PART III.-OF A CHRISTIAN

COMMONWEALTH.

CHAPTER XXXII.

Of the Principles 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.

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.

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.

When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately; or by medi

ation 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. 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 Isreal 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 prophesy 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 has 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 shalt 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.

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. 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.

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.

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 ac knowledge 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 ȧyibypapa. 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.

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 argument 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.

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 6), concerning the sepulchre of Moses, "that no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day," that is, 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 plains 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.

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 to 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.