present a petition to the stool, it were divine worship and idolatry. To pray to a king for such things as he is able to do for us, though we prostrate ourselves before him, is but civil worship, because we acknowledge no other power in him but human. But voluntarily to pray unto him for fair weather, or for anything which God only can do for us is divine worship and idolatry. On the other side, if a king compel a man to do it by the terror of death, or other great corporeal punishment, it is not idolatry, for the worship which the sovereign commandeth to be done unto himself by the terror of his laws is not a sign that he obeyeth him does inwardly honor him as a God, but that he is desirous to save himself from death, or from a miserable life, and that which is not a sign of internal honor is no worship, and therefore no idolatry. Neither can it be said that he that doth it scandalizeth or layeth any stumbling block before his brother, because how wise or learned soever he be that worshipeth in that manner another man cannot from thence argue that he approveeth it, but that he doth it for fear, and that it is not his act but the act of his sovereign. To worship God in some peculiar place, or turning a man's face towards an image or determinate place, is not to worship or honor the place or image, but to acknowledge it wholly. That is to say, to acknowledge the image or the place to be set apart from common use. For that is the meaning of the word holy, which implies no new quality in the place or image, but only a new relation by appropriation to God, and therefore is not idolatry. No more than it was idolatry to worship God before the brazen serpent, or for the Jews, when they were out of their own country to turn their faces when they prayed toward the temple of Jerusalem, or for Moses to put off his shoes when he was before the burning bush, the ground abertaining to Mount Sinai, which place God hath chosen to appear in, and to give his laws to the people of Israel, and was therefore holy ground, not by inherit sanctity, but by separation to God's use, or for Christians to worship in the churches which are once solemnly dedicated to God for that purpose by the authority of the King or other true representative of the church. But to worship God is in animating or inhabiting such image or place, that is to say, an infinite substance in a finite place is idolatry, for such finite gods are but idols of the brain, nothing real, and are commonly called in the scripture by the names of vanity, and lies, and nothing. Also to worship God, not as in animating, or present in the place or image, but to the end to be put in mind of him, or of some works of his, in case the place or image be dedicated or set up by private authority, and not by the authority of them that are our sovereign pastors, is idolatry. For the commandment is, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image. God commanded Moses to set up the brazen serpent. He did not make it to himself. It was not, therefore, against the commandment. But the making of the golden calf by Aaron and the people, as being done without authority from God, was idolatry, not only because they held it for God, but also because they made it for a religious use, without warrant either from God their sovereign or from Moses that was his lieutenant. The Gentiles worshipped, for God's, Jupiter and others that, living, were men perhaps that had done great and glorious acts, and for the children of God, diverse men and women, supposing them gotten between immortal deity and immortal man. This was idolatry, because they made them so to themselves, becoming no authority from God, neither in his eternal law of reason, nor in his positive and revealed will. But though our Saviour was a man, whom we also believed to be God immortal and the Son of God, yet this is no idolatry, because we build not that belief upon our own fancy or judgment, but upon the word of God revealed in the scriptures. And for the adoration of the Eucharist, if the words of Christ this is my body, signify that he himself and the seeming bread in his hand, and not only so, but that all the seeming morsels of bread that have ever since been, and any time hereafter shall be, consecrated by priests, be so many Christ's bodies, and yet all of them but one body, then that is no idolatry, because it is authorized by our Saviour. But if that text do not signify that, for there is no other that can be alleged for it, then because it is a worship of human institution it is idolatry. For it is not enough to say, God can transubstantiate the bread into Christ's body, for the Gentiles also held God to be omnipotent, and might upon that ground no less execute their idolatry, by pretending as well as others a transubstantiation of their wood and stone into God Almighty. Whereas there be, that pretend divine inspiration to be a supernatural entering of the Holy Ghost into a man, and not an acquisition of God's graces by doctrine and study, I think they are in a very dangerous dilemma. For if they worship not the men whom they believe to be so inspired, they fall into impiety, as not adoring God's supernatural presence. And again if they worship them they commit idolatry, for the apostles would never permit themselves to be so worshipped. Therefore the safest way is to believe that by the descending of the dove upon the apostles, and by Christ's breathing on them when he gave them the Holy Ghost, and by giving of it by imposition of hands are understood the signs which God hath been pleased to use, or ordained to be used, of his promise to assist those persons in their study to preach his kingdom, and in their conversation that it might not be scandalous but edifying to others. Besides the idolatrous worship of images there is also a scandalous worship of them, which is also a sin, but not idolatry. For idolatry is to worship by signs of an internal and real honor. But scandalous worship is but seeming worship, and may sometimes be joined with an inward and hearty detestation, both of the image and of the fantastical demon or idol to which it is dedicated, and proceed only from the fear of death or other grievous punishment, and is nevertheless a sin in them that so worship, in case they be men whose actions are looked at by others as lights to guide them by. Because following their ways they cannot but stumble and fall in the way of religion, whereas the example of those we regard not works not on us all, but leaves us to our own diligence and caution, and consequently are no causes of our failing. If therefore a pastor lawfully called to teach and direct others, or any other of whose knowledge there is a great opinion, do external honor to an idol for fear, unless he make his fear and unwillingness to it as evident as the worship, he scandalizeeth his brother by seeming to approve idolatry. For his brother, arguing from the action of his teacher, or of him whose knowledge he esteemeth great, concludes it to be lawful in itself. And this scandal is sin and a scandal given. But if one being no pastor, nor of eminent reputation for knowledge in Christian doctrine, do the same, and another follow him, this is no scandal given, for he had no cause to follow such example, but is a pretense of scandal which he taketh of himself for an excuse before men. For if an unlearned man that is in the power of an idolatrous king or state, if commanded on pain of death to worship before an idol, he detesteth the idol in his heart, he doth well, though if he had the fortitude to suffer death, rather than worship it, he should do better. But if a pastor, who as Christ's messenger has undertaken to teach Christ's doctrine to all nations, should do the same, it were not only a sinful scandal in respect of other Christian men's consciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge. The sum of that which I have said hitherto concerning the worship of images is this, that he that worshipeth in an image or any creature, either the matter thereof, or any fancy of his own which he thinketh to dwell in it, or both together, or believeth that such things hear his prayers, or see his devotions, without ears or eyes, commiteth idolatry. And he that counterfeiteth such worship for fear punishment, if he be a man whose example hath power amongst his brethren, commiteth a sin. But he that worshipeth the creator of the world before such an image, or in such a place as he hath not made or chosen of himself, but taken from the commandment of God's word, as the Jews did in worshipping God before the cherubim, and before the brazen serpent for a time, and in or toward the temple of Jerusalem, which was also but for a time, commiteth not idolatry. Now for the worship of saints and images and relics and other things that this day practised in the Church of Rome, I say they are not allowed by the word of God, nor brought into the Church of Rome from the doctrine they are taught, but partly left in it at the first conversion of the Gentiles, and afterwards countenanced and confirmed, and augmented by the bishops of Rome. As for the proofs alleged out of Scripture, namely those examples of images appointed by God to be set up, they were not set up for the people, or any man to worship, but that they should worship God himself before them, as before the cherubim over the ark, and the brazen serpent. For we read not that the priest or any other did worship the cherubim, but contrarially we read that Hezekiah broke in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had set up, II Kings, 18.4, because the people burnt incense to it. Besides, those examples are not put for our imitation that we should also set up images under pretense of worshipping God before them, because the words of the Second Commandment, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, etc., distinguish between the images that God commanded to be set up, and those which we set up to ourselves. And therefore, from the cherubim or brazen serpent, to the images of man's devising, and from the worship commanded by God, to the will-worship of men, the argument is not good. This also is to be considered, that as Hezekiah broke in pieces the brazen serpent, because the Jews did worship it, to the end they should do so no more. So also Christian sovereigns ought to break down the images which their subjects have been accustomed to worship, that there be no more occasion of such idolatry. For at this day the ignorant people, where images are worshiped, do really believe there is a divine power in the images, and are told by their pastors that some of them have spoken, and have bled, and that miracles have been done by them, which they apprehend as done by the saint, which they think either is the image itself or in it. The Israelites, when they worshipped the calf, did think they worshipped the God that brought them out of Egypt, and yet it was idolatry, because they thought the calf either was that God, or had him in his belly. And though some man may think it impossible for people to be so stupid as to think the image to be God, or a saint, or to worship it in that notion, yet it is manifest in Scripture to the contrary, where, when the golden calf was made, the people said, These are thy gods, O Israel, Exodus 32, and where the images of Laban are called his gods, Genesis 31, 30, and we see daily by experience in all sorts of people that such men as study nothing but their food and ease are content to believe any absurdity, rather than to trouble themselves to examine it, holding their faith as it were by entail unalienable, except by an express a new law. But they infer from some other places that it is lawful to paint angels, and also God himself, as from God's walking in the garden, from Jacob's seeing God at the top of the ladder, and from other visions and dreams. But visions and dreams, whether natural or supernatural, are but phantasms, and he that painted an image of any of them, make if not an image of God, but of his own phantasm, which is making of an idol. I say not that to draw a picture after a fancy is a sin, but when it is drawn, to hold it for a representation of God is against the second commandment, and can be of no use but to worship. And the same may be said of the images of angels, and of men dead, unless as monuments or friends, or of men worthy remembrance, for such use of the image is not worship of the image, but a civil honoring of the person. Not that is, but that was. But when it is done to the image which we make of a saint, for no other reason, but that we think he heareth our prayers, and is pleased with the honor we do him, when dead and without sense, we attribute to him more than human power, and therefore it is idolatry. Seeing therefore there is no authority, neither in the law of Moses nor in the Gospel, for the religious worship of images or other representations of God which men set up to themselves, or for the worship of the image of any creature in heaven, or earth, or under the earth, and whereas Christian kings, who are living representatives of God, are not to be worshiped by their subjects by any act that signifyeth a greater esteem of his power, a greater esteem of his power than the nature of mortal man is capable of, it cannot be imagined that the religious worship, now in use, was brought into the church by misunderstanding of the Scripture. It resteth therefore that it was left in it by not destroying the images themselves in the conversion of the Gentiles that worshipped them. The cause whereof was the immoderate esteem and prices set upon the workmanship of them, which made the owners, though converted from worshipping them as they had done religiously for demons, to retain them still in their houses, upon pretense of doing it in the honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary and of the Apostles, and other the pastors of the Primitive Church, as being easy by giving them new names, to make that an image of the Virgin Mary and of her son our Saviour, which before perhaps was called the image of Venus and Cupid, and so of a Jupiter to make a Barnabas, and of Mercury, of Hall, and the like. And as worldly ambition, creeping by degrees into the new churches, drew them to an endeavor of pleasing the new-made Christians, and also to a liking of this kind of honor, which they also might hope for after their decease, as well as those that had already gained it, so the worshipping of the images of Christ and his apostles grew more and more idolatrous, save that somewhat after the time of Constantine, diverse emperors and bishops and general councils observed and opposed the unlawfulness thereof, but too late, or too weakly. The canonizing of saints is another relic of Gentilism. It is neither a misunderstanding of Scripture, nor a new invention of the Roman Church, but a custom as ancient as the commonwealth of Rome itself. The first that ever was canonized at Rome was Romulus, and that upon the narration of Julius Procolaus, that swore before the Senate he spoke with him after his death, and was assured by him he dwelt in heaven, and was there called queerness, and would be propitious to the state of their new city, and thereupon the Senate gave public testimony of his sanctity. Julius Caesar and other emperors after him had the like testimony, that is, were canonized for saints, for by such testimony is canonization now defined, and is the same with the apotheosis of the heathen. It is also from the Roman heathen that the Popes have received the name and power of Pontifits Maximus. This was the name of him that in the ancient commonwealth of Rome had the supreme authority under the Senate and people of regulating all ceremonies and doctrines concerning their religion, and when Augustus Caesar changed the state into a monarchy he took to himself no more but this office, and that of tribune of the people. That is to say, the supreme power both in state and religion, and the succeeding emperors enjoyed the same. But when the emperor Constantine lived, who was the first that professed an authorized Christian religion, it was consonant to his profession to cause religion to be regulated under his authority by the bishop of Rome. Though it do not appear they had so soon the name of Pontifix, but rather that the succeeding bishops took it of themselves to countenance the power they exercised over the bishops of the Roman provinces. For it is not any privilege of St. Peter, but the privilege of the city of Rome, which the emperors were always willing to uphold, that gave them such authority over other bishops, as may be evidently seen by that, that the bishop of Constantinople, when the emperor made that city the seat of the empire, pretended to be equal to the bishop of Rome, though at last, not without contention, the pope carried it and became the Pontifix Maximus. But in right only of the emperor, and not without the bounds of the empire, nor anywhere after the emperor had lost his power in Rome, though it were the pope himself that took his power from him. From once we may, by the way, observe that there is no place for the superiority of the pope over other bishops, except in the territories whereof he is himself the civil sovereign, and where the emperor, having sovereign power civil, hath expressly chosen the pope for the chief pastor under himself of his Christian subjects. The carrying about of images in procession is another relic of the religion of the Greeks and Romans, for they also carried their idols from place to place in a kind of chariot, which was peculiarly dedicated to that use, which the latins called Tenza and vehiculum Deorum, and the image was placed in a frame, or shrine, which they called for Cullum. And that which they called Pampa is the same now that is named procession, according, where and to, amongst the divine honors which were given to Julius Caesar by the Senate, this was one that in the Pampa, or procession, at the Circayian games, he should have Tenza and vehiculum, a sacred chariot and a shrine which was as much to be carried up and down as a god, just as at this day the popes are carried by switzers under a canopy. To these processions also belonged to the bearing of burning torches and candles before the images of the gods, both amongst the Greeks and Romans. For afterwards the emperors of Rome received the same honor as we read of Caligula, that at his reception to the empire he was carried from Mycenaeum to Rome in the midst of a throne of people, the ways beset with altars and beasts for sacrifice and burning torches, and of paracala that was received into Alexandria with incense and with casting of flowers, and aduchias, that is, with torches, for datachoi were they that amongst the Greeks carried torches lighted in the processions of their gods. And in process of time the devout but ignorant people did many times honor their bishops with the light pomp of wax candles and the images of our Savior and the saints, constantly in the church itself, and thus came in the use of wax candles and was also established by some of the ancient councils. The heathens also had their aqua lastralis, that's to say holy water. The Church of Rome imitates them also in their holy days. They had their bacchanalia and we have our wakes, answering to them. They their sacchanalia and we our carnivals in Shrove Tuesday's Liberty of Servants. They their procession of Priapus, we our fetching in erection and dancing about maples, and dancing is one kind of worship. They had their procession called ambravella, and we our procession about the fields and the Rogation Week. Nor do I think that these are all the ceremonies that have been left in the Church from the first conversion of the Gentiles, but they are all that I can for the present call to mind. And if a man would well observe that which is delivered in the histories concerning the religious rites of the Greeks and Romans, I doubt not, but he might find many more of these old empty bottles of Gentilism which the doctors of the Roman Church, either by negligence or ambition, have filled up again with the new wine of Christianity that will not fail in time to break them. CHAPTER 46 of darkness from vain philosophy and fabulous traditions. By philosophy is understood the knowledge acquired by reasoning from the manner of the generation of anything to the properties, or from the properties, to some possible way of generation of the same, to the end to be able to produce as far as matter and human force permit such effects as human life require it. So the geometrician from the construction of figures findeth out many properties thereof, and from the properties, new ways of their construction, by reasoning, to the end to be able to measure land and water, and for infinite other uses. So the astronomer, from the rising setting and moving of the sun and stars in diverse 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. By which definition it is evident that we are not to account as any part thereof that original knowledge called experience, in which consisteth prudence, because it is not attained by reasoning, but found as well in brute beasts as in man, and is but a memory of secession of events and times pasts, wherein the omission of every little circumstance, altering the effect, frustrateeth the expectation of the most prudent, whereas nothing is produced by reasoning a right, but general, eternal, and immutable truth. Nor are we therefore to give that name to any false conclusions, for he that reasoneth a right in words he understandeth, can never conclude an error. Nor to that which any man knows by supernatural revelation, because it is not acquired by 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. The faculty of reasoning being consequent to the use of speech, it was not possible but that there should have been some general truths found out by reasoning, as ancient almost as language itself. The savages of America are not without some good moral sentences. Also they have a little arithmetic, to add and divide in numbers not too great, but they are not therefore philosophers. For as there were plants of corn and wine and small quantity dispersed in the fields and woods, before men knew their virtue, or made use of them for their nourishment, or planted them apart in fields and vineyards, in which time they fed on acorns and drink water, so also there have been diverse true, general, and profitable speculations from the beginning, as being the natural plants of human reason. But they were at first but few in number. Men lived upon gross experience, there was no method, that is to say, no sowing nor planting of knowledge by itself, apart from the weeds and common plants of error and conjecture. And the cause of it being the want of leisure from procuring the necessities of life, and defending themselves against their neighbors, it was impossible, till the erecting of the great commonwealths, it should be otherwise.  Where first were great and flourishing cities, there was first the study of philosophy. The gymnosophists of India, the Magi of Persia, the priests of Caldea and Egypt are counted the most ancient philosophers, and these countries were the most ancient of kingdoms. Philosophy was not risen to the Greeks and other people of the Wests, whose common wealth, no greater perhaps than Luka or Geneva, had never peace, but when their fears of one another were equal. Nor the leisure to observe anything but one another. At length, when war had united many of these Grecian lesser cities into fewer and greater, then began seven men, of several parts of Greece, to get the reputation of being wise. Some of them for moral and politic sentences, and others for the learning of the Caldeans and Egyptians, which was astronomy and geometry. But we hear not yet 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 as of Asia and 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, in telling and hearing news, Acts 1721, or in discoursing a philosophy publicly to the youth of the city. Every master took some place for that purpose. Plato in certain public walks called Academia, from one Academis. Aristotle in the walk of the Temple of Pan, called Lacanium. Others in the Stoa, or covered walk, wherein the merchants' goods were brought to land. Others in other places, where they spent the time of their leisure in teaching or in disputing of their opinions, and some in any place where they could get the youth of the city together to hear them talk. And this was it which Carnadillas also did at Rome, when he was ambassador, which caused Cato to advise the Senate to dispatch him quickly, for fear of corrupting the manners of the young men that delighted to hear him speak, as they thought, find things. From this it was that the place where any of them taught and disputed was called Scola, which in their tongues signify a pleasure, and their disputations, diatribe, that is to say, passing of the time. Also the philosophers themselves had the name of their sects, some of them, from these their schools, for they that followed Plato's doctrine were called academics, the followers of Aristotle, parapetetics, from the walk he taught in, and those that Xeno taught, Stoics, from the Stoa, as if we should denominate men from Moorfields, from Paul's Church, and from the exchange, because they meet there often to pray and loiter. Nevertheless, men were so much taken with this custom, that in time it spread itself all over Europe, and the best part of Africa, so as there were schools, publicly erected and maintained, for lectures and disputations in almost every commonwealth. There were also schools, anciently, both before and after the time of our Savior 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 only, from public schools, and were not only in Jerusalem, but in every city of the Gentiles where the Jews inhabited. There was such a school at Damascus, wherein to Paul entered to persecute. There were others at Antioch, Iconium, and Thessalonica, wherein he entered to dispute. And such was the synagogue of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Solitians, and those of Asia, that is to say, the school of the Libertines and of Jews that were strangers in Jerusalem, and of this school they that disputed with St. Stephen, Acts 6-9. But what has been the utility of those schools? What science is there at this day acquired by their readings and disputings? That we have of geometry, which is the mother of all natural science, we are not indebted for it to the schools. Plato, that was the best philosopher of the Greeks, forbade entrance into his school to all that were not already in some measured geometricians. There were many that studied that science to the great advantage of mankind, but there is no mention of their schools, nor was there any sect of geometricians, nor did they then pass under the name of philosophers. The natural philosophy of those schools was rather a dream than science, and set forth in senseless and insignificant language, which cannot be avoided by those that will teach philosophy without having first attained great knowledge in geometry. For nature worketh by motion. The ways and degrees whereof cannot be known without the knowledge of the proportions and properties of lines and figures. Their moral philosophy is but a description of their own passions. For the rule of manners without civil government is the law of nature, and in it the law civil that determineeth what is honest and dishonest, what is just and unjust, and generally what is good and evil. Whereas they make the rules of good and bad by their own liking and disliking, by which means, in so great diversity of taste, there is nothing generally agreed on, but every one doth, as far as he dares, whatsoever seemeth good in his own eyes, to the subversion of the commonwealth. Their logic, which should be the method of reasoning, is nothing else but captions of words and inventions how to puzzle such as should go about to pose them. To conclude, there is nothing so absurd that the old philosophers, as Ciceroceith, who is one of them, have not some of them maintained, and I believe that scarce anything can be more absurdly said in natural philosophy than that which is now called Aristotle's metaphysics, nor more repugnant to government than much of what he heth said in his politics, nor more ignorantly than a great part of his ethics. The school of the Jews was originally a school of the law of Moses, who commanded 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, Deuteronomy 31, 10. Therefore the reading of the law, which was in use after the captivity, every Sabbath day ought to have had no other end but the acquainting of the people with the commandments which they were to obey, and to expound unto them the writings of the prophets. But it is manifest, by the many reprehensions of them by our Saviour, that they corrupted the text of the law with their false commentaries and vain traditions, and so little understood the prophets that they did neither acknowledge Christ nor the works he did, of which the prophets prophesied. So that by their lectures and disputations in their synagogues they turned the doctrine of their law into a fantastical kind of philosophy concerning the incomprehensible nature of God and of spirits which they compounded of the vain philosophy and theology of the Grecians, mingled with their own fancies, drawn from the obscure places of the scripture, and which might most easily be rested to their purpose, and from the fabulous traditions of their ancestors. That which is now called a university is adjoining together, and an incorporation under one government, of many public schools in one in the same town or city, in which the principal schools were ordained for the three professions, that is to say, of the Roman religion, of the Roman law, and of the art of medicine. And for the study of philosophy it hath no otherwise place than as handmade to the Roman religion, and since the authority of Aristotle is only current there, that study is not properly philosophic, the nature of which dependeth not on authors, but Aristotleity. And for geometry, till the very late times it had no place of all, as being subservient to nothing but rigid truth. And if any man by the ingenuity of his own nature had attained to any degree or perfection therein, he was commonly thought a magician, and his art diabolical. Now, to descend to the particular tenets of vain philosophy, derived to the universities, and thence unto the church, partly from Aristotle, partly from blindness of understanding, I shall first consider their principles. There is a certain philosophia prima on which all other philosophy ought to depend, and consisteth principally in the right limiting of the significations of such appellations, or names, as are of all others the most universal. Which limitations serve to avoid ambiguity and equivocation in reasoning, and are commonly called definitions? Such as are the definitions of body, time, place, matter, form, essence, subject, substance, accident, power, act, finite, infinite, quantity, quality, motion, action, passion, and diverse others necessary to the explaining of a man's conceptions concerning the nature and generation of bodies. The explication, that is, the settling of the meaning of which, and the like terms, is commonly in the schools called metaphysics, as being a part of the philosophy of Aristotle, which hath that for title. But it is in another sense, for there it signifyeth as much as books written or placed after his natural philosophy, but the schools take them for books of supernatural philosophy, for the word metaphysics will bear both these senses. And indeed, that which is there written is for the most part so far from the philosophy of being understood, and so repugnant to natural reason, that whosoever thinketh there is anything to be understood by it must needs thinketh supernatural. From these metaphysics, which are mingled with the scripture to make school divinity, we are told there be in the world certain essences separated from bodies, which they call abstract essences, and substantial forms, for the interpretating of which jargon there is need of somewhat more than ordinary attention in this place. Also I ask pardon of those that are not used to this kind of discourse for applying myself to those that are. The world, I mean not the earth only, that denominates the lovers of it worldly men, but the universe, that is, the whole mass of all things that are, is corporeal, that is to say, body, and hath the dimensions of magnitude, namely, length, breadth, and depth. Also every part of body is likewise body, and hath the like dimensions, and consequently every part of the universe is body, and that which is not body is no part of the universe, and because the universe is all that which is no part of it is nothing, and consequently nowhere. Nor does it follow from hence that spirits are nothing, for they have dimensions and are therefore really bodies, though that name in common speech be given to such bodies only as are visible or palpable, that is, that have some degree of opacity. But for spirits they call them incorporeal, which is a name of more honor, and may therefore with more piety be attributed to God himself, in whom we consider not what attribute expresseth Beth his nature, which is incomprehensible, but what best expresseth our desire to honor him. To know now upon what grounds they say there be essences abstract or substantial forms, we are to consider what those words do properly signify. The use of words is to register to ourselves, and make manifest to others the thoughts and conceptions of our minds. Of which words some are the names of the things conceived, as the names of all sorts of bodies that work upon the senses and leave an impression in the imagination. Others are the names of the imaginations themselves, that is to say, of those ideas or mental images we have of all things we see or remember, and others, again, are the names of names, or of different sorts of speech, as universal, plural, singular are the names of names, and definition, affirmation, negation, true, false, syllogism, interrogation, promise, covenant are the names of certain forms of speech. Others serve to show the consequence or repugnance of one name to another, as when one sayeth, a man is a body, he intended that the name of body is necessarily consequent to the name of man, as being but servile name of the same thing, man, which consequence is signified by coupling them together with the word is. And as we use the verb is, so the Latins use their verb est, and the Greeks their esti through all its declinations. Whether all other nations of the world have in their several languages a word that answereth to it or not, I cannot tell, but I am sure that they have not need of it, for the placing of two names in order may serve to signify their consequence, if it were the custom, for custom it is that gives words their force, as well as the words is, or be, or are, and the like. And if it were so, that there were a language without any verb answerable to est, or is, or be, yet the men that used it would not be a jot the less capable of inferring, concluding, and of all kind of reasoning, than were the Greeks and Latins. But what then would become of these terms of entity, essence, essential, essentiality, that are derived from it, and of many more that depend on these, applied as most commonly they are. They are therefore no names of things but signs, by which we make known that we conceive the consequence of one name or attribute of another, as when we say, a man is a living body, we mean not that the man is one thing, the living body another, and the is, or being a third, but that the man and the living body is the same thing, because the consequence, if he be a man, he is a living body, is a true consequence, signified by that word is. Therefore, to be a body, to walk, to be speaking, to live, to see, and the like infinitives, also corporality, walking, speaking, life, sight, and the like, that signify just the same, are the names of nothing, as I have elsewhere more amply expressed. But to what purpose, may some man say, is such subtlety in a work of this nature, where I pretend to nothing but what is necessary to the doctrine of government and obedience. It is to this purpose, that men may no longer suffer themselves to be abused by them, that by this doctrine of separated essences, built on the vain philosophy of Aristotle, would fright them from obeying the laws of their country with empty names, as men fright birds from the corn with an empty doublet, a hat, and a crooked stick. For it is upon this ground that, when a man is dead and buried, they say his soul, that is, his life, can walk separated from his body, and is seen by night amongst the graves. Upon the same ground they say, that the figure and color and taste of a piece of bread has a being. There, where they say there is no bread, and upon the same ground they say that faith, and wisdom, and other virtues are sometimes poured into a man, sometimes blown into him from heaven. If the virtuous and their virtues could be asunder, and a great many other things that serve to lessen the dependence of subjects on the sovereign power of their country. For who will endeavor to obey the laws, if he expect obedience to be poured or blown into him? Or who will not obey a priest, that can make God, rather his sovereign, nay, than God himself? Or who, that is in fear of ghosts, will not bear great respect to those that can make the holy water that drives them from him? And this shall suffice for an example of the errors which are brought into the church from the entities and essences of Aristotle, which it may be he knew to be false philosophy, but wrote it as a thing consonant to, and corroborative of, their religion, and fearing the fate of Socrates. Being once fallen into this error of separated essences, they are thereby necessarily involved in many other absurdities that follow it. For seeing they will have these forms to be real, they are obliged to assign them some place. But because they hold them incorporeal, without all dimension of quantity, and all men know that place is dimensional, and not to be filled, but by that which is corporeal, they are driven to uphold their credit with a distinction, that they are not indeed anywhere circumscriptive but definitive, which terms being mere words, and in this occasion insignificant, pass only in Latin, that the vanity of them may be concealed. For the circumscription of a thing is nothing else but the determination or defining of its place, and so both the terms of distinction are the same. And in particular, of the essence of a man, which they say is his soul, they affirm it to be all of it in his little finger, and all of it in every other part, how small so ever of his body, and yet no more soul in the whole body than in any one of those parts. Can any man think that God is served with such absurdities? And yet all this is necessary to believe, to those that will believe, the existence of an incorporeal soul separated from the body. And when they come to give account how an incorporeal substance can be capable of pain, and be tormented in the fire of hell or purgatory, they have nothing at all to answer, but that it cannot be known how fire can burn souls. Again, whereas motion is change of place, and incorporeal substances are not capable of place, they are troubled to make it seem possible how a soul can go hence, without the body, to heaven, hell, or purgatory, and how the ghosts of men, and I may add of their clothes which they appear in, can walk by night in churches, church-yards, and other places of sepulchre. To which I know not what they can answer, unless they will say, they walk definitive, not circumscriptive, or spiritually, not temporally, for such egregious distinctions are equally applicable to any difficulty whatsoever. For the meaning of eternity they will not have it to be an endless secession of time, for then they should not be able to render a reason how God's will and preordaining of things to come should not be before his prescience of the same, as the efficient cause before the effect, or agent before the action, nor of many other their bold opinions concerning the incomprehensible nature of God. But they will teach us that eternity is the standing still of the present time, anunct stands, as the schools call it, which neither they nor any else understand, no more than they would a hick stands for an infinite greatness of place. And whereas men divide a body in their thought, by numbering parts of it, and in numbering those parts, number also the parts of the place it filled, it cannot be but in making many parts, we make also many places of those parts, whereby there cannot be conceived in the mind of any man more or fewer parts, than there are places for. Yet they will have us believe that by the almighty power of God, one body may be at one in the same time in many places, and many bodies at one of the same time in one place, as if it were an acknowledgment of the divine power to say, that which is is not, or that which has been has not been. And these are but a small part of the incongruities they are forced to, from their disputing philosophically, instead of admiring and adoring of the divine and incomprehensible nature, whose attributes cannot signify what he is, but ought to signify our desire to honor him with the best appellations we can think on. But they that venture to reason of his nature, from these attributes of honor, losing their understanding in the very first attempt, fall from one inconvenience into another, without end and without number, in the same manner as when a man ignorant of the ceremonies of court, coming into the presence of a greater person than he is used to speak to, and stumbling at his entrance, to save himself from falling, let slip his cloak, to recover his cloak, let's fall his hat, and with one disorder after another, discovers his astonishment and rusticity. Then for physics, that is, the knowledge of the subordinate and secondary causes of natural events, they render none at all but empty words. If you desire to know why some kind of body sink naturally downwards towards the earth, and others go naturally from it, the schools will tell you, out of Aristotle, that the bodies that sink downwards are heavy, and that this heaviness is it that causes them to descend. But if you ask what they mean by heaviness, they will divine it to be an endeavor to go to the center of the earth, so that the cause why things sink downward is an endeavor to be below, which is as much to say that bodies descend or ascend because they do. Or they will tell you the center of the earth is the place of rest and conservation for heavy things. Therefore they endeavor to be there, as if stones and metals had a desire or could discern the place they would be at, as man does, or loved rest as man does not, or that a piece of glass were less safe in the window than falling into the street. If we would know why the same body seems greater without adding to it, one time than another, they say, when it seems less it is condensed, when greater rarefied. What is that condensed and rarefied? Condensed is when there is in the very same matter less 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 less were put into it, according as it is intended the body should be more or less dense. For the cause of the soul of man they say creator infendendo and creando infenditor, that is, it is created by pouring it in and poured in by creation. For the cause of sense and ubiquity of species, that is, of the shows or apparitions of objects, which when may be apparitions to the eye is sight, when to the ear hearing, to the palate taste, to the nostril smelling, and to the rest of the body feeling. For the cause of the will to do any particular action, which is called volitio, they assign the faculty, that is to say, the capacity in general, that men have to will sometimes one thing, sometimes another, which is called volentus, making the power the cause of the act as if one should assign for cause of the good or evil acts of men their ability to do them. And in many occasions they put for cause of natural events their own ignorance, but disguised in other words, as when they say, fortune is the cause of things continent, that is, of things whereof they know no cause, and as when they attribute many effects to occult qualities, that is, qualities not known to them, and therefore also, as they think, to no man else, and to sympathy, antipathy, antiparistasis, specific quantities, and other like terms, which signify neither the agent that produces them, nor the operation by which they are produced. If such metaphysics and physics as this be not vain philosophy, there was never any, nor needed St. Paul to give us warning to avoid it. And for their moral and civil philosophy it hath the same or greater absurdities. If a man do an action of injustice, that is to say, an action contrary to the law, God, they say, is the prime cause of the law, and also the prime cause of that and all other actions, but no cause at all of the injustice, which is the inconformity of the action to the law. This is vain philosophy. A man might as well say that one man maketh bold a straight line and a crooked, and another maketh there in congruity. And such is the philosophy of all men that resolve of their conclusions before they know of 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. Aristotle and other heathen philosophers define good and evil by the appetite of men, and well enough, as long as we consider them governed every one by his own law, for in the condition of men that have no other law but their own appetites, there can be no general rule of good and evil actions. But in a commonwealth this measure is false. Not the appetite of private men, but the law, which is the will and appetite of the state, is the measure. And yet is this doctrine still practised, and men judge the goodness or wickedness of their own and of other men's actions, and of the actions of the commonwealth itself by their own passions, and no man calleth good or evil but that which is so in his own eyes, without any regard at all to the public laws, except only monks and friars, that are bound by vow to that simple obedience to their superior, to which every subject ought to think himself bound by the law of nature to the civil sovereign. And this private measure of good is a doctrine, not only vain, but also pernicious to the public state. It is also vain and false philosophy to say the work of marriage is repugnant to chastity or continence, and by consequence to make them moral vices, as they do that pretend chastity and continence for the ground of denying marriage to the clergy. For they confess it is no more but a constitution of the church that requireeth in those holy orders that continually attend the altar and administration of the Eucharist, a continual abstinence from women, under the name of continual chastity, continence, and purity. Therefore they call the lawful use of wives want of chastity and continence, and so make marriage a sin, or at least a thing so impure and unclean as to render a man unfit for the altar. If the law were made because the use of wives is in continence and contrary to chastity, then all marriage is vice. If because it is a thing too impure and unclean for a man consecrated to God, much more should other natural, necessary, and daily words, which all men do, render men unworthy to be priests, because they are more unclean. But in the secret foundation of this prohibition of marriage of priests is not likely to have been laid so slightly as upon such errors in moral philosophy, nor yet upon the preference of a single life to the estate of matrimony, which proceeded from the wisdom of St. Paul, who perceived how inconvenient a thing it was for those that in those times of persecution were preachers of the gospel, and forced to fly from one country to another, to be clogged with the care of wife and children. But upon the design of the popes and priests of aftertimes, to make themselves, the clergy, that is, sole heirs of the kingdom of God in this world, to which it was necessary to take from them the use of marriage, because our Saviors saith that at the coming of his kingdom the children of God shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven. That is to say, spiritual. And then they had taken on them the name of spiritual, to have allowed themselves, when there was no need, the propriety of wives, had been in incongruity. From Aristotle's civil philosophy they have learned to call all manner of commonwealths but the popular, such as was at that time the state of Athens tyranny. All kings they called tyrants, and the aristocracy of the thirty governors set up there by the Lachodemonians that subdued them the thirty as also to call the condition of the people under the democracy, liberty. A tyrant originally signified to know more, simply, but a monarch. But when afterwards in the most parts of Greece that kind of government was abolished, the name began to signify, not only the thing it did before, but with it the hatred which the popular states bore towards it, as also the name of king became odious after the deposing of the kings in Rome, as being a thing natural to all men to conceive some great fault to be signified in any attribute that is given in despite, and to a great enemy. And when the same men shall be displeased with those that have the administration of the democracy, or aristocracy, they are not to seek for disgraceful names to express their anger in, but call readily the one Anarchy and the other Oligarchy, or the tyranny of a few. And that which offended the people is no other thing but that they are governed, not as every one of them would himself, but as the public representant, be it one man or an assembly of man thinks fit, that is, by an arbitrary government, for which they give evil names to their superiors, never knowing, till perhaps a little after a civil war, that without such arbitrary government such war must be perpetual, and that it is men and arms, not words and promises that make the force and power of the laws. And therefore this is another error of Aristotle's politics, that in a well-ordered commonwealth not men should govern but the laws. What man that has his natural senses, though he can neither write nor read, does not find himself governed by them he fears, and believes can kill or hurt him when he obeys not, or that believes the law can hurt him, that is, words and paper, without hands and swords of men. And this is of the number of pernicious errors, for they induce men, as oft as they like not their governors, to adhere to those that call them tyrants, and to think it lawful to raise war against them, and yet they are many times cherished from the pulpit by the clergy. There is another error in their civil philosophy, which they never learned of Aristotle, nor Cicero, nor any other of the heathen, to extend the power of the law, which is the rule of actions only, to the very thoughts and consciousnesses of men, by examination and inquisition of what they hold not withstanding the conformity of their speech and actions, by which men are either punished for answering the truth of their thoughts, or constrained to answer an untruth for fear of punishment. It is true that the civil magistrate, intending to employ a minister in the charge of teaching, may inquire of him if he be content to preach such and such doctrines, and in case of refusal may deny him the employment. But to force him, to accuse himself of opinions, when his actions are not by law forbidden, is against the law of nature, and especially in them who teach that a man shall be damned to eternal and extreme torments, if he die in a false opinion concerning an article of the Christian faith. For who is there, that knowing there is so great a danger in an error, whom the natural care of himself compeleth not to hazard his soul upon his own judgment, rather than that of any other man that is unconcerned in his damnation. For a private man, without the authority of the Commonwealth, that is to say, without permission from the representative thereof, to interpret the law by his own spirit, is another error in the politics, but not drawn from Aristotle, nor from any other of the heathen philosophers. For none of them deny, but that in the power of making laws is comprehended also the power of explaining them when there is need, and are not the scriptures in all places where they are law, made law by the authority of the Commonwealth, and consequently a part of the civil law. Of the same kind it is also when any but the sovereign restraineth in any man that power which the Commonwealth hath not restrained, as they do that impropriate the preaching of the gospel to one certain order of men where the laws have left it free. If the state give me leave to preach or teach, that is, if it forbid me not, no man can forbid me. If I find myself amongst the idolaters of America, shall I that I 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 I not answer their doubts and expound the scriptures to them, that is, shall I not teach? But for this may some say, as also for administering to them the sacraments, the necessity shall be esteemed for a sufficient mission, which is true. But this is true also, that for whatsoever a dispensation is due for the necessity, for the same there needs no dispensation when there is no law that forbids it. Therefore, to deny these functions to those to whom the civil sovereign hath not denied them is a taking away of lawful liberty, which is contrary to the doctrine of civil government. More examples of vain philosophy brought into religion by the doctors of school divinity might be produced, but other men may if they please observe them of themselves. I shall add only this, that the writings of school divines are nothing else, for the most part, but insignificant trains of strange and barbarous words, or words otherwise than used in the common use of the Latin tongue, such as would pose Cicero and Varo and all the grammarians of ancient Rome, which if any man would see proved, let him, as I have said once before, see whether he can translate any school divine into any of the modern tongues, as French, English, or any other copious language, for that which cannot in most of these be made intelligible is not intelligible in the Latin. Which insignificancy of language, though I cannot note it for false philosophy, yet it hath equality not only to hide the truth, but also to make men think they have it and desist from further search. Lastly, for the errors brought in from false or uncertain history, what is all the legend of fictitious miracles in the lives of the saints, and all the histories of apparitions and ghosts alleged by the doctors of the Roman church, to make good their doctrines of hell and purgatory, the power of exorcism, and other doctrines which have no warrant, neither in reason nor scripture, as also those traditions which they call the unwritten word of God, but old wives' fables. Whereof, though they find dispersed somewhat in the writings of the ancient fathers, yet those fathers were men that might too easily believe false reports. And the producing of their opinions for testimony of the truth of what they believed hath no other force with them than, according to the Council of St. John, 1 John 4 1, examine spirits than in all things that concern the power of the Roman church, the abuse whereof either they suspected not, or had benefit by it, to discredit their testimony in respect of too rash belief of reports, which the most sincere men without great knowledge of natural causes, such as the fathers were, are commonly the most subject to. For naturally the best men are the least suspicious of fraudulent purposes. Gregory the Pope and St. Bernard have somewhat of apparitions of ghosts that said they were impergatory, and so has our bead, but nowhere I believe but by report from others. But if they or any other relate any such stories of their own knowledge, they shall not thereby confirm the more such vain reports, but discover their own infirmity or fraud. With the introduction of false, we may join also the suppression of true philosophy by such men as neither by lawful authority nor sufficient study are competent judges of the truth. Our own navigations make manifest, and all men learned in human sciences now acknowledge there are antipodes, and every day it appeareth more and more that years and days are determined by motions of the earth. Nevertheless, men that have in their writings, but supposed to such a doctrine, as an occasion to lay open their reasons for and against it, have been punished for it by authority ecclesiastical. But what reason is there for it? Is it because such opinions are contrary to true religion? That cannot be, if they be true. Let therefore the truth be first examined by competent judges, or confuted by them that pretend to know the contrary. Is it because they be contrary to the religion established? Let them be silenced by the laws of those to whom the teachers of them are subject, that is, by the laws civil, for disobedience may lawfully be punished in them that against the laws teach even true philosophy. Is it because they tend to disorder in government as countenancing rebellion or sedition? Then let them be silenced, and the teachers punished, by virtue of his power to whom the care of the public quiet is committed, which is the authority civil. For whatsoever power ecclesiastics take upon themselves in any place where they are subject to the state in their own right, though they call it God's right, is but usurpation. CHAPTER 47 Of the benefit that proceedeth from such darkness, and to whom it accrueth. Cicero maketh honorable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe judge amongst the Romans, for a custom he had in criminal causes, when the testimony of the witness was not sufficient, to ask the accusers, qui bono, that is to say, what profit, honor, or other contentment the accused obtained or expected by the fact. For amongst presumptions there is none that so evidently declareeth the author as doth the benefit of the action. By the same rule I intend in this place to examine who they may be that have possessed the people so long in this part of Christendom with these doctrines, contrary to the peaceable societies of mankind. And first to this error that the present church, now militant on earth, is the kingdom of God, that is, the kingdom of glory, or the land of promise, not the kingdom of grace, which is but a promise of the land, are annexed these worldly benefits, first that the pastors and teachers of the church are entitled thereby as God's public ministers to a right of governing the church, and consequently because the church and commonwealth are the same persons, to be rectors and governors of the commonwealth. By this title it is that the pope prevailed with the subjects of all Christian princes to believe that to disobey him was to disobey Christ himself, and in all differences between him and other princes, charmed with the word power spiritual to abandon their lawful sovereigns, which is, in effect, a universal monarchy over all Christendom. For though they were first invested in the right of being supreme teachers of Christian doctrine, by and by under Christian emperors within the limits of the Roman Empire, as is acknowledged by themselves, by the title of Pontifex Maximus, who was an officer subject to the civil state, yet after the Empire was divided and dissolved it was not hard to obtrude upon the people already subject to them another title, namely the right of St. Peter, not only to save entire their pretended power, but also to extend the same over the same Christian provinces, though no more united in the Empire of Rome. This benefit of a universal monarchy, considering the desire of men to bear rule, is a sufficient presumption that the popes that pretended to it, and for a long time enjoyed it, were the authors of the doctrine by which it was obtained, namely that the church now on earth is the kingdom of Christ. For granted it must be understood that Christ hath some lieutenant amongst us by whom we are to be told what are his commandments. After that certain churches had renounced this universal power of the Pope, one would expect in the reason that the civil sovereigns in all those churches would have recovered so much of it as before they had unadvisedly let it go, was their own right and in their own hands. And in England it was so, in effect, saving that they by whom the kings administered the government of religion, by maintaining their employment to be in God's right, seemed to usurp, if not a supremacy, yet an independency on the civil power, and they but seemed to usurp it in as much as they acknowledged a right in the king to deprive them of the exercise of their functions at his pleasure. But in those places where the Presbytery took that office, though many other doctrines of the Church of Rome were forbidden to be taught, yet this doctrine, that the kingdom of Christ is already come and that it began at the resurrection of our Savior, was still retained. But qui bono, what profit did they expect from it? The same which the Pope's expected, to have a sovereign power over the people. For what is it for men to excommunicate their lawful king, but to keep him from all places of God's public service in his own kingdom, and with force to resist him when he with force endeavored to correct them? Or what is it, without authority from the civil sovereign, to excommunicate any person, but to take from him his lawful liberty, that is, to usurp an unlawful power over their brethren? The authors, therefore, of this darkness in religion are the Roman and the Presbyterian clergy. To this said, I refer also all those doctrines that serve them to keep the possession of this spiritual sovereignty after it is gotten. At first, that the Pope, in his public capacity, cannot air. For who is there that, believing this to be true, will not readily obey him in whatsoever he commands? Secondly, that all other bishops, in what commonwealth soever, have not their right, neither immediately from God, nor immediately from their civil sovereigns, but from the Pope, is a doctrine by which there comes to be in every Christian commonwealth many potent men, for so are bishops that have their dependence on the Pope. O obedience to him, though he be a foreign prince, by which means he is able, as he hath done many times, to raise a civil war against the state that submits not itself to be governed according to his pleasure and interest. Thirdly, the exemption of these and of all other priests, and of all monks and friars, from the power of the civil laws. By this means there is a great part of every commonwealth that enjoy the benefit of the laws and are protected by the power of the civil state, which nevertheless pay no part of the public expense, nor are liable to the penalties, as other subjects, due to their crimes, and consequently stand not in any fear of man, but the Pope, and adhere to him only and 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, sacrifices, which was the title of the civil sovereign and his public ministers amongst the Jews, whilst God was their king. Also making the Lord's Supper a sacrifice serveth to make the people believe the Pope hath the same power over all Christians that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews, that is to say, all power, both civil and ecclesiastical, as the High Priest had then. Fifthly, the teaching that matrimony is a sacrament given to the clergy, the judging of the lawfulness of marriages, and thereby of what children are legitimate, and consequently of the right of succession to hereditary kingdoms. Sixthly, the denial of marriage to priests serveth to assure this power of the Pope over kings, for if a king be a priest he cannot marry and transmit his kingdom to his posterity, if he be not a priest, then the Pope pretendeth this authority ecclesiastical over him and over his people. Seventhly, from auricular confession they obtain, for the assurance of their power, better intelligence of the designs of princes and great persons in the civil state, than these can have of the designs of the state ecclesiastical. Eighthly, by the canonization of saints and declaring who are martyrs, they assure their power that they induce simple men into an obstinacy against the laws and commands of their civil sovereigns, even to death, if by the Pope's excommunication they be declared heretics or enemies to the church, that is, as they interpret it to the Pope. Ninthly, they assure the same by the power they ascribe to every priest of making Christ, and by the power of ordaining penance, and of remitting and retaining of sins. Tenthly, by the doctrine of purgatory, of justification by external works, and of indulgences, the clergy is enriched. Eleventhly, by their demonology and their use of exorcism, and other things appertaining thereto, they keep or they think they keep the people more in awe of their power. Lastly, the metaphysics, ethics, and politics 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 Pope's authority, served them to keep these heirs from being detected, and to make men mistake the ignis fatuus of vain philosophy for the light of the Gospel. To these, if they suffice not, might be added other of their dark doctrines, the prophet whereof redoundeth manifestly to the setting up of an unlawful power over the lawful sovereigns of Christian people, or for the sustaining of the same when it is set up, or to the worldly riches, honor, and authority of those that sustain it. And therefore, by the aforesaid rule of Quibono, we may justly pronounce for the authors of all this spiritual darkness, the Pope, and Roman clergy, and all those besides that endeavor to settle in the minds of men this erinous doctrine, that the Church now on earth is that kingdom of God mentioned in the Old and New Testament. But the emperors, and other Christian sovereigns, under whose government these heirs, and the like, encroachments of ecclesiastics upon their office at first crept in, to the disturbance of their possessions and of the tranquility 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 nevertheless be esteemed accessories to their own and the public damage. For without their authority, there could at first no seditious doctrine have been publicly preached. I say they might have hindered the same in the beginning, but when the people were once possessed by those spiritual men, there was no human remedy to be applied 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, we 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 wariness of their predecessors had before sealed up, and makes men by too much grasping let go all, as Peter's net was broken by the struggling of too great a multitude of fishes, whereas the impatience of those that strived to resist such encroachment before their subjects' eyes were opened, but did increase the power they resisted. I do not therefore blame the Emperor Frederick for holding the stirrup to our countrymen Pope Adrian, for such was the disposition of his subjects then, as if he had not done it. He 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 held the stirrup to all the succeeding Popes, whilst they mounted into the thrones of all Christian sovereigns, to ride and tire both them and their people at their pleasure. But as the inventions of men are woven, so also are they reveled 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 virtues 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 civil power. Afterwards the presbyters, as the flocks of Christ increased, 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 invidels, but as being disobedient, and this was the first knot upon their liberty. And the number of presbyters increasing, the presbyters of the chief city or province got themselves an authority over the parochial 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 imperial city, took upon him an authority, partly by the wills of the emperors themselves and by the title of Pontifex Maximus, and at last when the emperors were grown weak by the privileges 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 pontifical power. And therefore the analysis or resolution is by the same way, but beginneth with the knot that was last tied, as we may see in the dissolution of the Peter political church government 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 successors, though by retaining the phrase of dure divino they were thought to demand it by immediate right from God, and so was untied 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 as 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 itself, working faith in every one, not always according to the purpose of them that planted 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 error 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 than to venture his salvation at cross and pile. Nor ought those teachers to be displeased with this loss of their ancient authority, for there is none should know better than they that power is preserved by the same virtues by which it is acquired, that is to say by wisdom, humility, clearness of doctrine and sincerity of conversion, and not by suppression of the natural sciences, and of the morality of natural reason, nor by obscure language, nor by irrigating to themselves more knowledge than they make appear, nor by pious frauds, nor by such other faults as make the pastors of God's church are not only faults, but also scandals, apt to make men stumble one time or other upon the suppression of their authority. But after this doctrine, that the church now militant is the kingdom of God spoken of in the Old and New Testament, was received in the world, the ambition and canvassing for the offices that belong therein too, and especially for that great office of being Christ's lieutenant, and the pomp of them that obtained therein the principal public charges became by degrees so evident that they lost the inward reverence due to the pastoral function, in so much as the wisest men of them that had any power in the civil state needed nothing but the authority of their princes to deny them any further obedience. Or from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for Bishop Universal by pretense of succession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy or kingdom of darkness may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom 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 considered the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof, for so did the papacy start up on a sudden out of the ruins of that heathen power. The language also which they use, both in the churches and in their public acts, being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language? The fairies in what nation so ever they converse have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Obron, but the scripture calls Beelzebub, Prince of Demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominion so ever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope. The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies are spirits and ghosts. Fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitude, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine in monasteries, churches, and church yards. The ecclesiastics have their cathedral churches, which in what towns so ever they be erected, by virtue of holy water, and certain charms called exorcisms, have the power to make those towns, cities, that is to say, seats of empires. The fairies also have their enchanted castles and certain gigantic ghosts that domineer over the regions round about them. The fairies are not to be seized on and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice. The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason by certain charms compounded of metaphysics 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 natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves and are apt 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 pontifical. When the fairies are displeased with anybody they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics when they are displeased with the civil 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. The fairies marry not, but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not. The ecclesiastics take the cream of the land by donations of ignorant men that stand in awe of them and by tithes, 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. What kind of money is current in the kingdom of fairies is not recorded in the story, but the ecclesiastics and their receipts except of the same money that we do, though when they are to make any payment it is in canonizations, indulgences, and masses. To this and such resemblances between the papacy and the kingdom 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 spiritual power of the pope, without the bonds of his own civil dominion, consisteth only in the fear that seduced people stand in of their excommunications, upon hearing of false miracles, false traditions, and false interpretations of the scripture. It was not, therefore, a very difficult matter for Henry VIII by his exorcism nor for Queen Elizabeth by hers to cast them out. But who knows that this spirit of Rome now gone out and walking by omissions through the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies that yield him little fruit, may not return, or rather an assembly of spirits worse than he enter and inhabit this clean-swept house and make the end thereof worse than the beginning. For it is not the Roman clergy only that pretends the kingdom of God to be of this world, and thereby to have a power therein, distinct from that of the civil state. And this is all I had to design to say concerning the doctrine of the politics, which, when I have reviewed, I shall willingly expose it to the censure of my country.