OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD BY NATURE.
[Sidenote: The scope of the following chapters.]
That the condition of mere nature, that is to say, of absolute liberty,
such as is theirs, that neither are sovereigns, nor subjects, is
anarchy, and the condition of war: that the precepts, by which men are
guided to avoid that condition, are the laws of nature: that a
commonwealth, without sovereign power, is but a word without substance,
and cannot stand: that subjects owe to sovereigns, simple obedience, in
all things wherein their obedience is not repugnant to the laws of God,
I have sufficiently proved, in that which I have already written. There
wants only, for the entire knowledge of civil duty, to know what are
those laws of God. For without that, a man knows not, when he is
commanded any thing by the civil power, whether it be contrary to the
law of God, or not: and so, either by too much civil obedience, offends
the Divine Majesty; or through fear of offending God, transgresses the
commandments of the commonwealth. To avoid both these rocks, it is
necessary to know what are the laws divine. And seeing the knowledge of
all law, dependeth on the knowledge of the sovereign power, I shall say
something in that which followeth, of the KINGDOM OF GOD.
[Sidenote: Who are subjects in the kingdom of God.]
_God is king, let the earth rejoice_, saith the psalmist, (xcvii. 1).
And again, (_Psalm_ xcix. 1) _God is king, though the nations be angry;
and he that sitteth on the cherubims, though the earth be moved_.
Whether men will or not, they must be subject always to the divine
power. By denying the existence, or providence of God, men may shake off
their ease, but not their yoke. But to call this power of God, which
extendeth itself not only to man, but also to beasts, and plants, and
bodies inanimate, by the name of kingdom, is but a metaphorical use of
the word. For he only is properly said to reign, that governs his
subjects by his word, and by promise of rewards to those that obey it,
and by threatening them with punishment that obey it not. Subjects
therefore in the kingdom of God, are not bodies inanimate, nor creatures
irrational; because they understand no precepts as his: nor atheists,
nor they that believe not that God has any care of the actions of
mankind; because they acknowledge no word for his, nor have hope of his
rewards or fear of his threatenings. They therefore that believe there
is a God that governeth the world, and hath given precepts, and
propounded rewards, and punishments to mankind, are God’s subjects; all
the rest, are to be understood as enemies.
[Sidenote: A threefold word of God, reason, revelation, prophecy.]
To rule by words, requires that such words be manifestly made known; for
else they are no laws: for to the nature of laws belongeth a sufficient,
and clear promulgation, such as may take away the excuse of ignorance;
which in the laws of men is but of one only kind, and that is,
proclamation, or promulgation by the voice of man. But God declareth his
laws three ways; by the dictates of _natural reason_, by _revelation_,
and by the _voice_ of some _man_, to whom by the operation of miracles,
he procureth credit with the rest. From hence there ariseth a triple
word of God, _rational_, _sensible_, and _prophetic_: to which
correspondeth a triple hearing; _right reason_, _sense supernatural_,
and _faith_. As for sense supernatural, which consisteth in revelation
or inspiration, there have not been any universal laws so given, because
God speaketh not in that manner but to particular persons, and to divers
men divers things.
[Sidenote: A twofold kingdom of God, natural and prophetic.]
From the difference between the other two kinds of God’s word,
_rational_, and _prophetic_, there may be attributed to God, a twofold
kingdom, _natural_, and _prophetic_: natural, wherein he governeth as
many of mankind as acknowledge his providence, by the natural dictates
of right reason; and prophetic, wherein having chosen out one peculiar
nation, the Jews, for his subjects, he governed them, and none but them,
not only by natural reason, but by positive laws, which he gave them by
the mouths of his holy prophets. Of the natural kingdom of God I intend
to speak in this chapter.
[Sidenote: The right of God’s sovereignty is derived from his
omnipotence.]
The right of nature, whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those
that break his laws, is to be derived, not from his creating them, as if
he required obedience as of gratitude for his benefits; but from his
_irresistible power_. I have formerly shown, how the sovereign right
ariseth from pact: to show how the same right may arise from nature,
requires no more, but to show in what case it is never taken away.
Seeing all men by nature had right to all things, they had right every
one to reign over all the rest. But because this right could not be
obtained by force, it concerned the safety of every one, laying by that
right, to set up men, with sovereign authority, by common consent, to
rule and defend them: whereas if there had been any man of power
irresistible, there had been no reason, why he should not by that power
have ruled and defended both himself, and them, according to his own
discretion. To those therefore whose power is irresistible, the dominion
of all men adhereth naturally by their excellence of power; and
consequently it is from that power, that the kingdom over men, and the
right of afflicting men at his pleasure, belongeth naturally to God
Almighty; not as Creator, and gracious; but as omnipotent. And though
punishment be due for sin only, because by that word is understood
affliction for sin; yet the right of afflicting, is not always derived
from men’s sin, but from God’s power.
[Sidenote: Sin not the cause of all affliction.]
This question, _why evil men often prosper, and good men suffer
adversity_, has been much disputed by the ancient, and is the same with
this of ours, _by what right God dispenseth the prosperities and
adversities of this life_; and is of that difficulty, as it hath shaken
the faith, not only of the vulgar, but of philosophers, and which is
more, of the Saints, concerning the Divine Providence. _How good_, saith
David, (_Psalm_ lxxiii. 1, 2, 3) _is the God of Israel to those that are
upright in heart; and yet my feet were almost gone, my treadings had
well-nigh slipt; for I was grieved at the wicked, when I saw the ungodly
in such prosperity_. And Job, how earnestly does he expostulate with
God, for the many afflictions he suffered, notwithstanding his
righteousness? This question in the case of Job, is decided by God
himself, not by arguments derived from Job’s sin, but his own power. For
whereas the friends of Job drew their arguments from his affliction to
his sin, and he defended himself by the conscience of his innocence, God
himself taketh up the matter, and having justified the affliction by
arguments drawn from his power, such as this, (_Job_ xxxviii. 4) _Where
wast thou, when I laid the foundations of the earth?_ and the like, both
approved Job’s innocence, and reproved the erroneous doctrine of his
friends. Conformable to this doctrine is the sentence of our Saviour,
concerning the man that was born blind, in these words, _Neither hath
this man sinned, nor his fathers; but that the works of God might be
made manifest in him_. And though it be said, _that death entered into
the world by sin_, (by which is meant, that if Adam had never sinned, he
had never died, that is, never suffered any separation of his soul from
his body,) it follows not thence, that God could not justly have
afflicted him, though he had not sinned, as well as he afflicteth other
living creatures, that cannot sin.
[Sidenote: Divine laws.]
Having spoken of the right of God’s sovereignty, as grounded only on
nature; we are to consider next, what are the Divine laws, or dictates
of natural reason; which laws concern either the natural duties of one
man to another, or the honour naturally due to our Divine Sovereign. The
first are the same laws of nature, of which I have spoken already in the
fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of this treatise; namely, equity,
justice, mercy, humility, and the rest of the moral virtues. It
remaineth therefore that we consider, what precepts are dictated to men,
by their natural reason only, without other word of God, touching the
honour and worship of the Divine Majesty.
[Sidenote: Honour and worship, what.]
Honour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of the power, and
goodness of another; and therefore to honour God, is to think as highly
of his power and goodness, as is possible. And of that opinion, the
external signs appearing in the words and actions of men, are called
_worship_; which is one part of that which the Latins understand by the
word _cultus_. For _cultus_ signifieth properly, and constantly, that
labour which a man bestows on anything, with a purpose to make benefit
by it. Now those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to
us, and the profit they yield, followeth the labour we bestow upon them,
as a natural effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our
labour, according to their own wills. In the first sense the labour
bestowed on the earth, is called _culture_; and the education of
children, a _culture_ of their minds. In the second sense, where men’s
wills are to be wrought to our purpose, not by force, but by
complaisance, it signifieth as much as courting, that is, a winning of
favour by good offices; as by praises, by acknowledging their power, and
by whatsoever is pleasing to them from whom we look for any benefit. And
this is properly _worship_: in which sense _Publicola_, is understood
for a worshipper of the people; and _cultus Dei_, for the worship of
God.
[Sidenote: Several signs of honour.]
From internal honour, consisting in the opinion of power and goodness,
arise three passions; _love_, which hath reference to goodness; and
_hope_, and _fear_, that relate to power: and three parts of external
worship; _praise_, _magnifying_, and _blessing_: the subject of praise,
being goodness; the subject of magnifying and blessing, being power, and
the effect thereof felicity. Praise, and magnifying are signified both
by words, and actions: by words, when we say a man is good, or great: by
actions, when we thank him for his bounty, and obey his power. The
opinion of the happiness of another, can only be expressed by words.
[Sidenote: Worship natural and arbitrary.]
There be some signs of honour, both in attributes and actions, that be
naturally so; as amongst attributes, _good_, _just_, _liberal_, and the
like; and amongst actions, _prayers_, _thanks_, and _obedience_. Others
are so by institution, or custom of men; and in some times and places
are honourable; in others, dishonourable; in others, indifferent: such
as are the gestures in salutation, prayer, and thanksgiving, in
different times and places, differently used. The former is _natural_;
the latter _arbitrary_ worship.
[Sidenote: Worship commanded and free.]
And of arbitrary worship, there be two differences: for sometimes it is
a _commanded_, sometimes _voluntary_ worship: commanded, when it is such
as he requireth, who is worshipped: free, when it is such as the
worshipper thinks fit. When it is commanded, not the words, or gesture,
but the obedience is the worship. But when free, the worship consists in
the opinion of the beholders: for if to them the words, or actions by
which we intend honour, seem ridiculous, and tending to contumely, they
are no worship, because no signs of honour; and no signs of honour,
because a sign is not a sign to him that giveth it, but to him to whom
it is made, that is, to the spectator.
[Sidenote: Worship public and private.]
Again, there is a _public_, and a _private_ worship. Public, is the
worship that a commonwealth performeth, as one person. Private, is that
which a private person exhibiteth. Public, in respect of the whole
commonwealth, is free; but in respect of particular men, it is not so.
Private, is in secret free; but in the sight of the multitude, it is
never without some restraint, either from the laws, or from the opinion
of men; which is contrary to the nature of liberty.
[Sidenote: The end of worship.]
The end of worship amongst men, is power. For where a man seeth another
worshipped, he supposeth him powerful, and is the readier to obey him;
which makes his power greater. But God has no ends: the worship we do
him, proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to our capacity,
by those rules of honour, that reason dictateth to be done by the weak
to the more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of damage, or in
thankfulness for good already received from them.
[Sidenote: Attributes of divine honour.]
That we may know what worship of God is taught us by the light of
nature, I will begin with his attributes. Where, first, it is manifest,
we ought to attribute to him _existence_. For no man can have the will
to honour that, which he thinks not to have any being.
Secondly, that those philosophers, who said the world, or the soul of
the world was God, spake unworthily of him; and denied his existence.
For by God, is understood the cause of the world; and to say the world
is God, is to say there is no cause of it, that is, no God.
Thirdly, to say the world was not created, but eternal, seeing that
which is eternal has no cause, is to deny there is a God.
Fourthly, that they who attributing, as they think, ease to God, take
from him the care of mankind; take from him his honour: for it takes
away men’s love, and fear of him; which is the root of honour.
Fifthly, in those things that signify greatness, and power; to say he is
_finite_, is not to honour him: for it is not a sign of the will to
honour God, to attribute to him less than we can; and finite, is less
than we can; because to finite, it is easy to add more.
Therefore to attribute _figure_ to him, is not honour; for all figure is
finite:
Nor to say we conceive, and imagine, or have an _idea_ of him, in our
mind: for whatsoever we conceive is finite:
Nor to attribute to him _parts_, or _totality_; which are the attributes
only of things finite:
Nor to say he is in this, or that _place_: for whatsoever is in place,
is bounded, and finite: Nor that he is _moved_, or _resteth_: for both
these attributes ascribe to him place:
Nor that there be more Gods than one; because it implies them all
finite: for there cannot be more than one infinite:
Nor to ascribe to him, (unless metaphorically, meaning not the passion
but the effect,) passions that partake of grief; as _repentance_,
_anger_, _mercy_: or of want; as _appetite_, _hope_, _desire_; or of any
passive faculty: for passion, is power limited by somewhat else.
And therefore when we ascribe to God a _will_, it is not to be
understood, as that of man, for a _rational appetite_; but as the power,
by which he effecteth every thing.
Likewise when we attribute to him _sight_, and other acts of sense; as
also _knowledge_, and _understanding_; which in us is nothing else, but
a tumult of the mind, raised by external things that press the organical
parts of man’s body: for there is no such thing in God; and being things
that depend on natural causes, cannot be attributed to him.
He that will attribute to God, nothing but what is warranted by natural
reason, must either use such negative attributes, as _infinite_,
_eternal_, _incomprehensible_; or superlatives, as _most high_, _most
great_, and the like; or indefinite, as _good_, _just_, _holy_,
_creator_; and in such sense, as if he meant not to declare what he is,
(for that were to circumscribe him within the limits of our fancy,) but
how much we admire him, and how ready we would be to obey him; which is
a sign of humility, and of a will to honour him as much as we can. For
there is but one name to signify our conception of his nature, and that
is, I AM: and but one name of his relation to us, and that is, _God_; in
which is contained Father, King, and Lord.
[Sidenote: Actions that are signs of divine honour.]
Concerning the actions of divine worship, it is a most general precept
of reason, that they be signs of the intention to honour God; such as
are, first, _prayers_. For not the carvers, when they made images, were
thought to make them gods; but the people that _prayed_ to them.
Secondly, _thanksgiving_; which differeth from prayer in divine worship,
no otherwise, than that prayers precede, and thanks succeed the benefit;
the end, both of the one and the other, being to acknowledge God, for
author of all benefits, as well past, as future.
Thirdly, _gifts_, that is to say, _sacrifices_ and _oblations_, if they
be of the best, are signs of honour: for they are thanksgivings.
Fourthly, _not to swear by any but God_, is naturally a sign of honour:
for it is a confession that God only knoweth the heart; and that no
man’s wit or strength can protect a man against God’s vengeance on the
perjured.
Fifthly, it is a part of rational worship, to speak considerately of
God; for it argues a fear of him, and fear is a confession of his power.
Hence followeth, that the name of God is not to be used rashly, and to
no purpose; for that is as much, as in vain: and it is to no purpose,
unless it be by way of oath, and by order of the commonwealth, to make
judgments certain; or between commonwealths, to avoid war. And that
disputing of God’s nature is contrary to his honour: for it is supposed,
that in this natural kingdom of God, there is no other way to know
anything, but by natural reason, that is, from the principles of natural
science; which are so far from teaching us any thing of God’s nature, as
they cannot teach us our own nature, nor the nature of the smallest
creature living. And therefore, when men out of the principles of
natural reason, dispute of the attributes of God, they but dishonour
him: for in the attributes which we give to God, we are not to consider
the signification of philosophical truth; but the signification of pious
intention, to do him the greatest honour we are able. From the want of
which consideration, have proceeded the volumes of disputation about the
nature of God, that tend not to his honour, but to the honour of our own
wits and learning; and are nothing else but inconsiderate and vain
abuses of his sacred name.
Sixthly, in _prayers_, _thanksgivings_, _offerings_, and _sacrifices_,
it is a dictate of natural reason, that they be every one in his kind
the best, and most significant of honour. As for example, that prayers
and thanksgiving, be made in words and phrases, not sudden, nor light,
nor plebeian; but beautiful, and well composed. For else we do not God
as much honour as we can. And therefore the heathens did absurdly, to
worship images for gods: but their doing it in verse, and with music,
both of voice and instruments, was reasonable. Also that the beasts they
offered in sacrifice, and the gifts they offered, and their actions in
worshipping, were full of submission, and commemorative of benefits
received, was according to reason, as proceeding from an intention to
honour him.
Seventhly, reason directeth not only to worship God in secret; but also,
and especially, in public, and in the sight of men. For without that,
that which in honour is most acceptable, the procuring others to honour
him, is lost.
Lastly, obedience to his laws, that is, in this case to the laws of
nature, is the greatest worship of all. For as obedience is more
acceptable to God than sacrifice; so also to set light by his
commandments, is the greatest of all contumelies. And these are the laws
of that divine worship, which natural reason dictateth to private men.
[Sidenote: Public worship consisteth in uniformity.]
But seeing a commonwealth is but one person, it ought also to exhibit to
God but one worship; which then it doth, when it commandeth it to be
exhibited by private men, publicly. And this is public worship; the
property whereof, is to be _uniform_: for those actions that are done
differently, by different men, cannot be said to be a public worship.
And therefore, where many sorts of worship be allowed, proceeding from
the different religions of private men, it cannot be said there is any
public worship, nor that the commonwealth is of any religion at all.
[Sidenote: All attributes depend on the laws civil.]
And because words, and consequently the attributes of God, have their
signification by agreement and constitution of men, those attributes are
to be held significative of honour, that men intend shall so be; and
whatsoever may be done by the wills of particular men, where there is no
law but reason, may be done by the will of the commonwealth, by laws
civil. And because a commonwealth hath no will, nor makes no laws, but
those that are made by the will of him, or them that have the sovereign
power; it followeth that those attributes which the sovereign ordaineth,
in the worship of God, for signs of honour, ought to be taken and used
for such, by private men in their public worship.
[Sidenote: Not all actions.]
But because not all actions are signs by constitution, but some are
naturally signs of honour, others of contumely; these latter, which are
those that men are ashamed to do in the sight of them they reverence,
cannot be made by human power a part of Divine worship; nor the former,
such as are decent, modest, humble behaviour, ever be separated from it.
But whereas there be an infinite number of actions and gestures of an
indifferent nature; such of them as the commonwealth shall ordain to be
publicly and universally in use, as signs of honour, and part of God’s
worship, are to be taken and used for such by the subjects. And that
which is said in the Scripture, _It is better to obey God than man_,
hath place in the kingdom of God by pact, and not by nature.
[Sidenote: Natural punishments.]
Having thus briefly spoken of the natural kingdom of God, and his
natural laws, I will add only to this chapter a short declaration of his
natural punishments. There is no action of man in this life, that is not
the beginning of so long a chain of consequences, as no human providence
is high enough, to give a man a prospect to the end. And in this chain,
there are linked together both pleasing and unpleasing events; in such
manner, as he that will do anything for his pleasure, must engage
himself to suffer all the pains annexed to it; and these pains, are the
natural punishments of those actions, which are the beginning of more
harm than good. And hereby it comes to pass, that intemperance is
naturally punished with diseases; rashness, with mischances; injustice,
with the violence of enemies; pride, with ruin; cowardice, with
oppression; negligent government of princes, with rebellion; and
rebellion, with slaughter. For seeing punishments are consequent to the
breach of laws; natural punishments must be naturally consequent to the
breach of the laws of nature; and therefore follow them as their
natural, not arbitrary effects.
[Sidenote: The conclusion of the second part.]
And thus far concerning the constitution, nature, and right of
sovereigns, and concerning the duty of subjects, derived from the
principles of natural reason. And now, considering how different this
doctrine is, from the practice of the greatest part of the world,
especially of these western parts, that have received their moral
learning from Rome and Athens; and how much depth of moral philosophy is
required, in them that have the administration of the sovereign power; I
am at the point of believing this my labour, as useless, as the
commonwealth of Plato. For he also is of opinion that it is impossible
for the disorders of state, and change of governments by civil war, ever
to be taken away, till sovereigns be philosophers. But when I consider
again, that the science of natural justice, is the only science
necessary for sovereigns and their principal ministers; and that they
need not be charged with the sciences mathematical, as by Plato they
are, farther than by good laws to encourage men to the study of them;
and that neither Plato, nor any other philosopher hitherto, hath put
into order, and sufficiently or probably proved all the theorems of
moral doctrine, that men may learn thereby, both how to govern, and how
to obey; I recover some hope, that one time or other, this writing of
mine may fall into the hands of a sovereign, who will consider it
himself, (for it is short, and I think clear,) without the help of any
interested, or envious interpreter; and by the exercise of entire
sovereignty, in protecting the public teaching of it, convert this truth
of speculation, into the utility of practice.
PART III.
OF A
CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH.
-------
CHAPTER XXXII.
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITICS.
[Sidenote: The word of God delivered by prophets is the main principle
of Christian politics.]
I have derived the rights of sovereign power, and the duty of subjects,
hitherto from the principles of nature only; such as experience has
found true, or consent concerning the use of words has made so; that is
to say, from the nature of men, known to us by experience, and from
definitions of such words as are essential to all political reasoning,
universally agreed on. But in that I am next to handle, which is the
nature and rights of a CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH, whereof there dependeth
much upon supernatural revelations of the will of God; the ground of my
discourse must be, not only the natural word of God, but also the
prophetical.
[Sidenote: Yet is not natural reason to be renounced.]
Nevertheless, we are not to renounce our senses, and experience; nor,
that which is the undoubted word of God, our natural reason. For they
are the talents which he hath put into our hands to negotiate, till the
coming again of our blessed Saviour; and therefore not to be folded up
in the napkin of an implicit faith, but employed in the purchase of
justice, peace, and true religion. For though there be many things in
God’s word above reason; that it is to say, which cannot by natural
reason be either demonstrated, or confuted; yet there is nothing
contrary to it; but when it seemeth so, the fault is either in our
unskilful interpretation, or erroneous ratiocination.
Therefore, when anything therein written is too hard for our
examination, we are bidden to captivate our understanding to the words;
and not to labour in sifting out a philosophical truth by logic, of such
mysteries as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of natural
science. For it is with the mysteries of our religion, as with wholesome
pills for the sick; which swallowed whole, have the virtue to cure; but
chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.
[Sidenote: What it is to captivate the understanding.]
But by the captivity of our understanding, is not meant a submission of
the intellectual faculty to the opinion of any other man; but of the
will to obedience, where obedience is due. For sense, memory,
understanding, reason, and opinion are not in our power to change; but
always, and necessarily such, as the things we see, hear, and consider
suggest unto us; and therefore are not effects of our will, but our will
of them. We then captivate our understanding and reason, when we forbear
contradiction; when we so speak, as by lawful authority we are
commanded; and when we live accordingly; which, in sum, is trust and
faith reposed in him that speaketh, though the mind be incapable of any
notion at all from the words spoken.
[Sidenote: How God speaketh to men.]
When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately; or by mediation
of another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately.
How God speaketh to a man immediately, may be understood by those well
enough, to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood
by another, is hard, if not impossible to know. For if a man pretend to
me, that God hath spoken to him supernaturally and immediately, and I
make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce,
to oblige me to believe it. It is true, that if he be my sovereign, he
may oblige me to obedience, so, as not by act or word to declare I
believe him not; but not to think any otherwise than my reason persuades
me. But if one that hath not such authority over me, should pretend the
same, there is nothing that exacteth either belief, or obedience.
For to say that God hath spoken to him in the Holy Scripture, is not to
say God hath spoken to him immediately, but by mediation of the
prophets, or of the apostles, or of the church, in such manner as he
speaks to all other Christian men. To say he hath spoken to him in a
dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is
not of force to win belief from any man, that knows dreams are for the
most part natural, and may proceed from former thoughts; and such dreams
as that, from self-conceit, and foolish arrogance, and false opinion of
a man’s own godliness, or other virtue, by which he thinks he hath
merited the favour of extraordinary revelation. To say he hath seen a
vision, or heard a voice, is to say, that he hath dreamed between
sleeping and waking: for in such manner a man doth many times naturally
take his dream for a vision, as not having well observed his own
slumbering. To say he speaks by supernatural inspiration, is to say he
finds an ardent desire to speak, or some strong opinion of himself, for
which he can allege no natural and sufficient reason. So that though God
Almighty can speak to a man by dreams, visions, voice, and inspiration;
yet he obliges no man to believe he hath so done to him that pretends
it; who, being a man, may err, and, which is more, may lie.
[Sidenote: By what marks prophets are known.]
How then can he, to whom God hath never revealed his will immediately,
saving by the way of natural reason, know when he is to obey, or not to
obey his word, delivered by him that says he is a prophet? Of four
hundred prophets, of whom the king of Israel asked counsel, concerning
the war he made against Ramoth Gilead, (_1 Kings_, xxii.) only Micaiah
was a true one. The prophet that was sent to prophecy against the altar
set up by Jeroboam, (_1 Kings_, xiii.) though a true prophet, and that
by two miracles done in his presence, appears to be a prophet sent from
God, was yet deceived by another old prophet, that persuaded him as from
the mouth of God, to eat and drink with him. If one prophet deceive
another, what certainty is there of knowing the will of God, by other
way than that of reason? To which I answer out of the Holy Scripture,
that there be two marks, by which together, not asunder, a true prophet
is to be known. One is the doing of miracles; the other is the not
teaching any other religion than that which is already established.
Asunder, I say, neither of these is sufficient. _If a prophet rise
amongst you, or a dreamer of dreams, and shall pretend the doing of a
miracle and the miracle come to pass; if he say, Let us follow strange
Gods, which thou hast not known, thou shalt not hearken to him, &c. But
that prophet and dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he
hath spoken to you to revolt from the Lord your God._ (_Deut._ xiii.
1-5.) In which words two things are to be observed; first, that God will
not have miracles alone serve for arguments, to approve the prophet’s
calling; but, as it is in the third verse, for an experiment of the
constancy of our adherence to himself. For the works of the Egyptian
sorcerers, though not so great as those of Moses, yet were great
miracles. Secondly, that how great soever the miracle be, yet if it tend
to stir up revolt against the king, or him that governeth by the king’s
authority, he that doth such miracle, is not to be considered otherwise
than as sent to make trial of their allegiance. For these words, _revolt
from the Lord your God_, are in this place equivalent to _revolt from
your king_. For they had made God their king by pact at the foot of
Mount Sinai; who ruled them by Moses only; for he only spake with God,
and from time to time declared God’s commandments to the people. In like
manner, after our Saviour Christ had made his disciples acknowledge him
for the Messiah, (that is to say, for God’s anointed, whom the nation of
the Jews daily expected for their king, but refused when he came,) he
omitted not to advertise them of the danger of miracles. _There shall
arise_, saith he, _false Christs, and false prophets, and shall do great
wonders and miracles, even to the seducing, if it were possible, of the
very elect_. (_Matt._ xxiv. 24.) By which it appears, that false
prophets may have the power of miracles; yet are we not to take their
doctrine for God’s word. St. Paul says farther to the Galatians, (_Gal._
i. 8.) that _if himself, or an angel from heaven preach another gospel
to them, than he had preached, let him be accursed_. That gospel was,
that Christ was King; so that all preaching against the power of the
king received, in consequence to these words, is by St. Paul accursed.
For his speech is addressed to those, who by his preaching had already
received Jesus for the Christ, that is to say, for King of the Jews.
[Sidenote: The marks of a prophet in the old law, miracles, and doctrine
comformable to the law.]
And as miracles, without preaching that doctrine which God hath
established; so preaching the true doctrine, without the doing of
miracles, is an insufficient argument of immediate revelation. For if a
man that teacheth not false doctrine, should pretend to be a prophet
without showing any miracle, he is never the more to be regarded for his
pretence, as is evident by _Deut._ xviii. v. 21, 22, _If thou say in thy
heart, How shall we know that the word_ (of the prophet) _is not that
which the Lord hath spoken? when the prophet shall have spoken in the
name of the Lord, that which shall not come to pass, that is the word
which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it out of the
pride of his own heart, fear him not._ But a man may here again ask,
when the prophet hath foretold a thing, how shall we know whether it
will come to pass or not? For he may foretell it as a thing to arrive
after a certain long time, longer than the time of man’s life; or
indefinitely, that it will come to pass one time or other: in which case
this mark of a prophet is unuseful; and therefore the miracles that
oblige us to believe a prophet, ought to be confirmed by an immediate,
or a not long deferred event. So that it is manifest, that the teaching
of the religion which God hath established, and the showing of a present
miracle, joined together, were the only marks whereby the Scripture
would have a true prophet, that is to say, immediate revelation, to be
acknowledged; neither of them being singly sufficient to oblige any
other man to regard what he saith.
[Sidenote: Miracles ceasing, prophets cease, and the Scripture supplies
their place.]
Seeing therefore miracles now cease, we have no sign left, whereby to
acknowledge the pretended revelations or inspirations of any private
man; nor obligation to give ear to any doctrine, farther than it is
conformable to the Holy Scriptures, which since the time of our Saviour,
supply the place, and sufficiently recompense the want of all other
prophecy; and from which, by wise and learned interpretation, and
careful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge
of our duty both to God and man, without enthusiasm or supernatural
inspiration, may easily be deduced. And this Scripture is it, out of
which I am to take the principles of my discourse, concerning the rights
of those that are the supreme governors on earth of Christian
commonwealths; and of the duty of Christian subjects towards their
sovereigns. And to that end, I shall speak in the next chapter, of the
books, writers, scope and authority of the Bible.
-------
CHAPTER XXXIII.
OF THE NUMBER, ANTIQUITY, SCOPE, AUTHORITY
AND INTERPRETERS OF THE BOOKS OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE.
[Sidenote: Of the books of Holy Scripture.]
By the Books of Holy SCRIPTURE, are understood those, which ought to be
the _canon_, that is to say, the rules of Christian life.
And because all rules of life, which men are in conscience bound to
observe, are laws; the question of the Scripture, is the question of
what is law throughout all Christendom, both natural and civil. For
though it be not determined in Scripture, what laws every Christian king
shall constitute in his own dominions; yet it is determined what laws he
shall not constitute. Seeing therefore I have already proved, that
sovereigns in their own dominions are the sole legislators; those books
only are canonical, that is, law, in every nation, which are established
for such by the sovereign authority. It is true, that God is the
sovereign of all sovereigns; and therefore, when he speaks to any
subject, he ought to be obeyed, whatsoever any earthly potentate command
to the contrary. But the question is not of obedience to God, but of
_when_ and _what_ God hath said; which to subjects that have no
supernatural revelation, cannot be known, but by that natural reason,
which guideth them, for the obtaining of peace and justice, to obey the
authority of their several commonwealths, that is to say, of their
lawful sovereigns. According to this obligation, I can acknowledge no
other books of the Old Testament, to be Holy Scripture, but those which
have been commanded to be acknowledged for such, by the authority of the
Church of England. What books these are, is sufficiently known, without
a catalogue of them here; and they are the same that are acknowledged by
St. Jerome, who holdeth the rest, namely, the _Wisdom of Solomon_,
_Ecclesiasticus_, _Judith_, _Tobias_, the first and the second of
_Maccabees_, (though he had seen the first in Hebrew,) and the third and
fourth of _Esdras_, for _Apocrypha_. Of the canonical, Josephus, a
learned Jew, that wrote in the time of the emperor Domitian, reckoneth
_twenty-two_, making the number agree with the Hebrew alphabet. St.
Jerome does the same, though they reckon them in different manner. For
Josephus numbers _five_ Books of _Moses_, _thirteen_ of _Prophets_ that
writ the history of their own times, (which how it agrees with the
prophets’ writings contained in the Bible we shall see hereafter,) and
_four_ of _hymns_ and moral precepts. But St. Jerome reckons _five_
books of _Moses_, _eight_ of _Prophets_, and _nine_ of other Holy Writ,
which he calls of ἁγιόγραφα. The Septuagint, who were seventy learned
men of the Jews, sent for by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to translate the
Jewish law out of the Hebrew into the Greek, have left us no other for
Holy Scripture in the Greek tongue, but the same that are received in
the Church of England.
[Sidenote: Their antiquity.]
As for the Books of the New Testament, they are equally acknowledged for
canon by all Christian churches, and by all sects of Christians, that
admit any books at all for canonical.
Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture,
has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other history,
which is the only proof of matter of fact; nor can be, by any arguments
of natural reason: for reason serves only to convince the truth, not of
fact, but, of consequence. The light therefore that must guide us in
this question, must be that which is held out unto us from the books
themselves: and this light, though it show us not the writer of every
book, yet it is not unuseful to give us knowledge of the time, wherein
they were written.
[Sidenote: The Pentateuch not written by Moses.]
And first, for the _Pentateuch_, it is not argument enough that they
were written by Moses, because they are called the five Books of
_Moses_; no more than these titles, the Book of _Joshua_, the Book of
_Judges_, the Book of _Ruth_, and the Books of the _Kings_, are
arguments sufficient to prove, that they were written by _Joshua_, by
the _Judges_, by _Ruth_, and by the _Kings_. For in titles of books, the
subject is marked, as often as the writer. The history of Livy, denotes
the writer; but the history of Scanderberg, is denominated from the
subject. We read in the last chapter of _Deuteronomy_, verse 6th,
concerning the sepulchre of Moses, _that no man knoweth of his sepulchre
to this day_, that is, to to the day wherein those words were written.
It is therefore manifest, that those words were written after his
interment. For it were a strange interpretation, to say Moses spake of
his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it was not found to that
day, wherein he was yet living. But it may perhaps be alleged, that the
last chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written by some other
man, but the rest not. Let us therefore consider that which we find in
the book of Genesis, (xii. 6.) _And Abraham passed through the land to
the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh, and the_ Canaanite _was
then in the land_; which must needs be the words of one that wrote when
the Canaanite was not in the land; and consequently, not of Moses, who
died before he came into it. Likewise _Numbers_, xxi. 14, the writer
citeth another more ancient book, entitled, _The Book of the Wars of the
Lord_, wherein were registered the acts of Moses, at the Red Sea, and at
the brook of Arnon. It is therefore sufficiently evident, that the five
Books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after it be
not so manifest.
But though Moses did not compile those books entirely, and in the form
we have them; yet he wrote all that which he is there said to have
written: as for example, the Volume of the Law, which is contained, as
it seemeth, in the xith. of _Deuteronomy_, and the following chapters to
the xxviith. which was also commanded to be written on stones, in their
entry into the land of Canaan. And this also did Moses himself write,
(_Deut._ xxxi. 9, 10) and delivered to the priests and elders of Israel,
to be read every seventh year to all Israel, at their assembling in the
Feast of Tabernacles. And this is that law which God commanded, that
their kings, when they should have established that form of government,
should take a copy of from the priests and Levites: and which Moses
commanded the priests and Levites to lay in the side of the ark,
(_Deut._ xxxi. 26); and the same which having been lost, was long time
after found again by Hilkiah, and sent to king Josias (_2 Kings_ xxii.
8) who causing it to be read to the people, (_2 Kings_ xxiii. 1, 2, 3)
renewed the covenant between God and them.
[Sidenote: The book of Joshua written after his time.]
That the book of _Joshua_ was also written long after the time of
Joshua, may be gathered out of many places of the book itself. Joshua
had set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan, for a monument of their
passage; of which the writer saith thus, _They are there unto this day_
(_Josh._ iv. 9); for _unto this day_, is a phrase that signifieth a time
past, beyond the memory of man. In like manner, upon the saying of the
Lord, that he had rolled off from the people the reproach of Egypt, the
writer saith, _The place is called Gilgal unto this day_ (_Josh._ v. 9);
which to have said in the time of Joshua had been improper. So also the
name of the valley of Achor, from the trouble that Achan raised in the
camp, the writer saith, _remaineth unto this day_ (_Josh._ vii. 26);
which must needs be therefore long after the time of Joshua. Arguments
of this kind there be many other; as _Josh._ viii. 29, xiii. 13, xiv.
14, xv. 63.
[Sidenote: The books of Judges and Ruth written long after the
captivity.]
The same is manifest by like arguments of the book of _Judges_, chap. i.
21, 26, vi. 24, x. 4, xv. 19, xvii. 6, and _Ruth_ i. 1; but especially
_Judg._ xviii. 30, where it is said, that _Jonathan and his sons were
priests to the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of the
land_.
[Sidenote: The like of the books of Samuel.]
That the books of _Samuel_ were also written after his own time, there
are the like arguments, _1 Sam._ v. 5, vii. 13, 15; xxvii, 6, and xxx.
25, where, after David had adjudged equal part of the spoils, to them
that guarded the ammunition, with them that fought, the writer saith,
_He made it a statute and an ordinance to Israel to this day_. Again,
when David, displeased, that the Lord had slain Uzzah, for putting out
his hand to sustain the ark, called the place Perez-Uzzah, the writer
saith, (_2 Sam._ vi. 8) it is called so _to this day_: the time
therefore of the writing of that book, must be long after the time of
the fact; that is, long after the time of David.
[Sidenote: The books of the Kings, and the Chronicles.]
As for the two books of the _Kings_, and the two books of the
_Chronicles_, besides the places which mention such monuments, as the
writer saith, remained till his own days; such as are _1 Kings_ ix. 13,
ix. 21, x. 12, xii. 19. _2 Kings_ ii. 22, viii. 22, x. 27, xiv. 7, xvi.
6, xvii. 23, xvii. 34, xvii. 41, and _1 Chron._ iv. 41, v. 26: it is
argument sufficient they were written after the captivity in Babylon,
that the history of them is continued till that time. For the facts
registered are always more ancient than the register; and much more
ancient than such books as make mention of, and quote the register; as
these books do in divers places, referring the reader to the Chronicles
of the Kings of Judah, to the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, to the
Books of the prophet Samuel, of the prophet Nathan, of the prophet
Ahijah; to the Vision of Jehdo, to the books of the prophet Serveiah,
and of the prophet Addo.
[Sidenote: Ezra and Nehemiah.]
The books of _Ezra_ and _Nehemiah_ were written certainly after their
return from captivity; because their return, the re-edification of the
walls and houses of Jerusalem, the renovation of the covenant, and
ordination of their policy, are therein contained.
[Sidenote: Esther.]
The history of _Queen Esther_ is of the time of the captivity; and
therefore the writer must have been of the same time, or after it.
[Sidenote: Job.]
The book of _Job_ hath no mark in it of the time wherein it was written;
and though it appear sufficiently (_Ezekiel_ xiv. 14, and _James_ v. 11)
that he was no feigned person; yet the book itself seemeth not to be a
history, but a treatise concerning a question in ancient time much
disputed, _why wicked men have often prospered in this world, and good
men have been afflicted_; and this is the more probable, because from
the beginning, to the third verse of the third chapter, where the
complaint of Job beginneth, the Hebrew is, as St. Jerome testifies, in
prose; and from thence to the sixth verse of the last chapter, in
hexameter verses; and the rest of that chapter again in prose. So that
the dispute is all in verse; and the prose is added, but as a preface in
the beginning, and an epilogue in the end. But verse is no usual style
of such, as either are themselves in great pain, as Job; or of such as
come to comfort them, as his friends; but in philosophy, especially
moral philosophy, in ancient time frequent.
[Sidenote: The Psalter.]
The _Psalms_ were written the most part by David, for the use of the
quire. To these are added some songs of Moses, and other holy men; and
some of them after the return from the captivity, as the 137th and the
126th, whereby it is manifest that the Psalter was compiled, and put
into the form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon.
[Sidenote: The Proverbs.]
The _Proverbs_, being a collection of wise and godly sayings, partly of
Solomon, partly of Agur, the son of Jakeh, and partly of the mother of
king Lemuel, cannot probably be thought to have been collected by
Solomon, rather than by Agur, or the mother of Lemuel; and that, though
the sentences be theirs, yet the collection or compiling them into this
one book, was the work of some other godly man, that lived after them
all.
[Sidenote: Ecclesiastes and the Canticles.]
The books of _Ecclesiastes_ and the _Canticles_ have nothing that was
not Solomon’s, except it be the titles, or inscriptions. For _The Words
of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem_; and, _The Song of
Songs_, which is Solomon’s, seem to have been made for distinction’s
sake, then, when the Books of Scripture were gathered into one body of
the law; to the end, that not the doctrine only, but the authors also
might be extant.
[Sidenote: Prophets.]
Of the prophets, the most ancient, are Zephaniah, Jonah, Amos, Hosea,
Isaiah, and Michah, who lived in the time of Amaziah and Azariah,
otherwise Ozias, kings of Judah. But the book of Jonah is not properly a
register of his prophecy; for that is contained in these few words,
_Forty days and Niniveh shall be destroyed_; but a history or narration
of his frowardness and disputing God’s commandments; so that there is
small probability he should be the author, seeing he is the subject of
it. But the book of _Amos_ is his prophecy.
Jeremiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk prophecied in the time of Josiah.
Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, and Zechariah, in the captivity.
When Joel and Malachi prophecied, is not evident by their writings. But
considering the inscriptions, or titles of their books, it is manifest
enough, that the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, was set forth in
the form we have it, after the return of the Jews from their captivity
in Babylon, and before the time of Ptolomæus Philadelphus, that caused
it to be translated into Greek by seventy men, which were sent him out
of Judea for that purpose. And if the books of Apocrypha, which are
recommended to us by the church, though not for canonical, yet for
profitable books for our instruction, may in this point be credited, the
Scripture was set forth in the form we have it in, by Esdras: as may
appear by that which he himself saith, in the second book, (chapter xiv.
verse 21, 22, &c.) where speaking to God, he saith thus, _Thy law is
burnt; therefore no man knoweth the things which thou hast done, or the
works that are to begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send
down the holy spirit into me, and I shall write all that hath been done
in the world, since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that
men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter day,
may live._ And verse 45: _And it came to pass when the forty days were
fulfilled, that the highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast
written, publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it; but
keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be
wise among the people_. And thus much concerning the time of the writing
of the books of the Old Testament.
[Sidenote: The New Testament.]
The writers of the New Testament lived all in less than an age after
Christ’s ascension, and had all of them seen our Saviour, or been his
disciples, except St. Paul, and St. Luke; and consequently whatsoever
was written by them, is as ancient as the time of the apostles. But the
time wherein the books of the New Testament were received, and
acknowledged by the church to be of their writing, is not altogether so
ancient. For, as the books of the Old Testament are derived to us, from
no other time than that of Esdras, who by the direction of God’s spirit
retrieved them, when they were lost: those of the New Testament, of
which the copies were not many, nor could easily be all in any one
private man’s hand, cannot be derived from a higher time, than that
wherein the governors of the church collected, approved, and recommended
them to us, as the writings of those apostles and disciples, under whose
names they go. The first enumeration of all the books, both of the Old
and New Testament, is in the canons of the apostles, supposed to be
collected by Clement, the first (after St. Peter) bishop of Rome. But
because that is but supposed, and by many questioned, the Council of
Laodicea is the first we know, that recommended the Bible to the then
Christian churches, for the writings of the prophets and apostles: and
this Council was held in the 364th year after Christ. At which time,
though ambition had so far prevailed on the great doctors of the church,
as no more to esteem emperors, though Christian, for the shepherds of
the people, but for sheep; and emperors not Christian, for wolves; and
endeavoured to pass their doctrine, not for counsel and information, as
preachers; but for laws, as absolute governors; and thought such frauds
as tended to make the people the more obedient to Christian doctrine, to
be pious; yet I am persuaded they did not therefore falsify the
Scriptures, though the copies of the books of the New Testament, were in
the hands only of the ecclesiastics; because if they had had an
intention so to do, they would surely have made them more favourable to
their power over Christian princes, and civil sovereignty, than they
are. I see not therefore any reason to doubt but that the Old and New
Testament, as we have them now, are the true registers of those things,
which were done and said by the prophets and apostles. And so perhaps
are some of those books which are called apocrypha, and left out of the
canon, not for inconformity of doctrine with the rest, but only because
they are not found in the Hebrew. For after the conquest of Asia by
Alexander the Great, there were few learned Jews, that were not perfect
in the Greek tongue. For the seventy interpreters that converted the
Bible into Greek, were all of them Hebrews; and we have extant the works
of Philo and Josephus, both Jews, written by them eloquently in Greek.
[Sidenote: Their scope.] But it is not the writer, but the authority of
the church, that maketh the book canonical. And although these books
were written by divers men, yet it is manifest the writers were all
indued with one and the same spirit, in that they conspire to one and
the same end, which is setting forth of the rights of the kingdom of
God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For the book of _Genesis_,
deriveth the genealogy of God’s people, from the creation of the world,
to the going into Egypt: the other four books of Moses contain the
election of God for their king, and the laws which he prescribed for
their government: the books of _Joshua_, _Judges_, _Ruth_, and _Samuel_,
to the time of Saul, describe the acts of God’s people, till the time
they cast off God’s yoke, and called for a king, after the manner of
their neighbour nations. The rest of the history of the Old Testament
derives the succession of the line of David, to the captivity, out of
which line was to spring the restorer of the kingdom of God, even our
blessed Saviour God the Son, whose coming was foretold in the books of
the prophets, after whom the Evangelists write his life, and actions,
and his claim to the kingdom, whilst he lived on earth: and lastly, the
_Acts_, and _Epistles_ of the Apostles, declare the coming of God the
Holy Ghost, and the authority he left with them and their successors,
for the direction of the Jews, and for the invitation of the Gentiles.
In sum, the histories and the prophecies of the Old Testament, and the
gospels and epistles of the New Testament, have had one and the same
scope, to convert men to the obedience of God; I., in Moses, and the
Priests; II., in the man Christ; and III., in the Apostles and the
successors to apostolical power. For these three at several times did
represent the person of God: Moses, and his successors the High Priests,
and Kings of Judah, in the Old Testament: Christ himself, in the time he
lived on earth: and the Apostles, and their successors, from the day of
Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended on them, to this day.
[Sidenote: The question of the authority of the Scriptures stated.]
It is a question much disputed between the divers sects of Christian
religion, _from whence the Scriptures derive their authority_; which
question is also propounded sometimes in other terms, as, _how we know
them to be the word of God_, or, _why we believe them to be so_: and the
difficulty of resolving it, ariseth chiefly from the improperness of the
words wherein the question itself is couched. For it is believed on all
hands, that the first and original _author_ of them is God; and
consequently the question disputed, is not that. Again, it is manifest,
that none can know they are God’s word, (though all true Christians
believe it,) but those to whom God himself hath revealed it
supernaturally; and therefore the question is not rightly moved, of our
_knowledge_ of it. Lastly, when the question is propounded of our
_belief_; because some are moved to believe for one, and others for
other reasons; there can be rendered no one general answer for them all.
The question truly stated is, _by what authority they are made law_.
[Sidenote: Their authority and interpretation.]
As far as they differ not from the laws of nature, there is no doubt,
but they are the law of God, and carry their authority with them,
legible to all men that have the use of natural reason: but this is no
other authority, than that of all other moral doctrine consonant to
reason; the dictates whereof are laws, not _made_, but _eternal_.
If they be made law by God himself, they are of the nature of written
law, which are laws to them only to whom God hath so sufficiently
published them, as no man can excuse himself, by saying, he knew not
they were his.
He therefore to whom God hath not supernaturally revealed that they are
his, nor that those that published them, were sent by him, is not
obliged to obey them, by any authority, but his, whose commands have
already the force of laws; that is to say, by any other authority, than
that of the commonwealth, residing in the sovereign, who only has the
legislative power. Again, if it be not the legislative authority of the
commonwealth, that giveth them the force of laws, it must be some other
authority derived from God, either private, or public: if private, it
obliges only him, to whom in particular God hath been pleased to reveal
it. For if every man should be obliged, to take for God’s law, what
particular men, on pretence of private inspiration, or revelation,
should obtrude upon him, in such a number of men, that out of pride and
ignorance, take their own dreams, and extravagant fancies, and madness,
for testimonies of God’s spirit; or out of ambition, pretend to such
divine testimonies, falsely, and contrary to their own consciences, it
were impossible that any divine law should be acknowledged. If public,
it is the authority of the _commonwealth_, or of the _church_. But the
church, if it be one person, is the same thing with a commonwealth of
Christians; called a _commonwealth_, because it consisteth of men united
in one person, their sovereign; and a _church_, because it consisteth in
Christian men, united in one Christian sovereign. But if the church be
not one person, then it hath no authority at all: it can neither
command, nor do any action at all; nor is capable of having any power,
or right to anything: nor has any will, reason nor voice; for all these
qualities are personal. Now if the whole number of Christians be not
contained in one commonwealth, they are not one person; nor is there an
universal church that hath any authority over them; and therefore the
Scriptures are not made laws, by the universal church: or if it be one
commonwealth, then all Christian monarchs and states are private
persons, and subject to be judged, deposed, and punished by an universal
sovereign of all Christendom. So that the question of the authority of
the Scriptures, is reduced to this, _whether Christian kings, and the
sovereign assemblies in Christian commonwealths, be absolute in their
own territories, immediately under God; or subject to one vicar of
Christ, constituted of the universal church; to be judged, condemned,
deposed, and put to death, as he shall think expedient, or necessary for
the common good_.
Which question cannot be resolved, without a more particular
consideration of the Kingdom of God; from whence also, we are to judge
of the authority of interpreting the Scripture. For, whosoever hath a
lawful power over any writing, to make it law, hath the power also to
approve, or disapprove the interpretation of the same.
-------
CHAPTER XXXIV.
OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF SPIRIT, ANGEL,
AND INSPIRATION IN THE BOOKS OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE.
[Sidenote: Body and spirit how taken in the Scripture.]
Seeing the foundation of all true ratiocination, is the constant
signification of words; which in the doctrine following, dependeth not,
as in natural science, on the will of the writer, nor, as in common
conversation, on vulgar use, but on the sense they carry in the
Scripture; it is necessary, before I proceed any further, to determine,
out of the Bible, the meaning of such words, as by their ambiguity, may
render what I am to infer upon them, obscure, or disputable. I will
begin with the words BODY and SPIRIT, which in the language of the
Schools are termed, _substances_, _corporeal_, and _incorporeal_.
[Sidenote: Body and spirit how taken in the Scripture.]
The word _body_, in the most general acceptation, signifieth that which
filleth, or occupieth some certain room, or imagined place; and
dependeth not on the imagination, but is a real part of that we call the
_universe_. For the _universe_, being the aggregate of all bodies, there
is no real part thereof that is not also _body_; nor any thing properly
a _body_, that is not also part of that aggregate of all _bodies_, the
_universe_. The same also, because bodies are subject to change, that is
to say, to variety of apparence to the sense of living creatures, is
called _substance_, that is to say, _subject_ to various accidents: as
sometimes to be moved; sometimes to stand still; and to seem to our
senses sometimes hot, sometimes cold, sometimes of one colour, smell,
taste, or sound, sometimes of another. And this diversity of seeming,
produced by the diversity of the operation of bodies on the organs of
our sense, we attribute to alterations of the bodies that operate, and
call them _accidents_ of those bodies. And according to this acceptation
of the word, _substance_ and _body_ signify the same thing; and
therefore _substance incorporeal_ are words, which when they are joined
together, destroy one another, as if a man should say, an _incorporeal
body_.
But in the sense of common people, not all the universe is called body,
but only such parts thereof as they can discern by the sense of feeling,
to resist their force, or by the sense of their eyes, to hinder them
from a farther prospect. Therefore in the common language of men, _air_,
and _aerial substances_, use not to be taken for _bodies_, but (as often
as men are sensible of their effects) are called _wind_, or _breath_, or
(because the same are called in the Latin _spiritus_) _spirits_; as when
they call that aerial substance, which in the body of any living
creature gives it life and motion, _vital_ and _animal spirits_. But for
those idols of the brain, which represent bodies to us, where they are
not, as in a looking-glass, in a dream, or to a distempered brain
waking, they are, as the apostle saith generally of all idols, nothing;
nothing at all, I say, there where they seem to be; and in the brain
itself, nothing but tumult, proceeding either from the action of the
objects, or from the disorderly agitation of the organs of our sense.
And men, that are otherwise employed, than to search into their causes,
know not of themselves, what to call them; and may therefore easily be
persuaded, by those whose knowledge they much reverence, some to call
them _bodies_, and think them made of air compacted by a power
supernatural, because the sight judges them corporeal; and some to call
them _spirits_, because the sense of touch discerneth nothing in the
place where they appear, to resist their fingers: so that the proper
signification of _spirit_ in common speech, is either a subtle, fluid,
and invisible body, or a ghost, or other idol or phantasm of the
imagination. But for metaphorical significations, there be many: for
sometimes it is taken for disposition or inclination of the mind; as
when for the disposition to controul the sayings of other men, we say,
_a spirit of contradiction_; for _a disposition to uncleanness_, _an
unclean spirit_; for _perverseness_, _a froward spirit_; for
_sullenness_, _a dumb spirit_; and for _inclination to godliness and
God’s service_, _the Spirit of God_: sometimes for any eminent ability
or extraordinary passion, or disease of the mind, as when _great wisdom_
is called _the spirit of wisdom_; and _madmen_ are said to be _possessed
with a spirit_.
Other signification of _spirit_ I find nowhere any; and where none of
these can satisfy the sense of that word in Scripture, the place falleth
not under human understanding; and our faith therein consisteth not in
our opinion, but in our submission; as in all places where God is said
to be a _Spirit_; or where by the _Spirit of God_, is meant God himself.
For the nature of God is incomprehensible; that is to say, we understand
nothing of _what he is_, but only _that he is_; and therefore the
attributes we give him, are not to tell one another, _what he is_, nor
to signify our opinion of his nature, but our desire to honour him with
such names as we conceive most honourable amongst ourselves.
[Sidenote: The spirit of God taken in the Scripture sometimes for a
wind, or breath.]
_Gen._ i. 2. _The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters._ Here
if by the _Spirit of God_ be meant God himself, then is _motion_
attributed to God, and consequently _place_, which are intelligible only
of bodies, and not of substances incorporeal; and so the place is above
our understanding, that can conceive nothing moved that changes not
place, or that has not dimension; and whatsoever has dimension, is body.
But the meaning of those words is best understood by the like place,
(_Gen._ viii. 1.) where when the earth was covered with waters, as in
the beginning, God intending to abate them, and again to discover the
dry land, useth the like words, _I will bring my Spirit upon the earth,
and the waters shall be diminished_: in which place, by _Spirit_ is
understood a wind, that is an air or _spirit moved_, which might be
called, as in the former place, the _Spirit of God_, because it was
God’s work.
[Sidenote: Secondly, for extraordinary gifts of the understanding.]
Gen. xli. 38, Pharoah calleth the Wisdom of Joseph, the _Spirit of God_.
For Joseph having advised him to look out a wise and discreet man, and
to set him over the land of Egypt, he saith thus, _Can we find such a
man as this is, in whom is the Spirit of God?_ And _Exod._ xxviii. 3,
_Thou shalt speak_, saith God, _to all the wise hearted, whom I have
filled with the spirit of wisdom, to make Aaron garments, to consecrate
him_: where extraordinary understanding, though but in making garments,
as being the _gift_ of God, is called the _Spirit of God_. The same is
found again, _Exod._ xxxi. 3, 4, 5, 6, _and_ xxxv. 31. And _Isaiah_ xi.
2, 3, where the prophet speaking of the Messiah, saith, _the Spirit of
the Lord shall abide upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and fortitude, and the spirit of the fear of the
Lord_. Where manifestly is meant, not so many ghosts, but so many
eminent graces that God would give him.
[Sidenote: Thirdly, for extraordinary affections.]
In the book of _Judges_, an extraordinary zeal and courage in the
defence of God’s people, is called the _Spirit_ of God; as when it
excited Othniel, Gideon, Jephtha, and Sampson to deliver them from
servitude, _Judges_, iii. 10, vi. 34, xi. 29, xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19. And
of Saul, upon the news of the insolence of the Ammonites towards the men
of Jabesh Gilead, it is said, (_1 Sam._ xi. 6) that _the Spirit of God
came upon Saul, and his anger_, (or, as it is in the Latin, _his fury_),
_was kindled greatly_. Where it is not probable was meant a ghost, but
an extraordinary _zeal_ to punish the cruelty of the Ammonites. In like
manner by the _Spirit_ of God, that came upon Saul, when he was amongst
the prophets that praised God in songs and music, (_1 Sam._ xix. 23), is
to be understood, not a ghost, but an unexpected and sudden _zeal_ to
join with them in their devotion.
[Sidenote: Fourthly, for the gift of prediction by dreams and visions.]
The false prophet Zedekiah saith to Micaiah (_1 Kings_ xxii. 24), _which
way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee?_ Which can not
be understood of a ghost; for Micaiah declared before the kings of
Israel and Judah, the event of the battle, as from a _vision_, and not
as from a _spirit_ speaking in him.
In the same manner it appeareth in the books of the Prophets, that
though they spake by the _spirit_ of God, that is to say, by a special
grace of prediction; yet their knowledge of the future, was not by a
ghost within them, but by some supernatural _dream_ or _vision_.
[Sidenote: Fifthly, for life.]
_Gen._ ii. 7, it is said, _God made man of the dust of the earth, and
breathed into his nostrils_ (spiraculum vitæ) _the breath of life, and
man was made a living soul_. There the _breath of life_ inspired by God,
signifies no more, but that God gave him life; and (_Job_ xxvii. 3) _as
long as the Spirit of God is in my nostrils_, is no more than to say,
_as long as I live_. So in _Ezek._ i. 20, _the spirit of life was in the
wheels_, is equivalent to, _the wheels were alive_. And, (_Ezek._ ii. 2)
_the Spirit entered into me, and set me on my feet_, that is, _I
recovered my vital strength_; not that any ghost or incorporeal
substance entered into, and possessed his body.
[Sidenote: Sixthly, for a subordination to authority.]
In the xith chap. of _Numbers_, v. 17, _I will take_, saith God, _of the
Spirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall
bear the burthen of the people with thee_; that is, upon the seventy
elders: whereupon two of the seventy are said to prophecy in the camp;
of whom some complained, and Joshua desired Moses to forbid them; which
Moses would not do. Whereby it appears, that Joshua knew not that they
had received authority so to do, and prophecied according to the mind of
Moses, that is to say, by a _spirit_, or _authority_ subordinate to his
own.
In the like sense we read, (_Deut._ xxxiv. 9) that _Joshua was full of
the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him_: that
is because he was _ordained_ by Moses, to prosecute the work he had
himself begun, namely the bringing of God’s people into the promised
land, but prevented by death, could not finish.
In the like sense it is said, (_Rom._ viii. 9) _If any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his_: not meaning thereby the _ghost_ of
Christ, but a _submission_ to his doctrine. As also, (_1 John_ iv. 2)
_Hereby you shall know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God_; by which is meant
the spirit of unfeigned Christianity, or _submission_ to that main
article of Christian faith, that Jesus is the Christ; which cannot be
interpreted of a ghost.
Likewise these words, (_Luke_ iv. 1) _And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost_,
(that is, as it is expressed, _Matt._ iv. 1, and _Mark_ i. 12, _of the
Holy Spirit_,) may be understood, for _zeal_ to do the work for which he
was sent by God the Father: but to interpret it of a ghost, is to say,
that God himself, for so our Saviour was, was filled with God; which is
very improper and insignificant. How we came to translate _spirits_, by
the word _ghosts_, which signifieth nothing, neither in heaven, nor
earth, but the imaginary inhabitants of man’s brain, I examine not: but
this I say, the word _spirit_ in the text signifieth no such thing; but
either properly a real _substance_, or metaphorically, some
extraordinary _ability_ or _affection_ of the mind, or of the body.
[Sidenote: Seventhly, for aerial bodies.]
The disciples of Christ, seeing him walking upon the sea, (_Matt._ xiv.
26, and _Mark_ vi. 49) supposed him to be a _Spirit_, meaning thereby an
aerial _body_, and not a phantasm; for it is said, they all saw him;
which cannot be understood of the delusions of the brain, (which are not
common to many at once, as visible bodies are; but singular, because of
the differences of fancies,) but of bodies only. In like manner, where
he was taken for a _spirit_, by the same apostles, (_Luke_ xxiv. 37): so
also (_Acts_ xii. 15) when St. Peter was delivered out of prison, it
would not be believed; but when the maid said he was at the door, they
said it was his _angel_; by which must be meant a corporeal substance,
or we must say, the disciples themselves did follow the common opinion
of both Jews and Gentiles, that some such apparitions were not
imaginary, but real, and such as needed not the fancy of man for their
existence. These the Jews called _spirits_, and _angels_, good or bad;
as the Greeks called the same by the name of _demons_. And some such
apparitions may be real, and substantial; that is to say, subtle bodies,
which God can form by the same power, by which he formed all things, and
make use of, as of ministers, and messengers, that is to say, angels, to
declare his will, and execute the same when he pleaseth, in
extraordinary and supernatural manner. But when he hath so formed them,
they are substances, endued with dimensions, and take up room, and can
be moved from place to place, which is peculiar to bodies; and therefore
are not ghosts _incorporeal_, that is to say, ghosts that are in _no
place_; that is to say, that are _no where_; that is to say, that
seeming to be _somewhat_, are _nothing_. But if corporeal be taken in
the most vulgar manner, for such substances as are perceptible by our
external senses; then is substance incorporeal, a thing not imaginary,
but real; namely, a thin substance invisible, but that hath the same
dimensions that are in grosser bodies.
[Sidenote: Angel, what.]
By the name of ANGEL, is signified generally, a _messenger_; and most
often, a _messenger of God_; and by a messenger of God, is signified,
any thing that makes known his extraordinary presence; that is to say,
the extraordinary manifestation of his power, especially by a dream or
vision.
Concerning the creation of _angels_, there is nothing delivered in the
Scriptures. That they are spirits, is often repeated: but by the name of
spirit, is signified both in Scripture, and vulgarly, both amongst Jews
and Gentiles, sometimes thin bodies: as the air, the wind, the spirits
vital and animal of living creatures; and sometimes the images that rise
in the fancy in dreams and visions; which are not real substances, nor
last any longer than the dream, or vision they appear in; which
apparitions, though no real substances, but accidents of the brain; yet
when God raiseth them supernaturally, to signify his will, they are not
improperly termed God’s messengers, that is to say, his _angels_.
And as the Gentiles did vulgarly conceive the imagery of the brain, for
things really subsistent without them, and not dependent on the fancy;
and out of them framed their opinions of _demons_, good and evil; which
because they seemed to subsist really, they called _substances_; and,
because they could not feel them with their hands, _incorporeal_: so
also the Jews, upon the same ground, without any thing in the Old
Testament that constrained them thereunto, had generally an opinion,
except the sect of the Sadducees, that those apparitions, which it
pleased God sometimes to produce in the fancy of men, for his own
service, and therefore called them his _angels_, were substances, not
dependent on the fancy, but permanent creatures of God; whereof those
which they thought were good to them, they esteemed the _angels of God_,
and those they thought would hurt them, they called _evil angels_, or
evil spirits; such as was the spirit of Python, and the spirits of
madmen, of lunatics and epileptics: for they esteemed such as were
troubled with such diseases, _demoniacs_.
But if we consider the places of the Old Testament where angels are
mentioned, we shall find, that in most of them, there can nothing else
be understood by the word _angel_, but some image raised,
supernaturally, in the fancy, to signify the presence of God in the
execution of some supernatural work; and therefore in the rest, where
their nature is not expressed, it may be understood in the same manner.
For we read, (_Gen._ xvi.) that the same apparition is called, not only
an _angel_, but _God_; where that which (verse 7) is called the _angel_
of the Lord, in the tenth verse, saith to Agar, _I will multiply thy
seed exceedingly_; that is, speaketh in the person of God. Neither was
this apparition a fancy figured, but a voice. By which it is manifest,
that _angel_ signifieth there, nothing but _God_ himself, that caused
Agar supernaturally to apprehend a voice from heaven; or rather, nothing
else but a voice supernatural, testifying God’s special presence there.
Why therefore may not the angels that appeared to Lot, and are called
(_Gen._ xix. 12) _men_; and to whom, though they were two, Lot speaketh
(verse 18) as but to one, and that one, as God, (for the words are, _Lot
said unto them, Oh not so my Lord_), be understood of images of men,
supernaturally formed in the fancy; as well as before by angel was
understood a fancied voice? When the angel called to Abraham out of
heaven, to stay his hand (_Gen._ xxii. 11) from slaying Isaac, there was
no apparition, but a voice; which nevertheless was called properly
enough a messenger or _angel_ of God, because it declared God’s will
supernaturally, and saves the labour of supposing any permanent ghosts.
The angels which Jacob saw on the ladder of Heaven, (_Gen._ xxviii. 12)
were a vision of his sleep; therefore only fancy, and a dream; yet being
supernatural, and signs of God’s special presence, those apparitions are
not improperly called _angels_. The same is to be understood, (_Gen._
xxxi. 11) where Jacob saith thus, _The Angel of the Lord appeared to me
in my sleep_. For an apparition made to a man in his sleep, is that
which all men call a dream, whether such dream be natural, or
supernatural: and that which there Jacob calleth an _angel_, was God
himself; for the same angel saith, verse 13, _I am the God of Bethel_.
Also (_Exod._ xiv. 19) the angel that went before the army of Israel to
the Red Sea, and then came behind it, is, (verse 24) the Lord himself;
and he appeared, not in the form of a beautiful man, but in form,
(_Exod._ xiii. 21) by day, of a _pillar of cloud_, and, by night, in
form of a _pillar of fire_; and yet this pillar was all the apparition
and _angel_ promised to Moses, (_Exod._ xxxiii. 2) for the army’s guide:
for this cloudy pillar (_Exod._ xxxiii. 9) is said to have descended,
and stood at the door of the Tabernacle, and to have talked with Moses.
There you see motion and speech, which are commonly attributed to
angels, attributed to a cloud, because the cloud served as a sign of
God’s presence; and was no less an angel, than if it had had the form of
a man, or child of never so great beauty; or wings, as usually they are
painted, for the false instruction of common people. For it is not the
shape; but their use that makes them angels. But their use is to be
significations of God’s presence in supernatural operations; as when
Moses (_Exod._ xxxiii. 14) had desired God to go along with the camp, as
he had done always before the making of the golden calf, God did not
answer, _I will go_, nor, _I will send an angel in my stead_; but thus,
_My presence shall go with thee_.
To mention all the places of the Old Testament where the name of angel
is found, would be too long. Therefore to comprehend them all at once, I
say, there is no text in that part of the Old Testament, which the
Church of England holdeth for canonical, from which we can conclude,
there is, or hath been created, any permanent thing, understood by the
name of _spirit_ or _angel_, that hath not quantity; and that may not be
by the understanding divided; that is to say, considered by parts; so as
one part may be in one place, and the next part in the next place to it;
and, in sum, which is not (taking body for that, which is somewhat or
some where,) corporeal; but in every place, the sense will bear the
interpretation of angel, for messenger; as John Baptist is called an
angel, and Christ the Angel of the Covenant; and as, according to the
same analogy, the dove and the fiery tongues, in that they were signs of
God’s special presence, might also be called angels. Though we find in
_Daniel_ two names of angels, Gabriel and Michael; yet it is clear out
of the text itself, (_Dan._ xii. 1) that by Michael is meant Christ, not
as an angel, but as a prince: and that Gabriel, as the like apparitions
made to other holy men in their sleep, was nothing but a supernatural
phantasm, by which it seemed to Daniel, in his dream, that two saints
being in talk, one of them said to the other, _Gabriel, Let us make this
man understand his vision_: for God needeth not to distinguish his
celestial servants by names, which are useful only to the short memories
of mortals. Nor in the New Testament is there any place, out of which it
can be proved, that angels, except when they are put for such men as God
hath made the messengers and ministers of his word or works, are things
permanent, and withal incorporeal. That they are permanent, may be
gathered from the words of our Saviour himself, (_Matt._ xxv. 41) where
he saith, it shall be said to the wicked in the last day, _Go ye cursed
into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels_: which
place is manifest for the permanence of evil angels, (unless we might
think the name of Devil and his angels may be understood of the Church’s
adversaries and their ministers); but then it is repugnant to their
immateriality; because everlasting fire is no punishment to impatible
substances, such as are all things incorporeal. Angels therefore are not
thence proved to be incorporeal. In like manner where St. Paul says, (_1
Cor._ vi. 3) _Know ye not that we shall judge the angels?_ and _2 Pet._
ii. 4, _For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down
into hell_: and (_Jude_ i. 6) _And the angels that kept not their first
estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting
chains under darkness unto the judgment of the last day_: though it
prove the permanence of angelical nature, it confirmeth also their
materiality. And (_Matt._ xxii. 30) _In the resurrection men do neither
marry nor give in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven_: but
in the resurrection men shall be permanent, and not incorporeal; so
therefore also are the angels.
There be divers other places out of which may be drawn the like
conclusion. To men that understand the signification of these words,
_substance_, and _incorporeal_; as _incorporeal_ is taken, not for
subtle body, but for _not body_; they imply a contradiction: insomuch as
to say, an angel or spirit is in that sense an incorporeal substance, is
to say in effect, there is no angel nor spirit at all. Considering
therefore the signification of the word _angel_ in the Old Testament,
and the nature of dreams and visions that happen to men by the ordinary
way of nature; I was inclined to this opinion, that angels were nothing
but supernatural apparitions of the fancy, raised by the special and
extraordinary operation of God, thereby to make his presence and
commandments known to mankind, and chiefly to his own people. But the
many places of the New Testament, and our Saviour’s own words, and in
such texts, wherein is no suspicion of corruption of the Scripture, have
extorted from my feeble reason, an acknowledgment and belief, that there
be also angels substantial, and permanent. But to believe they be in no
place, that is to say, no where, that is to say, nothing, as they,
though indirectly, say, that will have them incorporeal, cannot by
Scripture be evinced.
[Sidenote: Inspiration, what.]
On the signification of the word _spirit_, dependeth that of the word
INSPIRATION; which must either be taken properly; and then it is nothing
but the blowing into a man some thin and subtle air or wind, in such
manner as a man filleth a bladder with his breath; or if spirits be not
corporeal, but have their existence only in the fancy, it is nothing but
the blowing in of a phantasm; which is improper to say, and impossible;
for phantasms are not, but only seem to be, somewhat. That word
therefore is used in the Scripture metaphorically only: as (_Gen._ ii.
7) where it is said that God _inspired_ into man the breath of life, no
more is meant, than that God gave unto him vital motion. For we are not
to think that God made first a living breath and then blew it into Adam
after he was made, whether that breath were real, or seeming; but only
as it is, (_Acts_ xvii. 25) _that he gave him life, and breath_; that
is, made him a living creature. And where it is said, (_2 Tim._ iii. 16)
_all Scripture is given by inspiration from God_, speaking there of the
Scripture of the Old Testament, it is an easy metaphor, to signify, that
God inclined the spirit or mind of those writers, to write that which
should be useful, in teaching, reproving, correcting, and instructing
men in the way of righteous living. But where St. Peter, (_2 Pet._ i.
21) saith, that _Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but
the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit_, by the
Holy Spirit is meant the voice of God in a dream or vision supernatural,
which is not _inspiration_. Nor, when our Saviour breathing on his
disciples, said, _Receive the Holy Spirit_, was that breath the Spirit,
but a sign of the spiritual graces he gave unto them. And though it be
said of many, and of our Saviour himself, that he was full of the Holy
Spirit; yet that fulness is not to be understood for _infusion_ of the
substance of God, but for accumulation of his gifts, such as are the
gift of sanctity of life, of tongues, and the like, whether attained
supernaturally, or by study and industry; for in all cases they are the
gifts of God. So likewise where God says (_Joel_ ii. 28) _I will pour
out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see
visions_, we are not to understand it in the proper sense, as if his
_Spirit_ were like water, subject to effusion or infusion; but as if God
had promised to give them prophetical dreams, and visions. For the
proper use of the word _infused_, in speaking of the graces of God, is
an abuse of it; for those graces are virtues, not bodies to be carried
hither and thither, and to be poured into men as into barrels.
In the same manner, to take _inspiration_ in the proper sense, or to say
that good _spirits_ entered into men to make them prophecy, or evil
_spirits_ into those that became phrenetic, lunatic, or epileptic, is
not to take the word in the sense of the Scripture; for the Spirit there
is taken for the power of God, working by causes to us unknown. As also
(_Acts_ ii. 2) the wind, that is there said to fill the house wherein
the apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost, is not to be
understood for the _Holy Spirit_, which is the Deity itself; but for an
external sign of God’s special working on their hearts, to effect in
them the internal graces, and holy virtues he thought requisite for the
performance of their apostleship.
-------
CHAPTER XXXV.
OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF
KINGDOM OF GOD, OF HOLY, SACRED,
AND SACRAMENT.
[Sidenote: The kingdom of God taken by divines metaphorically, but in
the Scriptures properly.]
The _Kingdom of God_ in the writings of divines, and specially in
sermons and treatises of devotion, is taken most commonly for eternal
felicity, after this life, in the highest heaven, which they also call
the kingdom of glory; and sometimes for the earnest of that felicity,
sanctification, which they term the kingdom of grace; but never for the
monarchy, that is to say, the sovereign power of God over any subjects
acquired by their own consent, which is the proper signification of
kingdom.
To the contrary, I find the KINGDOM OF GOD to signify, in most places of
Scripture, a _kingdom properly so named_, constituted by the votes of
the people of Israel in peculiar manner; wherein they chose God for
their king by covenant made with him, upon God’s promising them the
possession of the land of Canaan; and but seldom metaphorically; and
then it is taken for _dominion over sin_; (and only in the New
Testament;) because such a dominion as that, every subject shall have in
the kingdom of God, and without prejudice to the sovereign.
From the very creation, God not only reigned over all men _naturally_ by
his might; but also had _peculiar_ subjects, whom he commanded by a
voice, as one man speaketh to another. In which manner he _reigned_ over
Adam, and gave him commandment to abstain from the tree of cognizance of
good and evil; which when he obeyed not, but tasting thereof, took upon
him to be as God, judging between good and evil, not by his creator’s
commandment, but by his own sense, his punishment was a privation of the
estate of eternal life, wherein God had at first created him: and
afterwards God punished his posterity for their vices, all but eight
persons, with an universal deluge; and in these eight did consist the
then _kingdom of God_.
[Sidenote: The original of the kingdom of God.]
After this it pleased God to speak to Abraham, and (_Gen._ xvii. 7, 8)
to make a covenant with him in these words, _I will establish my
covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after thee in their
generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee, and to
thy seed after thee; and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for
an everlasting possession_. In this covenant _Abraham promiseth for
himself and his posterity, to obey as God, the Lord that spake to him;
and God on his part promiseth to Abraham the land of Canaan for an
everlasting possession_. And for a memorial, and a token of this
covenant, he ordaineth (_Gen._ xvii. 11) the _sacrament of
circumcision_. This is it which is called the _old covenant_ or
_testament_; and containeth a contract between God and Abraham; by which
Abraham obligeth himself, and his posterity, in a peculiar manner to be
subject to God’s positive law; for to the law moral he was obliged
before, as by an oath of allegiance. And though the name of _King_ be
not yet given to God, nor of _kingdom_ to Abraham and his seed: yet the
thing is the same; namely, an institution by pact, of God’s peculiar
sovereignty over the seed of Abraham; which in the renewing of the same
covenant by Moses, at Mount Sinai, is expressly called a peculiar
_kingdom of God_ over the Jews: and it is of Abraham, not of Moses, St.
Paul saith (_Rom._ iv. 11) that he is the _father of the faithful_; that
is, of those that are loyal, and do not violate their allegiance sworn
to God, then by circumcision, and afterwards in the _new covenant_ by
baptism.
[Sidenote: That the kingdom of God is properly his civil sovereignty
over a peculiar people by pact.]
This covenant, at the foot of Mount Sinai, was renewed by Moses,
(_Exod._ xix. 5) where the Lord commandeth Moses to speak to the people
in this manner, _If you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,
then ye shall be a peculiar people to me, for all the earth is mine; and
ye shall be unto me a sacerdotal kingdom, and an holy nation_. For a
_peculiar people_, the vulgar Latin hath _peculium de cunctis populis_:
the English translation, made in the beginning of the reign of King
James, hath a _peculiar treasure unto me above all nations_; and the
Geneva French, _the most precious jewel of all nations_. But the truest
translation is the first, because it is confirmed by St. Paul himself
(_Tit._ ii. 14) where he saith, alluding to that place, that our blessed
Saviour _gave himself for us, that he might purify us to himself, a
peculiar_, that is, an extraordinary, _people_: for the word is in the
Greek περιούσιος, which is opposed commonly to the word ἐπιούσιος: and
as this signifieth _ordinary_, _quotidian_, or, as in the Lord’s Prayer,
_of daily use_; so the other signifieth that which is _overplus_, and
_stored up_, and _enjoyed in a special manner_; which the Latins call
_peculium_: and this meaning of the place is confirmed by the reason God
rendereth of it, which followeth immediately, in that he addeth, _For
all the earth is mine_, as if he should say, _All the nations of the
world are mine_; but it is not so that you are mine, but in a _special
manner_: for they are all mine, by reason of my power; but you shall be
mine, by your own consent, and covenant; which is an addition to his
ordinary title, to all nations.
The same is again confirmed in express words in the same text, _Ye shall
be to me a sacerdotal kingdom, and an holy nation_. The vulgar Latin
hath it, _regnum sacerdotale_, to which agreeth the translation of that
place (_1 Pet._ ii. 9) _Sacerdotium regale_, _a regal priesthood_; as
also the institution itself, by which no man might enter into the
_Sanctum Sanctorum_, that is to say, no man might enquire God’s will
immediately of God himself, but only the high-priest. The English
translation before mentioned, following that of Geneva, has, _a kingdom
of priests_; which is either meant of the succession of one high-priest
after another, or else it accordeth not with St. Peter, nor with the
exercise of the high-priesthood: for there was never any but the
high-priest only, that was to inform the people of God’s will; nor any
convocation of priests ever allowed to enter into the _Sanctum
Sanctorum_.
Again, the title of a _holy nation_ confirms the same: for _holy_
signifies, that which is God’s by special, not by general right. All the
earth, as is said in the text, is God’s; but all the earth is not called
_holy_, but that only which is set apart for his especial service, as
was the nation of the Jews. It is therefore manifest enough by this one
place, that by the _kingdom of God_, is properly meant a commonwealth,
instituted, by the consent of those which were to be subject thereto,
for their civil government, and the regulating of their behaviour, not
only towards God their king, but also towards one another in point of
justice, and towards other nations both in peace and war; which properly
was a kingdom wherein God was king, and the high-priest was to be, after
the death of Moses, his sole viceroy or lieutenant.
But there be many other places that clearly prove the same. As first (_1
Samuel_, viii. 7) when the Elders of Israel, grieved with the corruption
of the sons of Samuel, demanded a king, Samuel displeased therewith,
prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord answering said unto him, _Hearken
unto the voice of the people, for they have not rejected thee, but they
have rejected me, that I should not reign over them_. Out of which it is
evident, that God himself was then their king; and Samuel did not
command the people, but only delivered to them that which God from time
to time appointed him.
Again, (_1 Sam._ xii. 12) where Samuel saith to the people, _When ye saw
that Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, came against you, ye said
unto me, Nay, but a king shall reign over us; when the Lord your God was
your king_. It is manifest that God was their king, and governed the
civil state of their commonwealth.
And after the Israelites had rejected God, the prophets did foretell his
restitution; as (_Isaiah_, xxiv. 23) _Then the moon shall be confounded,
and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion,
and in Jerusalem_; where he speaketh expressly of his reign in Zion and
Jerusalem; that is, on earth. And (_Micah_, iv. 7) _And the Lord shall
reign over them in Mount Zion_: this Mount Zion is in Jerusalem, upon
the earth. And (_Ezek._ xx. 33) _As I live, saith the Lord God, surely
with a mighty hand, and a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, I
will rule over you_; and (verse 37) _I will cause you to pass under the
rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant_; that is, I
will reign over you, and make you to stand to that covenant which you
made with me by Moses, and brake in your rebellion against me in the
days of Samuel, and in your election of another king.
And in the New Testament, the angel Gabriel saith of our Saviour (_Luke_
i. 32, 33) _He shall be great, and be called the Son of the most High,
and the Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he
shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there
shall be no end_. This is also a kingdom upon earth; for the claim
whereof, as an enemy to Cæsar, he was put to death; the title of his
cross, was, _Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews_; he was crowned in
scorn with a crown of thorns; and for the proclaiming of him, it is said
of the disciples (_Acts_ xvii. 7) _That they did all of them contrary to
the decrees of Cæsar, saying there was another king, one Jesus_. The
kingdom therefore of God is a real, not a metaphorical kingdom; and so
taken, not only in the Old Testament, but in the New; when we say, _For
thine is the kingdom, the power, and glory_, it is to be understood of
God’s kingdom, by force of our covenant, not by the right of God’s
power; for such a kingdom God always hath; so that it were superfluous
to say in our prayer, _Thy kingdom come_, unless it be meant of the
restoration of that kingdom of God by Christ, which by revolt of the
Israelites had been interrupted in the election of Saul. Nor had it been
proper to say, _The kingdom of heaven is at hand_; or to pray, _Thy
kingdom come_, if it had still continued.
There be so many other places that confirm this interpretation, that it
were a wonder there is no greater notice taken of it, but that it gives
too much light to Christian kings to see their right of ecclesiastical
government. This they have observed, that instead of a _sacerdotal
kingdom_, translate, _a kingdom of priests_; for they may as well
translate a _royal priesthood_, as it is in St. Peter, into a
_priesthood of kings_. And whereas, for a _peculiar people_, they put a
_precious jewel_, or _treasure_, a man might as well call the special
regiment, or company of a general, the general’s precious jewel, or his
treasure.
In short, the kingdom of God is a civil kingdom; which consisted, first,
in the obligation of the people of Israel to those laws, which Moses
should bring unto them from Mount Sinai; and which afterwards the
high-priest for the time being, should deliver to them from before the
cherubims in the _sanctum sanctorum_; and which kingdom having been cast
off in the election of Saul, the prophets foretold, should be restored
by Christ; and the restoration whereof we daily pray for, when we say in
the Lord’s Prayer, _Thy kingdom come_; and the right whereof we
acknowledge, when we add, _For thine is the kingdom, the power, and
glory, for ever and ever, Amen_; and the proclaiming whereof, was the
preaching of the apostles; and to which men are prepared, by the
teachers of the Gospel; to embrace which Gospel, that is to say, to
promise obedience to God’s government, is to be in the _kingdom of
grace_, because God hath _gratis_ given to such the power to be the
subjects, that is children, of God hereafter, when Christ shall come in
majesty to judge the world, and actually to govern his own people, which
is called _the kingdom of glory_. If the kingdom of God, called also the
kingdom of heaven, from the gloriousness and admirable height of that
throne, were not a kingdom which God by his lieutenants, or vicars, who
deliver his commandments to the people, did exercise on earth; there
would not have been so much contention, and war, about who it is, by
whom God speaketh to us; neither would many priests have troubled
themselves with spiritual jurisdiction, nor any king have denied it
them.
[Sidenote: Holy, what.]
Out of this literal interpretation of the _kingdom of God_, ariseth also
the true interpretation of the word HOLY. For it is a word, which in
God’s kingdom answereth to that, which men in their kingdoms use to call
_public_, or the _king’s_.
The king of any country is the _public_ person, or representative of all
his own subjects. And God the king of Israel was the _Holy One_ of
Israel. The nation which is subject to one earthly sovereign, is the
nation of that sovereign, that is, of the public person. So the Jews,
who were God’s nation, were called (_Exod._ xix. 6) _a holy nation_. For
by _holy_, is always understood either God himself, or that which is
God’s in propriety; as by public is always meant, either the person of
the commonwealth itself, or something that is so the commonwealth’s, as
no private person can claim any propriety therein.
Therefore the Sabbath, God’s day, is a _holy day_; the temple, God’s
house, _a holy house_; sacrifices, tithes, and offerings, God’s tribute,
_holy duties_; priests, prophets, and anointed kings, under Christ,
God’s ministers, _holy men_; the celestial ministering spirits, God’s
messengers, _holy angels_; and the like: and wheresoever the word _holy_
is taken properly, there is still something signified of propriety,
gotten by consent. In saying, _Hallowed be thy name_, we do but pray to
God for grace to keep the first commandment, of _having no other Gods
but him_. Mankind is God’s nation in propriety: but the Jews only were a
_holy nation_. Why, but because they became his propriety by covenant?
[Sidenote: Sacred, what.]