CHAP. XXIII. Of the PUBLIC MINISTERS of Sovereign Power.

IN the last Chapter I have spoken of the Similar parts of a Common-wealth: In this I shall speak of the parts Organical, which are Public Ministers.

A PUBLIC MINISTER, is he, that by the Sovereign,(whether a Monarch, or an Assembly,) is employed in any affairs, with Authority to represent in that employment, the Person of the Common-wealth. And whereas every man, or assembly that hath Sovereignty, representeth two Persons, or (as the more common phrase is) has two Capacities, one Natural, and another Politic, (as a Monarch, hath the person not only of the Common-wealth, but also of a man; and a Sovereign Assembly hath the Person not only of the Common-wealth, but also of the Assembly); they that be servants to them in their natural Capacity, are not Public Ministers; but those only that serve them in the Administration of the Public business. And therefore neither Ushers, nor Sergeants, nor other Officers that waite on the Assembly, for no other purpose, but for the commodity of the men assembled, in an Aristocracy, or Democracy; nor Stewards, Chamberlains, Cofferers, or any other Officers of the household of a Monarch, are Public Ministers in a Monarchy.

Of Public Ministers, some have charge committed to them ofa general Administration, either of the whole Dominion, or of a part thereof. Of the whole, as to a Protector, or Regent, may be committed by the Predecessor of an Infant King, during his minority, the whole Administration of his Kingdom. In which case, every Subject is so far obliged to obedience, as the Ordinances he shall make, and the commands he shall give be in the Kings name, and not inconsistent with his Sovereign Power. Of a part, or Province; as when either a Monarch, or a Sovereign Assembly, shall give the general charge thereof to a Governor, Lieutenant, Prefect or Vice-Roy: And in this case also, every one of that Province, is obliged to all he shall do in the name of the Sovereign, and that not incompatible with the Sovereigns Right. For such Protectors, Vice-Roys, and Governors, have no other right, but what depends on the Sovereigns Will; and no Commission that can be given them, can be interpreted for a Declaration of the will to transfer the Sovereignty, without express and perspicuous words to that purpose. And this kind of Public Ministers resembleth the Nerves, and Tendons that move the several limbs of a body natural.

Others have special Administration; that is to say, charges ofsome special business, either at home, or abroad: As at home, First, for the Economy of a Common-wealth, They that have Authority concerning the Treasure, as Tributes, Impositions, Rents, Fines, or whatsoever public revenue, to collect, receive, issue, or take the Accounts thereof, are Public Ministers: Ministers, because they serve the Person Representative, and can do nothing against his Command, nor without his Authority: Public, because they serve him in his. Political Capacity.

Secondly, they that have Authority concerning the Militia; to have the custody of Arms, Forts, Ports; to Levy, Pay, or Conduct Soldiers; or to provide for any necessary thing for the use of war, either by Land or Sea, are public Ministers. But a Soldier without Command, though he fight for the Common-wealth, does not therefore represent the Person of it; because there is none to represent it to. For every one that hath command, represents it to them only whom he commandeth.

They also that have authority to teach, or to enable others toteach the people their duty to the Sovereign Power, and instruct them in the knowledge of what is just, and unjust, thereby to render them more apt to live in godliness, and in peace amongst themselves, and resist the public enemy, are Public Ministers: Ministers, in that they do it not by their own Authority, but by another's; and Public, because they do it (or should do it) by no Authority, but that of the Sovereign. The Monarch, or the Sovereign Assembly only hath immediate Authority from God, to teach and instruct the people; and no man but the Sovereign, receiveth his power Dei gratiâ simply; that is to say, from the favour of none but God: All other, receive theirs from the favour and providence of God, and their Sovereigns; as in a Monarchy Dei gratiâ & Regis; or Dei providentiâ & voluntate Regis.

They also to whom Jurisdiction is given, are Public Ministers.For in their Seats of Justice they represent the person of the Sovereign; and their Sentence, is his Sentence; For (as hath been before declared) all Judicature is essentially annexed to the Sovereignty; and therefore all other Judges are but Ministers of him, or them that have the Sovereign Power. And as Controversies are of two sorts, namely of Fact, and of Law; so are Judgements, some of Fact, some of Law: And consequently in the same controversy, there may be two Judges, one of Fact, another of Law.

And in both these controversies, there may arise a controversy between the party Judged, and the Judge; which because they be both Subjects to the Sovereign, ought in Equity to be Judged by men agreed on by consent of both; for no man can be Judge in his own cause. But the Sovereign is already agreed on for Judge by them both, and is therefore either to hear the Cause, and determine it himself, or appoint for Judge such as they shall both agree on. And this agreement is then understood to be made between them divers ways; as first, if the Defendant be allowed to except against such of his Judges, whose interest maketh him suspect them, (for as to the Complainant he hath already chosen his own Judge,) those which he excepteth not against, are Judges he himself agrees on. Secondly, if he appeal to any other Judge, he can appeal no further; for his appeal is his choice. Thirdly, if he appeal to the Sovereign himself, and he by himself, or by Delegates which the parties shall agree on, give Sentence; that Sentence is final: for the Defendant is Judged by his own Judges, that is to say, by himself.

These properties of just and rational Judicature considered, I cannot forbear to observe the excellent constitution of the Courts of Justice, established both for Common, and also for Public Pleas in England. By Common Pleas, I mean those, where both the Complainant and Defendant are Subjects: and by Public, (which are also called Pleas of the Crown) those, where the Complainant is the Sovereign. For whereas there were two orders of men, whereof one was Lords, the other Commons; The Lords had this Privilege, to have for Judges in all Capital crimes, none but Lords; and of them, as many as would be present; which being ever acknowledged as a Privilege of favour, their Judges were none but such as they had themselves desired. And in all controversies, every Subject (as also in civil controversies the Lords) had for Judges, men of the Country where the matter in controversy lay; against which he might make his exceptions, till at last Twelve men without exception being agreed on, they were Judged by those twelve. So that having his own Judges, there could be nothing alleged by the party, why the sentence should not be final. These public persons, with Authority from the Sovereign Power, either to Instruct, or Judge the people, are such members of the Common-wealth, as may fitly be compared to the organs of Voice in a Body natural.

Public Ministers are also all those, that have Authority fromthe Sovereign, to procure the Execution of Judgements given; to publish the Sovereigns Commands; to suppress Tumults; to apprehend, and imprison Malefactors; and other acts tending to the conservation of the Peace. For every act they do by such Authority, is the act of the Common-wealth; and their service, answerable to that of the Hands, in a Body natural.

Public Ministers abroad, are those that represent the Person of their own Sovereign, to foreign States. Such are Ambassadors, Messengers, Agents, and Heralds, sent by public Authority, and on public Business.

But such as are sent by Authority only of some private party of a troubled State, though they be received, are neither Public, nor Private Ministers of the Common-wealth; because none of their actions have the Common-wealth for Author. Likewise, an Ambassador sent from a Prince, to congratulate, condole, or to assist at a solemnity, though the Authority be Public; yet because the business is Private, and belonging to him in his natural capacity; is a Private person. Also if a man be sent into another Country, secretly to explore their counsels, and strength; though both the Authority, and the Business be Public; yet because there is none to take notice of any Person in him, but his own; he is but a Private Minister; but yet a Minister of the Common-wealth; and may be compared to an Eye in the Body natural. And those that are appointed to receive the Petitions or other informations of the People, and are as it were the public Ear, are Public Ministers, and represent their Sovereign in that office.

Neither a Counsellor (nor a Council of State, if we considerit with no Authority of Judicature or Command, but only of giving Advice to the Sovereign when it is required, or of offering it when it is not required, is a Public Person. For the Advice is addressed to the Sovereign only, whose person cannot in his own presence, be represented to him, by another. But a Body of Counsellors, are never without some other Authority, either of Judicature, or of immediate Administration: As in a Monarchy, they represent the Monarch, in delivering his Commands to the Public Ministers: In a Democracy, the Council, or Senate propounds the Result of their deliberations to the people, as a Council; but when they appoint Judges, or hear Causes, or give Audience to Ambassadors, it is in the quality of a Minister of the People: And in an Aristocracy the Council of State is the Sovereign Assembly it self; and gives counsel to none but themselves.

CHAP. XXIV. Of the NUTRITION, and PROCREATION of a Common-wealth.

The NUTRITION of a Common-wealth consisteth, inthe Plenty, and Distribution of Materials conducing to Life: In Concoction, or Preparation; and (when concocted) in the Conveyance of it, by convenient conduits, to the Public use.

As for the Plenty of Matter, it is a thing limited by Nature, to those commodities, which from (the two breasts of our common Mother) Land, and Sea, God usually either freely giveth, or for labour selleth to man-kind.

For the Matter of this Nutriment, consisting in Animals, Vegetals, and Minerals, God hath freely laid them before us, in or near to the face of the Earth; so as there needeth no more but the labour, and industry of receiving them. Insomuch as Plenty dependeth (next to Gods favour) merely on the labour and industry of men.

This Matter, commonly called Commodities, is partly Native, and partly Foreign: Native, that which is to be had within the Territory of the Common-wealth: Foreign, that which is imported from without. And because there is no Territory under the Dominion of one Common-wealth, (except it be of very vast extent,) that produceth all things needful for the maintenance, and motion of the whole Body; and few that produce not something more than necessary; the superfluous commodities to be had within, become no more superfluous, but supply these wants at home, by importation of that which may be had abroad, either by Exchange, or by just War, or by Labour: for a man's Labour also, is a commodity exchangeable for benefit, as well as any other thing: And there have been Common-wealths that having no more Territory, than hath served them for habitation, have nevertheless, not only maintained, but also increased their Power, partly by the labour of trading from one place to another, and partly by selling the Manufactures, whereof the Materials were brought in from other places.

The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitutionof Mine, and Thine, and His; that is to say, in one word Propriety; and belongeth in all kinds of Common-wealth to the Sovereign Power. For where there is no Common-wealth, there is (as hath been already shown) a perpetual war of every man against his neighbour; And therefore every thing is his that getteth it, and keepeth it by force; which is neither Propriety, nor Community; but Uncertainty. Which is so evident, that even Cicero, (a passionate defender of Liberty,) in a public pleading, attributeth all Propriety to the Law Civil, Let the Civil Law, saith he, be once abandoned, or but negligently guarded, (not to say oppressed,) and there is nothing, that any man can be sure to receive from his Ancestor, or leave to his Children. And again; Take away the Civil Law, and no man knows what is his own, and what another man's. Seeing therefore the Introduction of Propriety is an effect of Common-wealth; which can do nothing but by the Person that Represents it, it is the act only of the Sovereign; and consisteth in the Laws, which none can make that have not the Sovereign Power. And this they well knew of old, who called that Νόμος, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own.

In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigneth to every man a portion, according as he, and not according as any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Common-wealth in the Wilderness; but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise; which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their General: who when there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made nevertheless but twelve portions of the Land; and ordained for the Tribe of Levi no land; but assigned them the Tenth part of the whole fruits; which division was therefore Arbitrary. And though a People coming into possession of a Land by war, do not always exterminate the ancient Inhabitants, (as did the Jews,) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as the people of England held all theirs of William the Conqueror.

From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Sovereign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Sovereign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he representeth,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever Distribution he shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the will of every subject, that committed his Peace, and safety to his discretion, and conscience; and therefore by the will of every one of them, is to be reputed void. It is true, that a Sovereign Monarch, or the greater part of a Sovereign Assembly, may ordain the doing of many things in pursuit of their Passions, contrary to their own consciences, which is a breach of trust, and of the Law of Nature; but this is not enough to authorise any subject, either to make war upon, or so much as to accuse of Injustice, or any way to speak evil of their Sovereign; because they have authorised all his actions, and in bestowing the Sovereign Power, made them their own. But in what cases the Commands of Sovereigns are contrary to Equity, and the Law of Nature, is to be consideredhereafter in another place.

In the Distribution of land, the Common-wealth it self, may be conceived to have a portion, and possess, and improve the same by their Representative; and that such portion may be made sufficient, to sustain the whole expense to the common Peace, and defence necessarily required: Which were very true, if there could be any Representative conceived free from human passions, and infirmities. But the nature of men being as it is, the setting forth of Public Land, or of any certain Revenue for the Common-wealth, is in vain; and tendeth to the dissolution of Government, and to the condition of mere Nature, and War, as soon as ever the Sovereign Power falleth into the hands of a Monarch, or of an Assembly, that are either too negligent of money, or too hazardous in engaging the public stock, into a long, or costly war. Commonwealths can endure no Diet: For seeing their expense is not limited by their own appetite, but by external Accidents, and the appetites of their neighbours, the Public Riches cannot be limited by other limits, than those which the emergent occasions shall require. And whereas in England, there were by the Conqueror, divers Lands reserved to his own use, (besides Forests, and Chases, either for his recreation, or for preservation of Woods,) and divers services reserved on the Land he gave his Subjects; yet it seems they were not reserved for his Maintenance in his Public, but in his Natural capacity: For he, and his Successors did for all that, lay Arbitrary Taxes on all Subjects Land, when they judged it necessary. Or if those public Lands, and Services, were ordained as a sufficient maintenance of the Common-wealth, it was contrary to the scope of the Institution; being (as it appeared by those ensuing Taxes) insufficient, and (as it appears by the late small Revenue of the Crown) Subject to Alienation, and Diminution. It is therefore in vain, to assign a portion to the Common-wealth; which may sell, or give it away; and does sell, and give it away when tis done by their Representative.

As the Distribution of Lands at home; so also to assign in whatplaces, and for what commodities, the Subject shall traffic abroad, belongeth to the Sovereign. For if it did belong to private persons to use their own discretion therein, some of them would be drawn for gain, both to furnish the enemy with means to hurt the Common-wealth, and hurt it themselves, by importing such things, as pleasing men's appetites, be nevertheless noxious, or at least unprofitable to them. And therefore it belongeth to the Commonwealth, (that is, to the Sovereign only,) to approve, or disapprove both of the places, and matter of foreign Traffic.

Further, seeing it is not enough to the Sustentation of a Common-wealth,that every man have a propriety in a portion of Land, or in some few commodities, or a natural property in some useful art, and there is no art in the world, but is necessary either for the being, or well being almost of every particular man; it is necessary, that men distribute that which they can spare, and transfer their propriety therein, mutually one to another, by exchange, and mutual contract. And therefore it belongeth to the Common-wealth, (that is to say, to the Sovereign,) to appoint in what manner, all kinds of contract between Subjects, (as buying, selling, exchanging, borrowing, lending, letting, and taking to hire,) are to be made; and by what words, and signs they shall be understood for valid. And for the Matter, and Distribution of the Nourishment, to the several Members of the Common-wealth, thus much (considering the model of the whole work) is sufficient.

By Concoction, I understand the reducing of all commodities,which are not presently consumed, but reserved for Nourishment in time to come, to some thing of equal value, and withal so portable, as not to hinder the motion of men from place to place; to the end a man may have in what place soever, such Nourishment as the place affordeth. And this is nothing else but Gold, and Silver, and Money. For Gold and Silver, being (as it happens) almost in all Countries of the world highly valued, is a commodious measure of the value of all things else between Nations; and Money (of what matter soever coined by the Sovereign of a Common-wealth,) is a sufficient measure of the value of all things else, between the Subjects of that Common-wealth. By the means of which measures, all commodities, Moveable, and Immoveable, are made to accompany a man, to all places of his resort, within and without the place of his ordinary residence; and the same passeth from Man to Man, within the Common-wealth; and goes round about, Nourishing (as it passeth) every part thereof; In so much as this Concoction, is as it were the Sanguification of the Common-wealth: For natural Blood is in like manner made of the fruits of the Earth; and circulating, nourisheth by the way, every Member of the Body of Man.

And because Silver and Gold, have their value from the matter it self; they have first this privilege, that the value of them cannot be altered by the power of one, nor of a few Common-wealths; as being a common measure of the commodities of all places. But base Money, may easily be enhanced, or abased. Secondly, they have the privilege to make Common-wealths move, and stretch out their arms, when need is, into foreign Countries; and supply, not only private Subjects that travel, but also whole Armies with Provision. But that Coin, which is not considerable for the Matter, but for the Stamp of the place, being unable to endure change of air, hath its effect at home only; where also it is subject to the change of Laws, and thereby to have the value diminished, to the prejudice many times of those that have it.

The Conduits, and Ways by which it is conveyed to the Publicuse, are of two sorts; One, that Conveyeth it to the Public Coffers; The other, that Issueth the same out again for public payments. Of the first sort, are Collectors, Receivers, and Treasurers; of the second are the Treasurers again, and the Officers appointed for payment of several public or private Ministers. And in this also, the Artificial Man maintains his resemblance with the Natural; whose Veins receiving the Blood from the several Parts of of the Body, carry it to the Heart; where being made Vital, the Heart by the Arteries sends it out again, to enliven, and enable for motion all the Members of the same.

The Procreation, or Children of a Common-wealth, are thosewe call Plantations, or Colonies; which are numbers of men sent out from the Common-wealth, under a Conductor, or Governor, to inhabit a Foreign Country, either formerly void of Inhabitants, or made void then, by war. And when a Colony is settled, they are either a Common-wealth of themselves, discharged of their subjection to their Sovereign that sent them, (as hath been done by many Common-wealths of ancient time,) in which case the Common-wealth from which they went, was called their Metropolis, or Mother, and requires no more of them, than Fathers require of the Children, whom they emancipate, and make free from their domestic government, which is Honour, and Friendship; or else they remain united to their Metropolis, as were the Colonies of the people of Rome; and then they are no Common-wealths themselves, but Provinces, and parts of the Common-wealth that sent them. So that the Right of Colonies (saving Honour, and League with their Metropolis,) dependeth wholly on their Licence, or Letters, by which their Sovereign authorised them to Plant.

CHAP. XXV. Of COUNSEL.

How fallacious it is to judge of the nature of things, by the ordinaryand inconstant use of words, appeareth in nothing more, than in the confusion of Counsels, and Commands, arising from the Imperative manner of speaking in them both, and in many other occasions besides. For the words Do this, are the words not only of him that Commandeth; but also of him that giveth Counsel; and of him that Exhorteth; and yet there are but few, that see not, that these are very different things; or that cannot distinguish between them, when they perceive who it is that speaketh, and to whom the Speech is directed, and upon what occasion. But finding those phrases in men's writings, and being not able, or not willing to enter into a consideration of the circumstances, they mistake sometimes the Precepts of Counsellors, for the Precepts of them that Command; and sometimes the contrary; according as it best agreeth with the conclusions they would infer, or the actions they approve. To avoid which mistakes, and render to those terms of Commanding, Counselling, and Exhorting, their proper and distinct significations, I define them thus.

COMMAND is, where a man saith, Do this, or Do not this, withoutexpecting other reason than the Will of him that says it. From this it followeth manifestly, that he that Commandeth, pretendeth thereby his own Benefit: For the reason of his Command is his own Will only, and the proper object of every man's Will, is some Good to himself.

COUNSEL, is where a man saith, Do, or Do not this, and deduceth his reasons from the benefit that arriveth by it to him to whom he saith it. And from this it is evident, that he that giveth Counsel, pretendeth only (whatsoever he intendeth) the good of him, to whom he giveth it.

Therefore between Counsel and Command, one great difference is, that Command is directed to a man's own benefit; and Counsel to the benefit of another man. And from this ariseth another difference, that a man may be obliged to do what he is Commanded; as when he hath covenanted to obey: But he cannot be obliged to do as he is Counselled, because the hurt of not following it, is his own; or if he should covenant to follow it, then is the Counsel turned into the nature of a Command. A third difference between them is, that no man can pretend a right to be of another man's Counsel; because he is not to pretend benefit by it to himself: but to demand right to Counsel another, argues a will to know his designs, or to gain some other Good to himself; which (as I said before) is of every man's will the proper object.

This also is incident to the nature of Counsel; that whatsoever it be, he that asketh it, cannot in equity accuse, or punish it: For to ask Counsel of another, is to permit him to give such Counsel as he shall think best; And consequently, he that giveth counsel to his Sovereign, (whether a Monarch, or an Assembly) when he asketh it, cannot in equity be punished for it, whether the same be conformable to the opinion of the most, or not, so it be to the Proposition in debate. For if the sense of the Assembly can be taken notice of, before the Debate be ended, they should neither ask, nor take any further Counsel; For the Sense of the Assembly, is the Resolution of the Debate, and End of all Deliberation. And generally he that demandeth Counsel, is Author of it; and therefore cannot punish it; and what the Sovereign cannot, no man else can. But if one Subject giveth Counsel to another, to do any thing contrary to the Laws, whether that Counsel proceed from evil intention, or from ignorance only, it is punishable by the Common-wealth; because ignorance of the Law, is no good excuse, where every man is bound to take notice of the Laws to which he is subject.

EXHORTATION, and DEHORTATION, is Counsel, accompaniedwith signs in him that giveth it, of vehement desire to have it followed; or to say it more briefly, Counsel vehemently pressed. For he that Exhorteth, doth not deduce the consequences of what he adviseth to be done, and tie himself therein to the rigour of true reasoning; but encourages him he Counselleth, to Action: As he that Dehorteth, deterreth him from it. And therefore they have in their speeches, a regard to the common Passions, and opinions of men, in deducing their reasons; and make use of Similitudes, Metaphors, Examples, and other tools of Oratory, to persuade their Hearers of the Utility, Honour, or Justice of following their advise.

From whence may be inferred, First, that Exhortation and Dehortation, is directed to the Good of him that giveth the Counsel, not of him that asketh it, which is contrary to the duty of a Counsellor; who (by the definition of Counsel) ought to regard, not his own benefit, but his whom he adviseth. And that he directeth his Counsel to his own benefit, is manifest enough, by the long and vehement urging, or by the artificial giving thereof; which being not required of him, and consequently proceeding from his own occasions, is directed principally to his own benefit, and but accidentarily to the good of him that is Counselled, or not at all.

Secondly; that the use of Exhortation and Dehortation lieth only, where a man is to speak to a Multitude; because when the Speech is addressed to one, he may interrupt him, and examine his reasons more rigorously, than can be done in a Multitude; which are too many to enter into Dispute, and Dialogue with him that speaketh indifferently to them all at once.

Thirdly, that they that Exhort and Dehort, where they are required to give Counsel, are corrupt Counsellors, and as it were bribed by their own interest. For though the Counsel they give be never so good; yet he that gives it, is no more a good Counsellor, than he that giveth a Just Sentence for a reward, is a Just Judge. But where a man may lawfully Command, as a Father in his Family, or a Leader in an Army, his Exhortations and Dehortations, are not only lawful, but also necessary, and laudable: But then they are no more Counsels, but Commands; which when they are for Execution of sour labour; sometimes necessity, and always humanity requireth to be sweetened in the delivery, by encouragement, and in the tune and phrase of Counsel, rather than in harsher language of Command.

Examples of the difference between Command and Counsel, we may take from the forms of Speech that express them in Holy Scripture. Have no other Gods but me; Make to thy self no graven Image; Take not Gods name in vain; Sanctify the Sabbath; Honour thy Parents; Kill not; Steal not, &c. are Commands; because the reason for which we are to obey them, is drawn from the will of God our King, whom we are obliged to obey. But these words, Sell all thou hast; give it to the poor; and follow me, are Counsel; because the reason for which we are to do so, is drawn from our own benefit; which is this, that we shall have Treasure in heaven. These words, Go into the Village over against you, and you shall find an Ass tied, and her Colt; loose her, and bring her to me, are a Command: for the reason of their fact is drawn from the will of their Master: but these words, Repent, and be Baptized in the Name of Jesus, are Counsel; because the reason why we should so do, tendeth not to any benefit of God Almighty, who shall still be King in what manner soever we rebel; but of our selves, who have no other means of avoiding the punishment hanging over us for our sins.

As the difference of Counsel from Command, hath been now deduced from the nature of Counsel, consisting in a deducing of the benefit, or hurt that may arise to him that is to be Counselled, by the necessary or probable consequences of the action he propoundeth; so may also the differences between apt, and inept Counsellors be derived from the same. For Experience, being but Memory of the consequences of like actions formerly observed, and Counsel but the Speech whereby that experience is made known to another; the Virtues, and Defects of Counsel, are the same with the Virtues, and Defects Intellectual: And to the Person of a Common-wealth, his Counsellors serve him in the place of Memory, and Mental Discourse. But with this resemblance of the Common-wealth, to a natural man, there is one dissimilitude joined, of great importance; which is, that a natural man receiveth his experience, from the natural objects of sense, which work upon him without passion, or interest of their own; whereas they that give Counsel to the Representative person of a Common-wealth, may have, and have often their particular ends, and passions, that render their Counsels always suspected, and many times unfaithful. And therefore we may set down for the first condition of a good Counsellor, That his Ends, and Interest, be not inconsistent with the Ends and Interest of him he Counselleth.

Secondly, Because the office of a Counsellor, when an action comes into deliberation, is to make manifest the consequences of it, in such manner, as he that is Counselled may be truly and evidently informed; he ought to propound his advise, in such form of speech, as may make the truth most evidently appear; that is to say, with as firm ratiocination, as significant and proper language, and as briefly, as the evidence will permit. And therefore rash, and unevident Inferences; (such as are fetched only from Examples, or authority of Books, and are not arguments of what is good, or evil, but witnesses of fact, or of opinion.) obscure, confused, and ambiguous Expressions, also all metaphorical Speeches, tending to the stirring up of Passion, (because such reasoning, and such expressions, are useful only to deceive, or to lead him we Counsel towards other ends than his own) are repugnant to the Office of a Counsellor.

Thirdly, Because the Ability of Counselling proceedeth from Experience, and long study; and no man is presumed to have experience in all those things that to the Administration of a great Common-wealth are necessary to be known, No man is presumed to be a good Counsellor, but in such Business, as he hath not only been much versed in, but hath also much meditated on, and considered. For seeing the business of a Common-wealth is this, to preserve the people in Peace at home, and defend them against foreign Invasion, we shall find, it requires great knowledge of the disposition of Man-kind, of the Rights of Government, and of the nature of Equity, Law, Justice, and Honour, not to be attained without study; And of the Strength, Commodities, Places, both of their own Country, and their Neighbours; as also of the inclinations, and designs of all Nations that may any way annoy them. And this is not attained to, without much experience. Of which things, not only the whole sum, but every one of the particulars requires the age, and observation of a man in years, and of more than ordinary study. The wit required for Counsel, as I have said before (Chap. 8.) is Judgement. And the differences of men in that point come from different education, of some to one kind of study, or business, and of others to another. When for the doing of any thing, there be Infallible rules, (as in Engines, and Edifices, the rules of Geometry,) all the experience of the world cannot equal his Counsel, that has learnt, or found out the Rule. And when there is no such Rule, he that hath most experience in that particular kind of business, has therein the best Judgement, and is the best Counsellor.

Fourthly, to be able to give Counsel to a Common-wealth, in a business that hath reference to another Common-wealth, It is necessary to be acquainted with the Intelligences, and Letters that come from thence, and with all the records of Treaties, and other transactions of State between them; which none can do, but such as the Representative shall think fit. By which we may see, that they who are not called to Counsel, can have no good Counsel in such cases to obtrude.

Fifthly, Supposing the number of Counsellors equal, a man is better Counselled by hearing them apart, than in an Assembly; and that for many causes. First, in hearing them apart, you have the advice of every man; but in an Assembly many of them deliver their advise with I, or No, or with their hands, or feet, not moved by their own sense, but by the eloquence of another, or for fear of displeasing some that have spoken, or the whole Assembly, by contradiction; or for fear of appearing duller in apprehension, than those that have applauded the contrary opinion. Secondly, in an Assembly of many, there cannot choose but be some whose interests are contrary to that of the Public; and these their Interests make passionate, and Passion eloquent, and Eloquence draws others into the same advice. For the Passions of men, which asunder are moderate, as the heat of one brand; in Assembly are like many brands, that inflame one another, (especially when they blow one another with Orations) to the setting of the Common-wealth on fire, under pretence of Counselling it. Thirdly, in hearing every man apart, one may examine (when there is need) the truth, or probability of his reasons, and of the grounds of the advise he gives, by frequent interruptions, and objections; which cannot be done in an Assembly, where (in every difficult question) a man is rather astonied and dazzled with the variety of discourse upon it, than informed of the course he ought to take. Besides, there cannot be an Assembly of many, called together for advice, wherein there be not some, that have the ambition to be thought eloquent, and also learned in the Politics; and give not their advice with care of the business propounded, but of the applause of their motley orations, made of the divers colored threads, or shreds of Authors; which is an Impertinence at least, that takes away the time of serious Consultation, and in the secret way of Counselling apart, is easily avoided. Fourthly, in Deliberations that ought to be kept secret, (whereof there be many occasions in Public Business,) the Counsels of many, and especially in Assemblies, are dangerous; And therefore great Assemblies are necessitated to commit such affairs to lesser numbers, and of such persons as are most versed, and in whose fidelity they have most confidence.

To conclude, who is there that so far approves the taking of Counsel from a great Assembly of Counsellors, that wisheth for, or would accept of their pains, when there is a question of marrying his Children, disposing of his Lands, governing his Household, or managing his private Estate, especially if there be amongst them such as wish not his prosperity? A man that doth his business by the help of many and prudent Counsellors, with every one consulting apart in his proper element, does it best, as he that useth able Seconds at Tennis play, placed in their proper stations. He does next best, that useth his own Judgement only; as he that has no Second at all. But he that is carried up and down to his business in a framed Counsel, which cannot move but by the plurality of consenting opinions, the execution whereof is commonly (out of envy, or interest) retarded by the part dissenting, does it worst of all, and like one that is carried to the ball, though by good Players, yet in a Wheel-barrow, or other frame, heavy of it self, and retarded also by the inconcurrent judgements, and endeavours of them that drive it; and so much the more, as they be more that set their hands to it; and most of all, when there is one, or more amongst them, that desire to have him lose. And though it be true, that many eyes see more than one; yet it is not to be understood of many Counsellors; but then only, when the final Resolution is in one man. Otherwise, because many eyes see the same thing in divers lines, and are apt to look asquint towards their private benefit; they that desire not to miss their mark, though they look about with two eyes, yet they never aim but with one; And therefore no great Popular Common-wealth was ever kept up; but either by a foreign Enemy that united them; or by the reputation of some one eminent Man amongst them; or by the secret Counsel of a few; or by the mutual fear of equal factions; and not by the open Consultations of the Assembly. And as for very little Commonwealths, be they Popular, or Monarchical, there is no human wisdom can uphold them, longer than the Jealousy lasteth of their potent Neighbours.

CHAP. XXVI. Of CIVIL LAWS.

BY CIVIL LAWS, I understand the Laws, thatmen are therefore bound to observe, because they are Members, not of this, or that Common-wealth in particular, but of a Common-wealth. For the knowledge of particular Laws belongeth to them, that profess the study of the Laws of their several Countries; but the knowledge of Civil Law in general. to any man. The ancient Law of Rome was called their Civil Law, from the word Civitas, which signifies a Common-wealth: And those Countries, which having been under the Roman Empire, and governed by that Law, retain still such part thereof as they think fit, call that part the Civil Law, to distinguish it from the rest of their own Civil Laws. But that is not it I intend to speak of here; my design being not to show what is Law here, and there; but what is Law; as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and divers others have done, without taking upon them the profession of the study of the Law.

And first it is manifest, that Law in general, is not Counsel, but Command; nor a Command of any man to any man; but only of him, whose Command is addressed to one formerly obliged to obey him. And as for Civil Law, it addeth only the name of the person Commanding, which is Persona Civitatis, the Person of the Common-wealth.

Which considered, I define Civil Law in this manner. CIVIL LAW, Is to every Subject, those Rules, which the Common-wealth hath Commanded him, by Word, Writing, or other sufficient Sign of the Will, to make use of, for the Distinction of Right, and Wrong; that is to say, of what is contrary, and what is not contrary to the Rule.

In which definition, there is nothing that is not at first sight evident. For every man seeth, that some Laws are addressed to all the Subjects in general; some to particular Provinces; some to particular Vocations; and some to particular Men; and are therefore Laws, to every of those to whom the Command is directed; and to none else. As also, that Laws are the Rules of Just, and Unjust; nothing being reputed Unjust, that is not contrary to some Law. Likewise, that none can make Laws but the Common-wealth; because our Subjection is to the Common-wealth only: and that Commands, are to be signified by sufficient Signs; because a man knows not otherwise how to obey them. And therefore, whatsoever can from this definition by necessary consequence be deduced, ought to be acknowledged for truth. Now I deduce from it this that followeth.

1 The Legislator in all Common-wealths, is only the Sovereign,be he one Man, as in a Monarchy, or one Assembly of men, as in a Democracy, or Aristocracy. For the Legislator, is he that maketh the Law. And the Common-wealth only, prescribes, and commandeth the observation of those rules, which we call Law: Therefore the Common-wealth is the Legislator. But the Commonwealth is no Person, nor has capacity to do any thing, but by the Representative, (that is, the Sovereign;) and therefore the Sovereign is the sole Legislator. For the same reason, none can abrogate a Law made, but the Sovereign; because a Law is not abrogated, but by another Law, that forbiddeth it to be put in execution.

2 The Sovereign of a Common-wealth, be it an Assembly, orone Man, is not Subject to the Civil Laws. For having power to make, and repeal Laws, he may when he pleaseth, free himself from that subjection, by repealing those Laws that trouble him, and making of new; and consequently he was free before. For he is free, that can be free when he will: Nor is it possible for any person to be bound to himself; because he that can bind, can release; and therefore he that is bound to himself only, is not bound.

3. When long Use obtaineth the authority of a Law, it is not theLength of Time that maketh the Authority, but the Will of the Sovereign signified by his silence, (for Silence is sometimes an argument of Consent;) and it is no longer Law, than the Sovereign shall be silent therein. And therefore if the Sovereign shall have a question of Right grounded, not upon his present Will, but upon the Laws formerly made; the Length of Time shall bring no prejudice to his Right; but the question shall be judged by Equity. For many unjust Actions, and unjust Sentences, go uncontrolled a longer time, than any man can remember. And our Lawyers account no Customs Law, but such as are reasonable, and that evil Customs are to be abolished: But the Judgement of what is reasonable, and of what is to be abolished, belongeth to him that maketh the Law, which is the Sovereign Assembly, or Monarch.

4. The Law of Nature, and the Civil Law, contain each other,and are of equal extent. For the Laws of Nature, which consist in Equity, Justice, Gratitude, and other moral Virtues on these depending, in the condition of mere Nature (as I have said before in the end of the 15th Chapter,) are not properly Laws, but qualities that dispose men to peace, and to obedience. When a Commonwealth is once settled, then are they actually Laws, and not before; as being then the commands of the Common-wealth; and therefore also Civil Laws: For it is the Sovereign Power that obliges men to obey them. For in the differences of private men, to declare, what is Equity, what is Justice, and what is moral Virtue, and to make them binding, there is need of the Ordinances of Sovereign Power, and Punishments to be ordained for such as shall break them; which Ordinances are therefore part of the Civil Law. The Law of Nature therefore is a part of the Civil Law in all Common-wealths of the world. Reciprocally also, the Civil Law is a part of the Dictates of Nature. For Justice, that is to say, Performance of Covenant, and giving to every man his own, is a Dictate of the Law of Nature. But every subject in a Common-wealth, hath covenanted to obey the Civil Law, (either one with another, as when they assemble to make a common Representative, or with the Representative it self one by one, when subdued by the Sword they promise obedience, that they may receive life;) And therefore Obedience to the Civil Law is part also of the Law of Nature. Civil, and Natural Law are not different kinds, but different parts of Law; whereof one part being written, is called Civil, the other unwritten, Natural. But the Right of Nature, that is, the natural Liberty of man, may by the Civil Law be abridged, and restrained: nay, the end of making Laws, is no other, but such Restraint; without the which there cannot possibly be any Peace. And Law was brought into the world for nothing else, but to limit the natural liberty of particular men, in such manner, as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common Enemy.

5. If the Sovereign of one Common-wealth, subdue a Peoplethat have lived under other written Laws, and afterwards govern them by the same Laws, by which they were governed before; yet those Laws are the Civil Laws of the Victor, and not of the Vanquished Common-wealth. For the Legislator is he, not by whose authority the Laws were first made, but by whose authority they now continue to be Laws. And therefore where there be divers Provinces, within the Dominion of a Common-wealth, and in those Provinces diversity of Laws, which commonly are called the Customs of each several Province, we are not to understand that such Customs have their force, only from Length of Time; but that they were anciently Laws written, or otherwise made known, for the Constitutions, and Statutes of their Sovereigns; and are now Laws, not by virtue of the Prescription of time, but by the Constitutions of their present Sovereigns. But if an unwritten Law, in all the Provinces of a Dominion, shall be generally observed, and no iniquity appear in the use thereof; that Law can be no other but a Law of Nature, equally obliging all man-kind.

6. Seeing then all Laws, written, and unwritten, have their Authority,and force, from the Will of the Common-wealth; that is to say, from the Will of the Representative; which in a Monarchy is the Monarch, and in other Common-wealths the Sovereign Assembly; a man may wonder from whence proceed such opinions, as are found in the Books of Lawyers of eminence in several Commonwealths, directly, or by consequence making the Legislative Power depend on private men, or subordinate Judges. As for example, That the Common Law, hath no Controller but the Parliament; which is true only where a Parliament has the Sovereign Power, and cannot be assembled, nor dissolved, but by their own discretion. For if there be a right in any else to dissolve them, there is a right also to control them, and consequently to control their controllings. And if there be no such right, then the Controller of Laws is not Parlamentum, but Rex in Parlamento. And were a Parliament is Sovereign, if it should assemble never so many, or so wise men, from the Countries subject to them, for whatsoever cause; yet there is no man will believe, that such an Assembly hath thereby acquired to themselves a Legislative Power. Item, that the two arms of a Common-wealth, are Force, and Justice; the first whereof is in the King; the other deposited in the hands of the Parliament. As if a Commonwealth could consist, where the Force were in any hand, which Justice had not the Authority to command and govern.

7. That Law can never be against Reason, our Lawyers are agreed; and that not the Letter, (that is, every construction of it,) but that which is according to the Intention of the Legislator, is the Law. And it is true: but the doubt is, of whose Reason it is, that shall be received for Law. It is not meant of any private Reason; for then there would be as much contradiction in the Laws, as there is in the Schools; nor yet, (as Sr. Ed. Coke makes it,) an Artificial perfection of Reason, gotten by long study, observation, and experience, (as his was.) For it is possible long study may increase, and confirm erroneous Sentences: and where men build on false grounds, the more they build, the greater is the ruin: and of those that study, and observe with equal time, and diligence, the reasons and resolutions are, and must remain discordant: and therefore it is not that Juris prudentia, or wisdom of subordinate Judges; but the Reason of this our Artificial Man the Common-wealth, and his Command, that maketh Law: And the Common-wealth being in their Representative but one Person, there cannot easily arise any contradiction in the Laws; and when there doth, the same Reason is able, by interpretation, or alteration, to take it away. In all Courts of Justice, the Sovereign (which is the Person of the Commonwealth,) is he that Judgeth: The subordinate Judge, ought to have regard to the reason, which moved his Sovereign to make such Law, that his Sentence may be according thereunto; which then is his Sovereigns Sentence; otherwise it is his own, and an unjust one.

8. From this, that the Law is a Command, and a Command consistethin declaration, or manifestation of the will of him that commandeth, by voice, writing, or some other sufficient argument of the same, we may understand, that the Command of the Commonwealth, is Law only to those, that have means to take notice of it. Over natural fools, children, or mad-men there is no Law, no more than over brute beasts; nor are they capable of the title of just, or unjust; because they had never power to make any covenant, or to understand the consequences thereof; and consequently never took upon them to authorise the actions of any Sovereign, as they must do that make to themselves a Common-wealth. And as those from whom Nature, or Accident hath taken away the notice of all Laws in general; so also every man, from whom any accident, not proceeding from his own default, hath taken away the means to take notice of any particular Law, is excused, if he observe it not; And to speak properly, that Law is no Law to him. It is therefore necessary, to consider in this place, what arguments, and signs be sufficient for the knowledge of what is the Law; that is to say, what is the will of the Sovereign, as well in Monarchies, as in other forms of government.

And first, if it be a Law that obliges all the Subjects without exception,and is not written, nor otherwise published in such places as they may take notice thereof, it is a Law of Nature. For whatsoever men are to take knowledge of for Law, not upon other men's words, but every one from his own reason, must be such as is agreeable to the reason of all men; which no Law can be, but the Law of Nature. The Laws of Nature therefore need not any publishing, nor Proclamation; as being contained in this one Sentence, approved by all the world, Do not that to another, which thou thinkest unreasonable to be done by another to thy self.

Secondly, if it be a Law that obliges only some condition of men, or one particular man, and be not written, nor published by word, then also it is a Law of Nature; and known by the same arguments, and signs, that distinguish those in such a condition, from other Subjects. For whatsoever Law is not written, or some way published by him that makes it Law, can be known no way, but by the reason of him that is to obey it; and is therefore also a Law not only Civil, but Natural. For Example, if the Sovereign employ a Public Minister, without written Instructions what to do; he is obliged to take for Instructions the Dictates of Reason; As if he make a Judge, The Judge is to take notice, that his Sentence ought to be according to the reason of his Sovereign, which being always understood to be Equity, he is bound to it by the Law of Nature: Or if an Ambassador, he is (in all things not contained in his written Instructions) to take for Instruction that which Reason dictates to be most conducing to his Sovereigns interest; and so of all other Ministers of the Sovereignty, public and private. All which Instructions of natural Reason may be comprehended under one name of Fidelity; which is a branch of natural Justice.

The Law of Nature excepted, it belongeth to the essence of all other Laws, to be made known, to every man that shall be obliged to obey them, either by word, or writing, or some other act, known to proceed from the Sovereign Authority. For the will of another, cannot be understood, but by his own word, or act, or by conjecture taken from his scope and purpose; which in the person of the Common-wealth, is to be supposed always consonant to Equity and Reason. And in ancient time, before letters were in common use, the Laws were many times put into verse; that the rude people taking pleasure in singing, or reciting them, might the more easily retain them in memory. And for the same reason Solomon adviseth a man, to bind the ten Commandmentsupon his ten fingers. And for the Law which Moses gave to the people of Israel at the renewing of the Covenant, he biddeth them to teach it theirChildren, by discoursing of it both at home, and upon the way; at going to bed, and at rising from bed; and to write it upon the posts, and doors of their houses; andto assemble the people, man, woman, and child, to hear it read.

Nor is it enough the Law be written, and published; but also that there be manifest signs, that it proceedeth from the will of the Sovereign.For private men, when they have, or think they have force enough to secure their unjust designs, and convoy them safely to their ambitious ends, may publish for Laws what they please, without, or against the Legislative Authority. There is therefore requisite, not only a Declaration of the Law, but also sufficient signs of the Author, and Authority. The Author, or Legislator is supposed in every Common-wealth to be evident, because he is the Sovereign, who having been Constituted by the consent of every one, is supposed by every one to be sufficiently known. And though the ignorance, and security of men be such, for the most part, as that when the memory of the first Constitution of their Common-wealth is worn out, they do not consider, by whose power they use to be defended against their enemies, and to have their industry protected, and to be righted when injury is done them; yet because no man that considers, can make question of it, no excuse can be derived from the ignorance of where the Sovereignty is placed. And it is a Dictate of Natural Reason, and consequently an evident Law of Nature, that no man ought to weaken that power, the protection whereof he hath himself demanded, or wittingly received against others. Therefore of who is Sovereign, no man, but by his own fault, (whatsoever evil men suggest,) can make any doubt. The difficulty consisteth in the evidence of the Authority derived from him; The removing whereof, dependeth on the knowledge of the public Registers, public Counsels, public Ministers, and public Seals; by which all Laws are sufficiently verified; Verified,I say, not Authorised: for the Verification, is but the Testimony and Record; not the Authority of the Law; which consisteth in the Command of the Sovereign only.

If therefore a man have a question of Injury, depending on theLaw of Nature; that is to say, on common Equity; the Sentence of the Judge, that by Commission hath Authority to take cognisance of such causes, is a sufficient Verification of the Law of Nature in that individual case. For though the advice of one that professeth the study of the Law, be useful for the avoiding of contention; yet it is but advice: tis the Judge must tell men what is Law, upon the hearing of the Controversy.

But when the question is of injury, or crime, upon a written Law;every man by recourse to the Registers, by himself, or others, may (if he will) be sufficiently informed, before he do such injury, or commit the crime, whither it be an injury, or not: Nay he ought to do so: For when a man doubts whether the act he goeth about, be just, or injust; and may inform himself, if he will; the doing is unlawful. In like manner, he that supposeth himself injured, in a case determined by the written Law, which he may by himself, or others see and consider; if he complain before he consults with the Law, he does unjustly, and bewrayeth a disposition rather to vex other men, than to demand his own right.

If the question be of Obedience to a public Officer; To haveseen his Commission, with the Public Seal, and heard it read; or to have had the means to be informed of it, if a man would, is a sufficient Verification of his Authority. For every man is obliged to do his best endeavour, to inform himself of all written Laws, that may concern his own future actions.

The Legislator known; and the Laws, either by writing, or bythe light of Nature, sufficiently published; there wanteth yet another very material circumstance to make them obligatory. For it is not the Letter, but the Intendment, or Meaning; that is to say, the authentic Interpretation of the Law (which is the sense of the Legislator,) in which the nature of the Law consisteth; And therefore the Interpretation of all Laws dependeth on the Authority Sovereign; and the Interpreters can be none but those, which the Sovereign, (to whom only the Subject oweth obedience) shall appoint. For else, by the craft of an Interpreter, the Law may be made to bear a sense, contrary to that of the Sovereign; by which means the Interpreter becomes the Legislator.

All Laws, written, and unwritten, have need of Interpretation.The unwritten Law of Nature, though it be easy to such, as without partiality, and passion, make use of their natural reason, and therefore leaves the violators thereof without excuse; yet considering there be very few, perhaps none, that in some cases are not blinded by self love, or some other passion, it is now become of all Laws the most obscure; and has consequently the greatest need of able Interpreters. The written Laws, if they be short, are easily mis-interpreted, from the divers significations of a word, or two: if long, they be more obscure by the diverse significations of many words: in so much as no written Law, delivered in few, or many words, can be well understood, without a perfect understanding of the final causes, for which the Law was made; the knowledge of which final causes is in the Legislator. To him therefore there can not be any knot in the Law, insoluble; either by finding out the ends, to undo it by; or else by making what ends he will, (as Alexander did with his sword in the Gordian knot,) by the Legislative power; which no other Interpreter can do.

The Interpretation of the Laws of Nature, in a Commonwealth,dependeth not on the books of Moral Philosophy. The Authority of writers, without the Authority of the Common-wealth, maketh not their opinions Law, be they never so true. That which I have written in this Treatise, concerning the Moral Virtues, and of their necessity, for the procuring, and maintaining peace, though it be evident Truth, is not therefore presently Law; but because in all Common-wealths in the world, it is part of the Civil Law: For though it be naturally reasonable; yet it is by the Sovereign Power that it is Law: Otherwise, it were a great error, to call the Laws of Nature unwritten Law; whereof we see so many volumes published, and in them so many contradictions of one another, and of themselves.

The Interpretation of the Law of Nature, is the Sentence of theJudge constituted by the Sovereign Authority, to hear and determine such controversies, as depend thereon; and consisteth in the application of the Law to the present case. For in the act of Judicature, the Judge doth no more but consider, whither the demand of the party, be consonant to natural reason, and Equity; and the Sentence he giveth, is therefore the Interpretation of the Law of Nature; which Interpretation is Authentic; not because it is his private Sentence; but because he giveth it by Authority of the Sovereign, whereby it becomes the Sovereigns Sentence; which is Law for that time, to the parties pleading.

But because there is no Judge Subordinate, nor Sovereign, but mayerr in a Judgement of Equity; if afterward in another like case he find it more consonant to Equity to give a contrary Sentence, he is obliged to do it. No man's error becomes his own Law; nor obliges him to persist in it. Neither (for the same reason) becomes it a Law to other Judges, though sworn to follow it. For though a wrong Sentence given by authority of the Sovereign, if he know and allow it, in such Laws as are mutable, be a constitution of a new Law, in cases, in which every little circumstance is the same; yet in Laws immutable, such as are the Laws of Nature, they are no Laws to the same, or other Judges, in the like cases for ever after. Princes succeed one another; and one Judge passeth, another cometh; nay, Heaven and Earth shall pass; but not one title of the Law of Nature shall pass; for it is the Eternal Law of God. Therefore all the Sentences of precedent Judges that have ever been, cannot all together make a Law contrary to natural Equity: Nor any Examples of former Judges, can warrant an unreasonable Sentence, or discharge the present Judge of the trouble of studying what is Equity (in the case he is to Judge,) from the principles of his own natural reason. For example sake, 'Tis against the Law of Nature, To punish the Innocent; and Innocent is he that acquitteth himself Judicially, and is acknowledged for Innocent by the Judge. Put the case now, that a man is accused of a capital crime, and seeing the power and malice of some enemy, and the frequent corruption and partiality of Judges, runneth away for fear of the event, and afterwards is taken, and brought to a legal trial, and maketh it sufficiently appear, he was not guilty of the crime, and being thereof acquitted, is nevertheless condemned to lose his goods; this is a manifest condemnation of the Innocent. I say therefore, that there is no place in the world, where this can be an interpretation of a Law of Nature, or be made a Law by the Sentences of precedent Judges, that had done the same. For he that judged it first, judged unjustly; and no Injustice can be a pattern of Judgement to succeeding Judges. A written Law may forbid innocent men to fly, and they may be punished for flying: But that flying for fear of injury, should be taken for presumption of guilt, after a man is already absolved of the crime Judicially, is contrary to the nature of a Presumption, which hath no place after Judgement given. Yet this is set down by a great Lawyer for the common Law of England. If a man (saith he) that is Innocent, be accused of Felony, and for fear flieth for the same; albeit he judicially acquitteth himself of the Felony; yet if it be found that he fled for the Felony, he shall notwithstanding his Innocency, Forfeit all his goods, chattels, debts, and duties. For as to the Forfeiture of them, the Law will admit no proof against the Presumption in Law, grounded upon his flight. Here you see, An Innocent man, Judicially acquitted, notwithstanding his Innocency, (when no written Law forbad him to fly) after his acquittal, upon a Presumption in Law, condemned to lose all the goods he hath. If the Law ground upon his flight a Presumption of the fact, (which was Capital,) the Sentence ought to have been Capital: if the Presumption were not of the Fact, for what then ought he to lose his goods? This therefore is no Law of England; nor is the condemnation grounded upon a Presumption of Law, but upon the Presumption of the Judges. It is also against Law, to say that no Proof shall be admitted against a Presumption of Law. For all Judges, Sovereign and subordinate, if they refuse to hear Proof, refuse to do Justice: for though the Sentence be Just, yet the Judges that condemn without hearing the Proofs offered, are Unjust Judges; and their Presumption is but Prejudice; which no man ought to bring with him to the Seat of Justice, whatsoever precedent judgements, or examples he shall pretend to follow. There be other things of this nature, wherein men's Judgements have been perverted, by trusting to Precedents: but this is enough to show, that though the Sentence of the Judge, be a Law to the party pleading, yet it is no Law to any Judge, that shall succeed him in that Office.

In like manner, when question is of the Meaning of written Laws, he is not the Interpreter of them, that writeth a Commentary upon them. For Commentaries are commonly more subject to cavil, than the Text; and therefore need other Commentaries; and so there will be no end of such Interpretation. And therefore unless there be an Interpreter authorised by the Sovereign, from which the subordinate Judges are not to recede, the Interpreter can be no other than the ordinary Judges, in the same manner, as they are in cases of the unwritten Law; and their Sentences are to be taken by them that plead, for Laws in that particular case; but not to bind other Judges, in like cases to give like judgements. For a Judge may err in the Interpretation even of written Laws; but no error of a subordinate Judge, can change the Law, which is the general Sentence of the Sovereign.

In written Laws, men use to make a difference between the Letter,and the Sentence of the Law: And when by the Letter, is meant whatsoever can be gathered from the bare words, 'tis well distinguished. For the significations of almost all words, are either in themselves, or in the metaphorical use of them, ambiguous; and may be drawn in argument, to make many senses; but there is only one sense of the Law. But if by the Letter, be meant the literal sense, then the Letter, and the Sentence or intention of the Law, is all one. For the literal sense is that, which the Legislator intended, should by the letter of the Law be signified. Now the Intention of the Legislator is always supposed to be Equity: For it were a great contumely for a Judge to think otherwise of the Sovereign. He ought therefore, if the Word of the Law do not fully authorise a reasonable Sentence, to supply it with the Law of Nature; or if the case be difficult, to respite Judgement till he have received more ample authority. For Example, a written Law ordaineth, that he which is thrust out of his house by force, shall be restored by force: It happens that a man by negligence leaves his house empty, and returning is kept out by force, in which case there is no special Law ordained. It is evident, that this case is contained in the same Law: for else there is no remedy for him at all; which is to be supposed against the Intention of the Legislator. Again, the word of the Law, commandeth to Judge according to the Evidence: A man is accused falsely of a fact, which the Judge saw himself done by another; and not by him that is accused. In this case neither shall the Letter of the Law be followed to the condemnation of the Innocent, nor shall the Judge give Sentence against the evidence of the Witnesses; because the Letter of the Law is to the contrary: but procure of the Sovereign that another be made Judge, and himself Witness. So that the incommodity that follows the bare words of a written Law, may lead him to the Intention of the Law, whereby to interpret the same the better; though no Incommodity can warrant a Sentence against the Law. For every Judge of Right, and Wrong, is not Judge of what is Commodious, or Incommodious to the Common-wealth.

The abilities required in a good Interpreter of the Law, that isto say, in a good Judge, are not the same with those of an Advocate; namely the study of the Laws. For a Judge, as he ought to take notice of the Fact, from none but the Witnesses; so also he ought to take notice of the Law, from nothing but the Statutes, and Constitutions of the Sovereign, alleged in the pleading, or declared to him by some that have authority from the Sovereign Power to declare them; and need not take care before-hand, what he shall Judge; for it shall be given him what he shall say concerning the Fact, by Witnesses; and what he shall say in point of Law, from those that shall in their pleadings show it, and by authority interpret it upon the place. The Lords of Parliament in England were Judges, and most difficult causes have been heard and determined by them; yet few of them were much versed in the study of the Laws, and fewer had made profession of them: and though they consulted with Lawyers, that were appointed to be present there for that purpose; yet they alone had the authority of giving Sentence. In like manner, in the ordinary trials of Right, Twelve men of the common People, are the Judges, and give Sentence, not only of the Fact, but of the Right; and pronounce simply for the Complainant, or for the Defendant; that is to say, are Judges not only of the Fact, but also of the Right: and in a question of crime, not only determine whether done, or not done; but also whether it be Murder, Homicide, Felony, Assault, and the like, which are determinations of Law: but because they are not supposed to know the Law of themselves, there is one that hath Authority to inform them of it, in the particular case they are to Judge of. But yet if they judge not according to that he tells them, they are not subject thereby to any penalty; unless it be made appear, they did it against their consciences, or had been corrupted by reward.

The things that make a good Judge, or good Interpreter of the Laws, are, first, A right understanding of that principal Law of Nature called Equity; which depending not on the reading of other men's Writings, but on the goodness of a man's own natural Reason, and Meditation, is presumed to be in those most, that have had most leisure, and had the most inclination to meditate thereon. Secondly, Contempt of unnecessary Riches, and Preferments. Thirdly, To be able in judgement to divest himself of all fear, anger, hatred, love, and compassion. Fourthly, and lastly, Patience to hear; diligent attention in hearing; and memory to retain, digest and apply what he hath heard.

The difference and division of the Laws, has been made in diversmanners, according to the different methods, of those men that have written of them. For it is a thing that dependeth not on Nature, but on the scope of the Writer; and is subservient to every man's proper method. In the Institutions of Justinian, we find seven sorts of Civil Laws. 1. The Edicts, Constitutions, and Epistles of the Prince, that is, of the Emperor; because the whole power of the people was in him. Like these, are the Proclamations of the Kings of England.

2. The Decrees of the whole people of Rome (comprehending the Senate,) when they were put to the Question by the Senate. These were Laws, at first, by the virtue of the Sovereign Power residing in the people; and such of them as by the Emperors were not abrogated, remained Laws by the Authority Imperial. For all Laws that bind, are understood to be Laws by his authority that has power to repeal them. Somewhat like to these Laws, are the Acts of Parliament in England.

3. The Decrees of the Common people (excluding the Senate,) when they were put to the question by the Tribune of the people. For such of them as were not abrogated by the Emperors, remained Laws by the Authority Imperial. Like to these, were the Orders of the House of Commons in England.

4. Senateûs consulta, the Orders of the Senate; because when the people of Rome grew so numerous, as it was inconvenient to assemble them; it was thought fit by the Emperor, that men should Consult the Senate, in stead of the people: And these have some resemblance with the Acts of Counsel.

5. The Edicts of Praetors, and (in some Cases) of the Aediles: such as are the Chief Justices in the Courts of England.

6. Responsa Prudentum; which were the Sentences, and Opinions of those Lawyers, to whom the Emperor gave Authority to interpret the Law, and to give answer to such as in matter of Law demanded their advice; which Answers, the Judges in giving Judgement were obliged by the Constitutions of the Emperor to observe: And should be like the Reports of Cases Judged, if other Judges be by the Law of England bound to observe them. For the Judges of the Common Law of England, are not properly Judges, but Juris Consulti; of whom the Judges, who are either the Lords, or Twelve men of the Country, are in point of Law to ask advice.

7. Also, Unwritten Customs, (which in their own nature are an imitation of Law,) by the tacit consent of the Emperor, in case they be not contrary to the Law of Nature, are very Laws.

Another division of Laws, is into Natural and Positive. Natural are those which have been Laws from all Eternity; and are called not only Natural, but also Moral Laws; consisting in the Moral Virtues, as Justice, Equity, and all habits of the mind that conduce to Peace, and Charity; of which I have already spoken in the fourteenth and fifteenth Chapters.

Positive, are those which have not been from Eternity; but have been made Laws by the Will of those that have had the Sovereign Power over others; and are either written, or made known to men, by some other argument of the Will of their Legislator.

Again, of Positive Laws some are Humane, some Divine: Andof Human positive laws, some are Distributive, some Penal. Distributive are those that determine the Rights of the Subjects, declaring to every man what it is, by which he acquireth and holdeth a propriety in lands, or goods, and a right or liberty of action: and these speak to all the Subjects. Penal are those, which declare, what Penalty shall be inflicted on those that violate the Law; and speak to the Ministers and Officers ordained for execution. For though every one ought to be informed of the Punishments ordained beforehand for their transgression; nevertheless the Command is not addressed to the Delinquent, (who cannot be supposed will faithfully punish himself,) but to public Ministers appointed to see the Penalty executed. And these Penal Laws are for the most part written together with the Laws Distributive; and are sometimes called Judgements. For all Laws are general Judgements, or Sentences of the Legislator; as also every particular Judgement, is a Law to him, whose case is Judged.

Divine Positive Laws (for Natural Laws being Eternal, andUniversal, are all Divine,) are those, which being the Commandments of God, (not from all Eternity, nor universally addressed to all men, but only to a certain people, or to certain persons,) are declared for such, by those whom God hath authorised to declare them. But this Authority of man to declare what be these Positive Laws of God, how can it be known? God may command a man by a supernatural way, to deliver Laws to other men. But because it is of the essence of Law, that he who is to be obliged, be assured of the Authority of him that declareth it, which we cannot naturally take notice to be from God, How can a man without supernatural Revelation be assured of the Revelation received by the declarer? and how can he be bound to obey them? For the first question, how a man can be assured of the Revelation of another, without a Revelation particularly to himself, it is evidently impossible: For though a man may be induced to believe such Revelation, from the Miracles they see him do, or from seeing the Extraordinary sanctity of his life, or from seeing the Extraordinary wisdom, or Extraordinary felicity of his Actions, all which are marks of God extraordinary favour; yet they are not assured evidences of special Revelation. Miracles are Marvellous works: but that which is marvellous to one, may not be so to another. Sanctity may be feigned; and the visible felicities of this world, are most often the work of God by Natural, and ordinary causes. And therefore no man can infallibly know by natural reason, that another has had a supernatural revelation of Gods will; but only a belief; every one (as the signs thereof shall appear greater; or lesser) a firmer, or a weaker belief.

But for the second, how he can be bound to obey them; it is not so hard. For if the Law declared, be not against the Law of Nature (which is undoubtedly Gods Law) and he undertake to obey it, he is bound by his own act; bound I say to obey it, but not bound to believe it: for men's belief, and interior cogitations, are not subject to the commands, but only to the operation of God, ordinary, or extraordinary. Faith of Supernatural Law, is not a fulfilling, but only an assenting to the same; and not a duty that we exhibit to God, but a gift which God freely giveth to whom he pleaseth; as also Unbelief is not a breach of any of his Laws; but a rejection of them all, except the Laws Natural. But this that I say, will be made yet clearer, by the Examples, and Testimonies concerning this point in holy Scripture. The Covenant God made with Abraham (in a Supernatural manner) was thus, This is the Covenant which thou shalt observe between Me and Thee and thy Seed after thee. Abrahams Seed had not this revelation, nor were yet in being; yet they are a party to the Covenant, and bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them for Gods Law; which they could not be, but in virtue of the obedience they owed to their Parents; who (if they be Subject to no other earthly power, as here in the case of Abraham) have Sovereign power over their children, and servants. Again, where God saith to Abraham, In thee shall all Nations of the earth be blessed: For I know thou wilt command thy children, and thy house after thee to keep the way of the Lord, and to observe Righteousness and Judgement, it is manifest, the obedience of his Family, who had no Revelation, depended on their former obligation to obey their Sovereign. At Mount Sinai Moses only went up to God; the people were forbidden to approach on paine of death; yet were they bound to obey all that Moses declared to them for Gods Law. Upon what ground, but on this submission of their own, Speak thou to us, and we will hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die? By which two places it sufficiently appeareth, that in a Common-wealth, a subject that has no certain and assured Revelation particularly to himself concerning the Will of God, is to obey for such, the Command of the Common-wealth: for if men were at liberty, to take for Gods Commandments, their own dreams, and fancies, or the dreams and fancies of private men; scarce two men would agree upon what is Gods Commandment; and yet in respect of them, every man would despise the Commandments of the Common-wealth. I conclude therefore, that in all things not contrary to the Moral Law, (that is to say, to the Law of Nature,) all Subjects are bound to obey that for divine Law, which is declared to be so, by the Laws of the Common-wealth. Which also is evident to any man's reason; for whatsoever is not against the Law of Nature, may be made Law in the name of them that have the Sovereign power; and there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it, when tis propounded in the name of God. Besides, there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other Commandments of God, than are declared for such by the Common-wealth. Christian States punish those that revolt from Christian Religion, and all other States, those that set up any Religion by them forbidden. For in whatsoever is not regulated by the Common-wealth, tis Equity (which is the Law of Nature, and therefore an eternal Law of God) that every man equally enjoy his liberty.

There is also another distinction of Laws, into Fundamental, andnot Fundamental: but I could never see in any Author, what a Fundamental Law signifieth. Nevertheless one may very reasonably distinguish Laws in that manner.

For a Fundamental Law in every Common-wealth is that, whichbeing taken away, the Common-wealth faileth, and is utterly dissolved; as a building whose Foundation is destroyed. And therefore a Fundamental Law is that, by which Subjects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given to the Sovereign, whether a Monarch, or a Sovereign Assembly, without which the Commonwealth cannot stand; such as is the power of War and Peace, of Judicature, of Election of Officers, and of doing whatsoever he shall think necessary for the Public good. Not Fundamental is that, the abrogating whereof, draweth not with it the dissolution of the Common-Wealth; such as are the Laws concerning Controversies between subject and subject. Thus much of the Division of Laws.

I find the words Lex Civilis, and Jus Civile, that is to say, Law and Right Civil, promiscuously used for the same thing, even in the most learned Authors; which nevertheless ought not to be so. For Right is Liberty, namely that Liberty which the Civil Law leaves us: But Civil Law is an Obligation; and takes from us the Liberty which the Law of Nature gave us. Nature gave a Right to every man to secure himself by his own strength, and to invade a suspected neighbour, by way of prevention: but the Civil Law takes away that Liberty, in all cases where the protection of the Law may be safely stayed for. Insomuch as Lex and Jus, are as different as Obligation and Liberty.

Likewise Laws and Charters are taken promiscuously for thesame thing. Yet Charters are Donations of the Sovereign; and not Laws, but exemptions from Law. The phrase of a Law is Jubeo, Injungo, I Command, and Enjoin: the phrase of a Charter is Dedi, Concessi, I have Given, I have Granted: but what is given or granted, to a man, is not forced upon him, by a Law. A Law may be made to bind All the Subjects of a Common-wealth: a Liberty, or Charter is only to One man, or some One part of the people. For to say all the people of a Common-wealth, have Liberty in any case whatsoever; is to say, that in such case, there hath been no Law made; or else having been made, is now abrogated.

CHAP. XXVII. Of CRIMES, EXCUSES, and EXTENUATIONS.

A Sin, is not only a Transgression of a Law, but also anyContempt of the Legislator. For such Contempt, is a breach of all his Laws at once. And therefore may consist, not only in the Commission of a Fact, or in the Speaking of Words by the Laws forbidden, or in the Omission of what the Law commandeth, but also in the Intention, or purpose to transgress. For the purpose to break the Law, is some degree of Contempt of him, to whom it belongeth to see it executed. To be delighted in the Imagination only, of being possessed of another man's goods, servants, or wife, without any intention to take them from him by force, or fraud, is no breach of the Law, that saith, Thou shalt not covet: nor is the pleasure a man may have in imagining, or dreaming of the death of him, from whose life he expecteth nothing but damage, and displeasure, a Sin; but the resolving to put some Act in execution, that tendeth thereto. For to be pleased in the fiction of that, which would please a man if it were real, is a Passion so adherent to the Nature both of man, and every other living creature, as to make it a Sin, were to make Sin of being a man. The consideration of this, has made me think them too severe, both to themselves, and others, that maintain, that the First motions of the mind, (though checked with the fear of God) be Sins. But I confess it is safer to err on that hand, than on the other.

A CRIME, is a sin, consisting in the Committing (by Deed, orWord) of that which the Law forbiddeth, or the Omission of what it hath commanded. So that every Crime is a sin; but not every sin a Crime. To intend to steal, or kill, is a sin, though it never appear in Word, or Fact: for God that seeth the thoughts of man, can lay it to his charge: but till it appear by some thing done, or said, by which the intention may be argued by a human Judge, it hath not the name of Crime: which distinction the Greeks observed, in the word ἁμάρτημα, and ἔγκλημα, or αἰτία; whereof the former, (which is translated Sin,) signifieth any swerving from the Law whatsoever; but the two later, (which are translated Crime,) signify that sin only, whereof one man may accuse another. But of Intentions, which never appear by any outward act, there is no place for human accusation. In like manner the Latins by Peccatum, which is Sin, signify all manner of deviation from the Law; but by Crimen, (which word they derive from Cerno, which signifies to perceive,) they mean only such sins, as may be made appear before a Judge; and therefore are not mere Intentions.

From this relation of Sin to the Law, and of Crime to the Civil Law, may be inferred, First, that where Law ceaseth, Sin ceaseth. But because the Law of Nature is eternal, Violation of Covenants, Ingratitude, Arrogance, and all Facts contrary to any Moral virtue, can never cease to be Sin. Secondly, that the Civil Law ceasing, Crimes cease: for there being no other Law remaining, but that of Nature, there is no place for Accusation; every man being his own Judge, and accused only by his own Conscience, and cleared by the Uprightness of his own Intention. When therefore his Intention is Right, his fact is no Sin: if otherwise, his fact is Sin; but not Crime. Thirdly, That when the Sovereign Power ceaseth, Crime also ceaseth: for where there is no such Power, there is no protection to be had from the Law; and therefore every one may protect himself by his own power: for no man in the Institution of Sovereign Power can be supposed to give away the Right of preserving his own body; for the safety whereof all Sovereignty was ordained. But this is to be understood only of those, that have not themselves contributed to the taking away of the Power that protected them: for that was a Crime from the beginning.

The source of every Crime, is some defect of the Understanding;or some error in Reasoning; or some sudden force of the Passions. Defect in the Understanding, is Ignorance; in Reasoning, Erroneous Opinion. Again, Ignorance is of three sorts; of the Law, and of the Sovereign, and of the Penalty. Ignorance of the Law of Nature Excuseth no man; because every man that hath attained to the use of Reason, is supposed to know, he ought not to do to another, what he would not have done to himself. Therefore into what place soever a man shall come, if he do any thing contrary to that Law, it is a Crime. If a man come from the Indies hither, and persuade men here to receive a new Religion, or teach them any thing that tendeth to disobedience of the Laws of this Country, though he be never so well persuaded of the truth of what he teacheth, he commits a Crime, and may be justly punished for the same, not only because his doctrine is false, but also because he does that which he would not approve in another, namely, that coming from hence, he should endeavour to alter the Religion there. But ignorance of the Civil Law, shall Excuse a man in a strange Country, till it be declared to him; because, till then no Civil Law is binding.

In the like manner, if the Civil Law of a man's own Country, be not so sufficiently declared, as he may know it if he will; nor the Action against the Law of Nature; the Ignorance is a good Excuse: In other cases Ignorance of the Civil Law, Excuseth not.

Ignorance of the Sovereign Power, in the place of a man's ordinaryresidence, Excuseth him not; because he ought to take notice of the Power, by which he hath been protected there.

Ignorance of the Penalty, where the Law is declared, Excusethno man: For in breaking the Law, which without a fear of penalty to follow, were not a Law, but vain words, he undergoeth the penalty, though he know not what it is; because, whosoever voluntarily doth any action, accepteth all the known consequences of it; but Punishment is a known consequence of the violation of the Laws, in every Common-wealth; which punishment, if it be determined already by the Law, he is subject to that; if not, then is he subject to Arbitrary punishment. For it is reason, that he which does Injury, without other limitation than that of his own Will, should suffer punishment without other limitation, than that of his Will whose Law is thereby violated.

But when a penalty, is either annexed to the Crime in the Law itself, or hath been usually inflicted in the like cases; there the Delinquent is Excused from a greater penalty. For the punishment foreknown, if not great enough to deter men from the action, is an invitement to it: because when men compare the benefit of their Injustice, with the harm of their punishment, by necessity of Nature they choose that which appeareth best for themselves: and therefore when they are punished more than the Law had formerly determined, or more than others were punished for the same Crime; it is the Law that tempted, and deceiveth them.

No Law, made after a Fact done, can make it a Crime: because ifthe Fact be against the Law of Nature, the Law was before the Fact; and a Positive Law cannot be taken notice of, before it be made; and therefore cannot be Obligatory. But when the Law that forbiddeth a Fact, is made before the Fact be done; yet he that doth the Fact, is liable to the Penalty ordained after, in case no lesser Penalty were made known before, neither by Writing, nor by Example, for the reason immediately before alleged.

From defect in Reasoning, (that is to say, from Error,) men areprone to violate the Laws, three ways. First, by Presumption of false Principles: as when men from having observed how in all places, and in all ages, unjust Actions have been authorised, by the force, and victories of those who have committed them; and that potent men, breaking through the Cob-web Laws of their Country, the weaker sort, and those that have failed in their Enterprises, have been esteemed the only Criminals; have thereupon taken for Principles, and grounds of their Reasoning, That Justice is but a vain word: That whatsoever a man can get by his own Industry, and hazard, is his own: That the Practice of all Nations cannot be unjust: That Examples of former times are good Arguments of doing the like again; and many more of that kind: Which being granted, no Act in it self can be a Crime, but must be made so (not by the Law, but) by the success of them that commit it; and the same Fact be virtuous, or vicious, as Fortune pleaseth; so that what Marius makes a Crime, Sylla shall make meritorious, and Caesar (the same Laws standing) turnagain into a Crime, to the perpetual disturbance of the Peace of the Common-wealth.

Secondly, by false Teachers, that either mis-interpret the Law of Nature, making it thereby repugnant to the Law Civil; or by teaching for Laws, such Doctrines of their own, or Traditions offormer times, as are inconsistent with the duty of a Subject.

Thirdly, by Erroneous Inferences from True Principles; which happens commonly to men that are hasty, and precipitate in concluding, and resolving what to do; such as are they, that have both a great opinion of their own understanding, and believe that things of this nature require not time and study, but only common experience, and a good natural wit; whereof no man thinks himself unprovided: whereas the knowledge, of Right and Wrong, which is no less difficult, there is no man will pretend to, without great and long study. And of those defects in Reasoning, there is none that can Excuse (though some of them may Extenuate) a Crime, in any man, that pretendeth to the administration of his own private business; much less in them that undertake a public charge; because they pretend to the Reason, upon the want whereof they would ground their Excuse.

Of the Passions that most frequently are the causes of Crime, one,is Vain-glory, or a foolish over-rating of their own worth; as if difference of worth, were an effect of their wit, or riches, or blood, or some other natural quality, not depending on the Will of those that have the Sovereign Authority. From whence proceedeth a Presumption that the punishments ordained by the Laws, and extended generally to all Subjects, ought not to be inflicted on them, with the same rigour they are inflicted on poor, obscure, and simple men, comprehended under the name of the Vulgar.

Therefore it happeneth commonly, that such as value themselvesby the greatness of their wealth, adventure on Crimes, upon hope of escaping punishment, by corrupting public Justice, or obtaining Pardon by Money, or other rewards.

And that such as have multitude of Potent Kindred; and popularmen, that have gained reputation amongst the Multitude, take courage to violate the Laws, from a hope of oppressing the Power, to whom it belongeth to put them in execution.

And that such as have a great, and false opinion of their ownWisdom, take upon them to reprehend the actions, and call in question the Authority of them that govern, and so to unsettle the Laws with their public discourse, as that nothing shall be a Crime, but what their own designs require should be so. It happeneth also to the same men, to be prone to all such Crimes, as consist in Craft, and in deceiving of their Neighbours; because they think their designs are too subtle to be perceived. These I say are effects of a false presumption of their own Wisdom. For of them that are the first movers in the disturbance of Common-wealth, (which can never happen without a Civil War,) very few are left alive long enough, to see their new Designs established: so that the benefit of their Crimes, redoundeth to Posterity, and such as would least have wished it: which argues they were not so wise, as they thought they were. And those that deceive upon hope of not being observed, do commonly deceive themselves, (the darkness in which they believe they lye hidden, being nothing else but their own blindness;) and are no wiser than Children, that think all hid, by hiding their own eyes.

And generally all vain-glorious men, (unless they be withal timorous,) are subject to Anger; as being more prone than others to interpret for contempt, the ordinary liberty of conversation: And there are few Crimes that may not be produced by Anger.

As for the Passions, of Hate, Lust, Ambition, and Covetousness, what Crimes they are apt to produce, is so obvious to every man's experience and understanding, as there needeth nothing to be said of them, saving that they are infirmities, so annexed to the nature, both of man, and all other living creatures, as that their effects cannot be hindered, but by extraordinary use of Reason, or a constant severity in punishing them. For in those things men hate, they find a continual, and unavoidable molestation; whereby either a man's patience must be everlasting, or he must be eased by removing the power of that which molesteth him: The former is difficult; the later is many times impossible, without some violation of the Law. Ambition, and Covetousness are Passions also that are perpetually incumbent, and pressing; whereas Reason is not perpetually present, to resist them: and therefore whensoever the hope of impunity appears, their effects proceed. And for Lust, what it wants in the lasting, it hath in the vehemence, which sufficeth to weigh down the apprehension of all easy, or uncertain punishments.

Of all Passions, that which inclineth men least to break the Laws,is Fear. Nay, (excepting some generous natures,) it is the only thing, (when there is apparence of profit, or pleasure by breaking the Laws,) that makes men keep them. And yet in many cases a Crime may be committed through Fear.

For not every Fear justifies the Action it produceth, but the fear only of corporeal hurt, which we call Bodily Fear, and from which a man cannot see how to be delivered, but by the action. A man is assaulted, fears present death, from which he sees not how to escape, but by wounding him that assaulteth him; If he wound him to death, this is no Crime; because no man is supposed at the making of a Common-wealth, to have abandoned the defence of his life, or limbs, where the Law cannot arrive time enough to his assistance. But to kill a man, because from his actions, or his threatenings, I may argue he will kill me when he can, (seeing I have time, and means to demand protection, from the Sovereign Power,) is a Crime. Again, a man receives words of disgrace, or some little injuries (for which they that made the Laws, had assigned no punishment, nor thought it worthy of a man that hath the use of Reason, to take notice of,) and is afraid, unless he revenge it, he shall fall into contempt, and consequently be obnoxious to the like injuries from others; and to avoid this, breaks the Law, and protects himself for the future, by the terror of his private revenge. This is a Crime: For the hurt is not Corporeal, but Fantastical, and (though in this corner of the world, made sensible by a custom not many years since begun, amongst young and vain men,) so light, as a gallant man, and one that is assured of his own courage, cannot take notice of. Also a man may stand in fear of Spirits, either through his own superstition, or through too much credit given to other men, that tell him of strange Dreams and Visions; and thereby be made believe they will hurt him, for doing, or omitting divers things, which nevertheless, to do, or omit, is contrary to the Laws; And that which is so done, or omitted, is not to be Excused by this fear; but is a Crime. For (as I have shown before in the second Chapter) Dreams be naturally but the fancies remaining in sleep, after the impressions our Senses had formerly received waking; and when men are by any accident unassured they have slept, seem to be real Visions; and therefore he that presumes to break the Law upon his own, or another's Dream, or pretended Vision, or upon other Fancy of the power of Invisible Spirits, than is permitted by the Common-wealth, leaveth the Law of Nature, which is a certain offence, and followeth the imagery of his own, or another private man's brain, which he can never know whether it signifieth any thing, or nothing, nor whether he that tells his Dream, say true, or lye; which if every private man should have leave to do, (as they must by the Law of Nature, if any one have it) there could no Law be made to hold, and so all Common-wealth would be dissolved.

From these different sources of Crimes, it appears already, thatall Crimes are not (as the Stoics of old time maintained) of the same allay. There is place, not only for EXCUSE, by which that which seemed a Crime, is proved to be none at all; but also for EXTENUATION, by which the Crime, that seemed great, is made less. For though all Crimes do equally deserve the name of Injustice, as all deviation from a strait line is equally crookedness, which the Stoics rightly observed; yet it does not follow that all Crimes are equally unjust, no more than that all crooked lines are equally crooked; which the Stoics not observing, held it as great a Crime, to kill a Hen, against the Law, as to kill ones Father.

That which totally Excuseth a Fact, and takes away from it thenature of a Crime, can be none but that, which at the same time, taketh away the obligation of the Law. For the fact committed once against the Law, if he that committed it be obliged to the Law, can be no other than a Crime.

The want of means to know the Law, totally Excuseth: For the Law whereof a man has no means to inform himself, is not obligatory. But the want of diligence to enquire, shall not be considered as a want of means; Nor shall any man, that pretendeth to reason enough for the Government of his own affairs, be supposed to want means to know the Laws of Nature; because they are known by the reason he pretends to: only Children, and Madmen are Excused from offences against the Law Natural.

Where a man is captive, or in the power of the enemy, (and he is then in the power of the enemy, when his person, or his means of living, is so,) if it be without his own fault, the Obligation of the Law ceaseth; because he must obey the enemy, or die; and consequently such obedience is no Crime: for no man is obliged (when the protection of the Law faileth,) not to protect himself, by the best means he can.

If a man by the terror of present death, be compelled to do a fact against the Law, he is totally Excused; because no Law can oblige a man to abandon his own preservation. And supposing such a Law were obligatory; yet a man would reason thus, If I do it not, I die presently; if I do it, I die afterwards; therefore by doing it, there is time of life gained; Nature therefore compels him to the fact.

When a man is destitute of food, or other thing necessary for his life, and cannot preserve himself any other way, but by some fact against the Law; as if in a great famine he take the food by force, or stealth, which he cannot obtain for money, nor charity; or in defence of his life, snatch away another man's Sword, he is totally Excused, for the reason next before alleged.

Again, Facts done against the Law, by the authority of another;are by that authority Excused against the Author; because no man ought to accuse his own fact in another, that is but his instrument: but it is not Excused against a third person thereby injured; because in the violation of the Law, both the Author, and Actor are Criminals. From hence it followeth that when that Man, or Assembly, that hath the Sovereign Power, commandeth a man to do that which is contrary to a former Law, the doing of it is totally Excused: For he ought not to condemn it himself, because he is the Author; and what cannot justly be condemned by the Sovereign, cannot justly be punished by any other. Besides, when the Sovereign commandeth any thing to be done against his own former Law, the Command, as to that particular fact, is an abrogation of the Law.

If that Man, or Assembly, that hath the Sovereign Power, disclaim any Right essential to the Sovereignty, whereby there accrueth to the Subject, any liberty inconsistent with the Sovereign Power, that is to say, with the very being of a Common-wealth, if the Subject shall refuse to obey the Command in any thing, contrary to the liberty granted, this is nevertheless a Sin, and contrary to the duty of the Subject: for he ought to take notice of what is inconsistent with the Sovereignty, because it was erected by his own consent, and for his own defence; and that such liberty as is inconsistent with it, was granted through ignorance of the evil consequence thereof. But if he not only disobey, but also resist a public Minister in the execution of it, then it is a Crime; because he might have been righted, (without any breach of the Peace,) upon complaint.

The Degrees of Crime are taken on divers Scales, and measured, First, by the malignity of the Source, or Cause: Secondly, by the contagion of the Example: Thirdly, by the mischief of the Effect; and Fourthly, by the concurrence of Times, Places, and Persons.

The same Fact done against the Law, if it proceed from Presumptionof strength, riches, or friends to resist those that are to execute the Law, is a greater Crime, than if it proceed from hope of not being discovered, or of escape by flight: For Presumption of impunity by force, is a Root, from whence springeth, at all times, and upon all temptations, a contempt of all Laws; whereas in the later case, the apprehension of danger, that makes a man fly, renders him more obedient for the future. A Crime which we know to be so, is greater than the same Crime proceeding from a false persuasion that it is lawful: For he that committeth it against his own conscience, presumeth on his force, or other power, which encourages him to commit the same again: but he that doth it by error, after the error shown him, is conformable to the Law.

He, whose error proceeds from the authority of a Teacher, oran Interpreter of the Law publicly authorised, is not so faulty, as he whose error proceedeth from a peremptory pursuit of his own principles, and reasoning: For what is taught by one that teacheth by public Authority, the Common-wealth teacheth, and hath a resemblance of Law, till the same Authority controlleth it; and in all Crimes that contain not in them a denial of the Sovereign Power, nor are against an evident Law, Excuseth totally: whereas he that groundeth his actions, on his private Judgement, ought according to the rectitude, or error thereof, to stand, or fall.

The same Fact, if it have been constantly punished in other men, isa greater Crime, than if there have been many precedent Examples of impunity. For those Examples, are so many hopes of Impunity, given by the Sovereign himself: And because he which furnishes a man with such a hope, and presumption of mercy, as encourageth him to offend, hath his part in the offence; he cannot reasonably charge the offender with the whole.

A Crime arising from a sudden Passion, is not so great, as when thesame ariseth from long meditation: For in the former case there is a place for Extenuation, in the common infirmity of human nature: but he that doth it with premeditation, has used circumspection, and cast his eye, on the Law, on the punishment, and on the consequence thereof to human society; all which in committing the Crime, he hath contemned, and postposed to his own appetite. But there is no suddenness of Passion sufficient for a total Excuse: For all the time between the first knowing of the Law, and the Commission of the Fact, shall be taken for a time of deliberation; because he ought by meditation of the Law, to rectify the irregularity of his Passions.

Where the Law is publicly, and with assiduity, before all the people read, and interpreted; a fact done against it, is a greater Crime, than where men are left without such instruction, to enquire of it with difficulty, uncertainty, and interruption of their Callings, and be informed by private men: for in this case, part of the fault is discharged upon common infirmity; but in the former, there is apparent negligence, which is not without some contempt of the Sovereign Power.

Those facts which the Law expressly condemneth, but the Lawmakerby other manifest signs of his will tacitly approveth, are less Crimes, than the same facts, condemned both by the Law, and Lawmaker. For seeing the will of the Law-maker is a Law, there appear in this case two contradictory Laws; which would totally Excuse, if men were bound to take notice of the Sovereigns approbation, by other arguments, than are expressed by his command. But because there are punishments consequent, not only to the transgression of his Law, but also to the observing of it, he is in part a cause of the transgression, and therefore cannot reasonably impute the whole Crime to the Delinquent. For example, the Law condemneth Duels; the punishment is made capital: On the contrary part, he that refuseth Duel, is subject to contempt and scorn, without remedy; and sometimes by the Sovereign himself thought unworthy to have any charge, or preferment in War: If thereupon he accept Duel, considering all men lawfully endeavour to obtain the good opinion of them that have the Sovereign Power, he ought not in reason to be rigorously punished; seeing part of the fault may be discharged on the punisher: which I say, not as wishing liberty of private revenges, or any other kind of disobedience; but a care in Governors, not to countenance any thing obliquely, which directly they forbid. The examples of Princes, to those that see them, are, and ever have been, more potent to govern their actions, than the Laws themselves. And thought it be our duty to do, not what they do, but what they say; yet will that duty never be performed, till it please God to give men an extraordinary, and supernatural grace to follow that Precept.

Again, if we compare Crimes by the mischief of their Effects,First, the same fact, when it redounds to the damage of many, is greater, than when it redounds to the hurt of few. And therefore, when a fact hurteth, not only in the present, but also, (by example) in the future, it is a greater Crime, than if it hurt only in the present: for the former, is a fertile Crime, and multiplies to the hurt of many; the later is barren. To maintain doctrines contrary to the Religion established in the Common-wealth, is a greater fault, in an authorised Preacher, than in a private person: So also is it, to live profanely, incontinently, or do any irreligious act whatsoever. Likewise in a Professor of the Law, to maintain any point, or do any act, that tendeth to the weakening of the Sovereign Power, is a greater Crime, than in another man: Also in a man that hath such reputation for wisdom, as that his counsels are followed, or his actions imitated by many, his fact against the Law, is a greater Crime, than the same fact in another: For such men not only commit Crime, but teach it for Law to all other men. And generally all Crimes are the greater, by the scandal they give; that is to say, by becoming stumbling-blocks to the weak, that look not so much upon the way they go in, as upon the light that other men carry before them.

Also Facts of hostility against the present state of the Commonwealth,are greater Crimes, than the same acts done to private men: For the damage extends it self to all: Such are the betraying of the strengths, or revealing of the secrets of the Common-wealth to an Enemy; also all attempts upon the Representative of the Commonwealth, be it a Monarch, or an Assembly; and all endeavours by word, or deed to diminish the Authority of the same, either in the present time, or in succession: which Crimes the Latins understand by Crimina laesae Majestatis, and consist in design, or act, contrary to a Fundamental Law.

Likewise those Crimes, which render Judgements of no effect, aregreater Crimes, than Injuries done to one, or a few persons; as to receive money to give False judgement, or testimony, is a greater Crime, than otherwise to deceive a man of the like, or a greater sum; because not only he has wrong, that falls by such judgements; but all Judgements are rendered useless, and occasion ministered to force, and private revenges.

Also Robbery, and Depeculation of the Public treasure, or Revenues,is a greater Crime, than the robbing, or defrauding of a Private man; because to rob the public, is to rob many at once.

Also the Counterfeit usurpation of public Ministry, the Counterfeitingof public Seals, or public Coin, than counterfeiting of a private man's person, or his seal; because the fraud thereof, extendeth to the damage of many.

Of facts against the Law, done to private men, the greater Crime,is that, where the damage in the common opinion of men, is most sensible. And therefore

To kill against the Law, is a greater Crime, than any other injury, life preserved.

And to kill with Torment, greater, than simply to kill.

And Mutilation of a limb, greater, than the spoiling a man of his goods.

And the spoiling a man of his goods, by Terror of death, or wounds, than by clandestine surreption.

And by clandestine Surreption, than by consent fraudulently obtained.

And the violation of chastity by Force, greater, than by flattery.

And of a woman Married, than of a woman not married.

For all these things are commonly so valued; though some men are more, and some less sensible of the same offence. But the Law regardeth not the particular, but the general inclination of mankind.

And therefore the offence men take, from contumely, in words, or gesture, when they produce no other harm, than the present grief of him that is reproached, hath been neglected in the Laws of the Greeks, Romans, and other both ancient, and modern Commonwealths; supposing the true cause of such grief to consist, not in the contumely, (which takes no hold upon men conscious of their own virtue,) but in the Pusillanimity of him that is offended by it.

Also a Crime against a private man, is much aggravated by the person, time, and place. For to kill ones Parent, is a greater Crime, than to kill another: for the Parent ought to have the honour of a Sovereign, (though he have surrendered his Power to the Civil Law,) because he had it originally by Nature. And to Rob a poor man, is a greater Crime, than to rob a rich man; because 'tis to the poor a more sensible damage.

And a Crime committed in the Time, or Place appointed for Devotion, is greater, than if committed at another time or place: for it proceeds from a greater contempt of the Law.

Many other cases of Aggravation, and Extenuation might be added: but by these I have set down, it is obvious to every man, to take the altitude of any other Crime proposed.

Lastly, because in almost all Crimes there is an Injury done, notonly to some Private men, but also to the Common-wealth; the same Crime, when the accusation is in the name of the Commonwealth, is called Public Crime; and when in the name of a Private man, a Private Crime; And the Pleas according thereunto called Public, Judicia Publica, Pleas of the Crown; or Private Pleas. As in an Accusation of Murder, if the accuser be a Private man, the plea is a Private plea; if the accuser be the Sovereign, the plea is a Public plea.

CHAP. XXVIII. Of PUNISHMENTS, and REWARDS.

APUNISHMENT, is an Evil inflicted by public Authority, on him that hath done, or omitted that which is Judged by the same Authority to be a Transgression of the Law; to the end that the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience.

Before I infer any thing from this definition, there is a questionto be answered, of much importance; which is, by what door the Right, or Authority of Punishing in any case, came in. For by that which has been said before, no man is supposed bound by Covenant, not to resist violence; and consequently it cannot be intended, that he gave any right to another to lay violent hands upon his person. In the making of a Common-wealth, every man giveth away the right of defending another; but not of defending himself. Also he obligeth himself, to assist him that hath the Sovereignty, in the Punishing of another; but of himself not. But to covenant to assist the Sovereign, in doing hurt to another, unless he that so covenanteth have a right to do it himself, is not to give him a Right to Punish. It is manifest therefore that the Right which the Common-wealth (that is, he, or they that represent it) hath to Punish, is not grounded on any concession, or gift of the Subjects. But I have also showed formerly, that before the Institution of Common-wealth, every man had a right to every thing, and to do whatsoever he thought necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto. And this is the foundation of that right of Punishing, which is exercised in every Common-wealth. For the Subjects did not give the Sovereign that right; but only in laying down theirs, strengthened him to use his own, as he should think fit, for the preservation of them all: so that it was not given, but left to him, and to him only; and (excepting the limits set him by natural Law) as entire, as in the condition of mere Nature, and of war of every one against his neighbour.

From the definition of Punishment, I infer, First, that neitherprivate revenges, nor injuries of private men, can properly be styled Punishment; because they proceed not from public Authority.

Secondly, that to be neglected, and unpreferred by the publicfavour, is not a Punishment; because no new evil is thereby on any man Inflicted; he is only left in the estate he was in before.

Thirdly, that the evil inflicted by public Authority, withoutprecedent public condemnation, is not to be styled by the name of Punishment; but of an hostile act; because the fact for which a man is Punished, ought first to be Judged by public Authority, to be a transgression of the Law.

Fourthly, that the evil inflicted by usurped power, and Judgeswithout Authority from the Sovereign, is not Punishment; but an act of hostility; because the acts of power usurped, have not for Author, the person condemned; and therefore are not acts of public Authority.

Fifthly, that all evil which is inflicted without intention, or possibilityof disposing the Delinquent, or (by his example) other men, to obey the Laws, is not Punishment; but an act of hostility; because without such an end, no hurt done is contained under that name.

Sixthly, whereas to certain actions, there be annexed by Nature,divers hurtful consequences; as when a man in assaulting another, is himself slain, or wounded; or when he falleth into sickness by the doing of some unlawful act; such hurt, though in respect of God, who is the author of Nature, it may be said to be inflicted, and therefore a Punishment divine; yet it is not contained in the name of Punishment in respect of men, because it is not inflicted by the Authority of man.

Seventhly, If the harm inflicted be less than the benefit, or contentmentthat naturally followeth the crime committed, that harm is not within the definition; and is rather the Price, or Redemption, than the Punishment of a Crime: Because it is of the nature of Punishment, to have for end, the disposing of men to obey the Law; which end (if it be less than the benefit of the transgression) it attaineth not, but worketh a contrary effect.

Eighthly, If a Punishment be determined and prescribed in the Law it self, and after the crime committed, there be a greater Punishment inflicted, the excess is not Punishment, but an act of hostility. For seeing the aim of Punishment is not a revenge, but terror; and the terror of a great Punishment unknown, is taken away by the declaration of a less, the unexpected addition is no part of the Punishment. But where there is no Punishment at all determined by the Law, there whatsoever is inflicted, hath the nature of Punishment. For he that goes about the violation of a Law, wherein no penalty is determined, expecteth an indeterminate, that is to say, an arbitrary Punishment.

Ninthly, Harm inflicted for a Fact done before there was a Lawthat forbad it, is not Punishment, but an act of Hostility: For before the Law, there is no transgression of the Law: But Punishment supposeth a fact judged, to have been a transgression of the Law; Therefore Harm inflicted before the Law made, is not Punishment, but an act of Hostility.

Tenthly, Hurt inflicted on the Representative of the Commonwealth,is not Punishment, but an act of Hostility: Because it is of the nature of Punishment, to be inflicted by public Authority, which is the Authority only of the Representative it self.

Lastly, Harm inflicted upon one that is a declared enemy, fallsnot under the name of Punishment: Because seeing they were either never subject to the Law, and therefore cannot transgress it; or having been subject to it, and professing to be no longer so, by consequence deny they can transgress it, all the Harms that can be done them, must be taken as acts of Hostility. But in declared Hostility, all infliction of evil is lawful. From whence it followeth, that if a subject shall by fact, or word, wittingly, and deliberately deny the authority of the Representative of the Common-wealth, (whatsoever penalty hath been formerly ordained for Treason,) he may lawfully be made to suffer whatsoever the Representative will: For in denying subjection, he denies such Punishment as by the Law hath been ordained; and therefore suffers as an enemy of the Common-wealth; that is, according to the will of the Representative. For the Punishments set down in the Law, are to Subjects, not to Enemies; such as are they, that having been by their own act Subjects, deliberately revolting, deny the Sovereign Power.

The first, and most general distribution of Punishments, is into Divine, and Humane. Of the former I shall have occasion, to speak, in a more convenient place hereafter.

Humane, are those Punishments that be inflicted by the Commandment of Man; and are either Corporal, or Pecuniary, or Ignominy, or Imprisonment, or Exile, or mixed of these.

Corporal Punishment is that, which is inflicted on the body directly, and according to the intention of him that inflicteth it: such as are stripes, or wounds, or deprivation of such pleasures of the body, as were before lawfully enjoyed.

And of these, some be Capital, some Less than Capital. Capital,is the Infliction of Death; and that either simply, or with torment. Less than Capital, are Stripes, Wounds, Chains, and any other corporal Paine, not in its own nature mortal. For if upon the Infliction of a Punishment death follow not in the intention of the Inflicter, the Punishment is not to be esteemed Capital, though the harm prove mortal by an accident not to be foreseen; in which case death is not inflicted, but hastened.

Pecuniary Punishment, is that which consisteth not only in the deprivation of a Sum of Money, but also of Lands, or any other goods which are usually bought and sold for money. And in case the Law, that ordaineth such a punishment, be made with design to gather money, from such as shall transgress the same, it is not properly a Punishment, but the Price of privilege, and exemption from the Law, which doth not absolutely forbid the fact, but only to those that are not able to pay the money: except where the Law is Natural, or part of Religion; for in that case it is not an exemption from the Law, but a transgression of it. As where a Law exacteth a Pecuniary mulct, of them that take the name of God in vain, the payment of the mulct, is not the price of a dispensation to swear, but the Punishment of the transgression of a Law undispensable. In like manner if the Law impose a Sum of Money to be paid, to him that has been Injured; this is but a satisfaction for the hurt done him; and extinguisheth the accusation of the party injured, not the crime of the offender.

Ignominy, is the infliction of such Evil, as is made Dishonorable;or the deprivation of such Good, as is made Honourable by the Common-wealth. For there be some things Honorable by Nature; as the effects of Courage, Magnanimity, Strength, Wisdom, and other abilities of body and mind: Others made Honorable by the Common-wealth; as Badges, Titles, Offices, or any other singular mark of the Sovereigns favour. The former, (though they may fail by nature, or accident,) cannot be taken away by a Law; and therefore the loss of them is not Punishment. But the later, may be taken away by the public authority that made them Honorable, and are properly Punishments: Such are degrading men condemned, of their Badges, Titles, and Offices; or declaring them uncapable of the like in time to come.

Imprisonment, is when a man is by public Authority deprivedof liberty; and may happen from two divers ends; whereof one is the safe custody of a man accused; the other is the inflicting of paine on a man condemned. The former is not Punishment; because no man is supposed to be Punished, before he be Judicially heard, and declared guilty. And therefore whatsoever hurt a man is made to suffer by bonds, or restraint, before his cause be heard, over and above that which is necessary to assure his custody, is against the Law of Nature. But the later is Punishment, because Evil, and inflicted by public Authority, for somewhat that has by the same Authority been Judged a Transgression of the Law. Under this word Imprisonment, I comprehend all restraint of motion, caused by an external obstacle, be it a House, which is called by the general name of a Prison; or an Island, as when men are said to be confined to it; or a place where men are set to work, as in old time men have been condemned to Quarries, and in these times to Galleys; or be it a Chain, or any other such impediment.

Exile, (Banishment) is when a man is for a crime, condemnedto depart out of the dominion of the Common-wealth, or out of a certain part thereof; and during a prefixed time, or for ever, not to return into it: and seemeth not in its own nature, without other circumstances, to be a Punishment; but rather an escape, or a public commandment to avoid Punishment by flight. And Cicero says, there was never any such Punishment ordained in the City of Rome; but calls it a refuge of men in danger. For if a man banished, be nevertheless permitted to enjoy his Goods, and the Revenue of his Lands, the mere change of air is no Punishment; nor does it tend to that benefit of the Common-wealth, for which all Punishments are ordained, (that is to say, to the forming of men's wills to the observation of the Law;) but many times to the damage of the Common-wealth. For a Banished man, is a lawful enemy of the Common-wealth that banished him; as being no more a Member of the same. But if he be withal deprived of his Lands, or Goods, then the Punishment lieth not in the Exile, but is to be reckoned amongst Punishments Pecuniary.

All Punishments of Innocent subjects, be they great or little, areagainst the Law of Nature: For Punishment is only for Transgression of the Law, and therefore there can be no Punishment of the Innocent. It is therefore a violation, First, of that Law of Nature, which forbiddeth all men, in their Revenges, to look at any thing but some future good: For there can arrive no good to the Common-wealth, by Punishing the Innocent. Secondly, of that, which forbiddeth Ingratitude: For seeing all Sovereign Power, is originally given by the consent of every one of the Subjects, to the end they should as long as they are obedient, be protected thereby; the Punishment of the Innocent, is a rendering of Evil for Good. And thirdly, of the Law that commandeth Equity; that is to say, an equal distribution of Justice; which in Punishing the Innocent is not observed.

But the Infliction of what evil soever, on an Innocent man, thatis not a Subject, if it be for the benefit of the Common-wealth, and without violation of any former Covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature. For all men that are not Subjects, are either Enemies, or else they have ceased from being so, by some precedent covenants. But against Enemies, whom the Common-wealth judgeth capable to do them hurt, it is lawful by the original Right of Nature to make war; wherein the Sword Judgeth not, nor doth the Victor make distinction of Nocent, and Innocent, as to the time past; nor has other respect of mercy, than as it conduceth to the good of hisown People. And upon this ground it is, that also in Subjects, who deliberately deny the Authority of the Common-wealth established, the vengeance is lawfully extended, not only to the Fathers, but also to the third and fourth generation not yet in being, and consequently innocent of the fact, for which they are afflicted: because the nature of this offence, consisteth in the renouncing of subjection; which is a relapse into the condition of war, commonly called Rebellion; and they that so offend, suffer not as Subjects, but as Enemies. For Rebellion, is but war renewed.

REWARD, is either of Gift, or by Contract. When by Contract,it is called Salary, and Wages; which is benefit due for service performed, or promised. When of Gift, it is benefit proceeding from the grace of them that bestow it, to encourage, or enable men to do them service. And therefore when the Sovereign of a Common wealth appointeth a Salary to any public Office, he that receiveth it, is bound in Justice to perform his office; otherwise, he is bound only in honour, to acknowledgement, and an endeavour of requital. For though men have no lawful remedy, when they be commanded to quit their private business, to serve the public, without Reward, or Salary; yet they are not bound thereto, by the Law of Nature, nor by the Institution of the Commonwealth, unless the service cannot otherwise be done; because it is supposed the Sovereign may make use of all their means, insomuch as the most common Soldier, may demand the wages of his warfare, as a debt.

The benefit which a Sovereign bestoweth on a Subject, for fear ofsome power, and ability he hath to do hurt to the Common-wealth, are not properly Rewards; for they are not Salaries; because there is in this case no contract supposed, every man being obliged already not to do the Common-wealth disservice: nor are they Graces; because they be extorted by fear, which ought not to be incident to the Sovereign Power: but are rather Sacrifices, which the Sovereign (considered in his natural person, and not in the person of the Common-wealth) makes, for the appeasing the discontent of him he thinks more potent than himself; and encourage not to obedience, but on the contrary, to the continuance, and increasing of further extortion.

And whereas some Salaries are certain, and proceed from the publicTreasure; and others uncertain, and casual, proceeding from the execution of the Office for which the Salary is ordained; the later is in some cases hurtful to the Common-wealth; as in the case of Judicature. For where the benefit of the Judges, and Ministers of a Court of Justice, ariseth for the multitude of Causes that are brought to their cognisance, there must needs follow two Inconveniences: One, is the nourishing of suits; for the more suits, the greater benefit: and another that depends on that, which is contention about Jurisdiction; each Court drawing to it self, as many Causes as it can. But in offices of Execution there are not those Inconveniences; because their employment cannot be increased by any endeavour of their own. And thus much shall suffice for the nature of Punishment, and Reward; which are, as it were, the Nerves and Tendons, that move the limbs and joints of a Common-wealth.

Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himself to Government;) together with the great power of his Governor, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job; where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, calleth him King of the Proud. There is nothing, saith he, on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not to be afraid. He seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride. But because he is mortal, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Laws he ought to obey; I shall in the next following Chapters speak of his Diseases, and the causes of his Mortality; and of what Laws of Nature he is bound to obey.

CHAP. XXIX. Of those things that Weaken, or tend to the DISSOLUTION of a Common-wealth.

Though nothing can be immortal, which mortals make;yet, if men had the use of reason they pretend to, their Common-wealths might be secured, at least, from perishing by internal diseases. For by the nature of their Institution, they are designed to live, as long as Man-kind, or as the Laws of Nature, or as Justice it self, which gives them life. Therefore when they come to be dissolved, not by external violence, but intestine disorder, the fault is not in men, as they are the Matter; but as they are the Makers, and orderers of them. For men, as they become at last weary of irregular jostling, and hewing one another, and desire with all their hearts, to conform themselves into one firm and lasting edifice; so for want, both of the art of making fit Laws, to square their actions by, and also of humility, and patience, to suffer the rude and cumbersome points of their present greatness to be taken off, they cannot without the help of a very able Architect, be compiled, into any other than a crazy building, such as hardly lasting out their own time, must assuredly fall upon the heads of their posterity.

Amongst the Infirmities therefore of a Common-wealth, I will reckon in the first place, those that arise from an Imperfect Institution, and resemble the diseases of a natural body, which proceed from a Defectuous Procreation.

Of which, this is one, That a man to obtain a Kingdom, is sometimes content with less Power, than to the Peace, and defence of the Common-wealth is necessarily required. From whence it cometh to pass, that when the exercise of the Power laid by, is for the public safety to be resumed, it hath the resemblance of an unjust act; which disposeth great numbers of men (when occasion is presented) to rebel; In the same manner as the bodies of children, gotten by diseased parents, are subject either to untimely death, or to purge the ill quality, derived from their vicious conception, by breaking out into boils and scabs. And when Kings deny themselves some such necessary Power, it is not always (though sometimes) out of ignorance of what is necessary to the office they undertake; but many times out of a hope to recover the same again at their pleasure: Wherein they reason not well; because such as will hold them to their promises, shall be maintained against them by foreign Commonwealths; who in order to the good of their own Subjects let slip few occasions to weaken the estate of their Neighbours. So was Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, supported against Henry the Second, by the Pope; the subjection of Ecclesiastics to the Commonwealth, having been dispensed with by William the Conqueror at his reception, when he took an Oath, not to infringe the liberty of the Church. And so were the Barons, whose power was by William Rufus (to have their help in transferring the Succession from his Elder brother, to himself,) increased to a degree, inconsistent with the Sovereign Power, maintained in their Rebellion against King John, by the French.

Nor does this happen in Monarchy only. For whereas the stile of the ancient Roman Common-wealth, was, The Senate, and People of Rome; neither Senate, nor People pretended to the whole Power; which first caused the seditions, of Tiberius Gracchus, Caius Gracchus, Lucius Saturninus, and others; and afterwards the wars between the Senate and the People, under Marius and Sylla; and again under Pompey and Caesar, to the Extinction of their Democraty, and the setting up of Monarchy.

The people of Athens bound themselves but from one only Action; which was, that no man on pain of death should propound the renewing of the war for the Island of Salamis; And yet thereby, if Solon had not caused to be given out he was mad, and afterwards in gesture and habit of a mad-man, and in verse, propounded it to the People that flocked about him, they had had an enemy perpetually in readiness, even at the gates of their City; such damage, or shifts, are all Common-wealths forced to, that have their Power never so little limited.

In the second place, I observe the Diseases of a Common-wealth,that proceed from the poison of seditious doctrines; whereof one is, That every private man is Judge of Good and Evil actions. This is true in the condition of mere Nature, where there are no Civil Laws; and also under Civil Government, in such cases as are not determined by the Law. But otherwise, it is manifest, that the measure of Good and Evil actions, is the Civil Law; and the Judge the Legislator, who is always Representative of the Commonwealth. From this false doctrine, men are disposed to debate with themselves, and dispute the commands of the Common-wealth; and afterwards to obey, or disobey them, as in their private judgements they shall think fit. Whereby the Common-wealth is distracted and Weakened.

Another doctrine repugnant to Civil Society, is, that whatsoever a man does against his Conscience, is Sin; and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself judge of Good and Evil. For a man's Conscience, and his Judgement is the same thing; and as the Judgement, so also the Conscience may be erroneous. Therefore, thought he that is subject to no Civil Law, sinneth in all he does against his Conscience, because he has no other rule to follow but his own reason; yet it is not so with him that lives in a Common-wealth; because the Law is the public Conscience, by which he hath already undertaken to be guided. Otherwise in such diversity, as there is of private Consciences, which are but private opinions, the Commonwealth must needs be distracted, and no man dare to obey the Sovereign Power, farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes.

It hath been also commonly taught, That Faith and Sanctity, are not to be attained by Study and Reason, but by supernatural Inspiration, or Infusion. which granted, I see not why any man should render a reason of his Faith; or why every Christian should not be also a Prophet; or why any man should take the Law of his Country, rather than his own Inspiration, for the rule of his action. And thus we fall again into the fault of taking upon us to Judge of Good and Evil; or to make Judges of it, such private men as pretend to be supernaturally Inspired, to the Dissolution of all Civil Government. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by those accidents, which guide us into the presence of them that speak to us; which accidents are all contrived by God Almighty; and yet are not supernatural, but only, for the great number of them that concur to every effect, unobservable. Faith, and Sanctity, are indeed not very frequent; but yet they are not Miracles, but brought to pass by education, discipline, correction, and other natural ways, by which God worketh them in his elect, at such time as he thinketh fit. And these three opinions, pernicious to Peace and Government, have in this part of the world, proceeded chiefly from the tongues, and pens of unlearned Divines; who joining the words of Holy Scripture together, otherwise than is agreeable to reason, do what they can, to make men think, that Sanctity and Natural Reason, cannot stand together.

A fourth opinion, repugnant to the nature of a Common-wealth,is this, That he that hath the Sovereign Power, is subject to the Civil Laws. It is true, that Sovereigns are all subject to the Laws of Nature; because such laws be Divine, and cannot by any man, or Common-wealth be abrogated. But to those Laws which the Sovereign himself, that is, which the Common-wealth maketh, he is not subject. For to be subject to Laws, is to be subject to the Commonwealth, that is to the Sovereign Representative, that is to himself; which is not subjection, but freedom from the Laws. Which error, because it setteth the Laws above the Sovereign, setteth also a Judge above him, and a Power to punish him; which is to make a new Sovereign; and again for the same reason a third, to punish the second; and so continually without end, to the Confusion, and Dissolution of the Common-wealth.

A Fifth doctrine, that tendeth to the Dissolution of a Commonwealth,is, That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Sovereign. Every man has indeed a Propriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it only from the Sovereign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man should have equal Right to the same. But if the Right of the Sovereign also be excluded, he cannot perform the office they have put him into; which is, to defend them both from foreign enemies, and from the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.

And if the Propriety of Subjects, exclude not the Right of the Sovereign Representative to their Goods; much less to their offices of Judicature, or Execution, in which they Represent the Sovereign himself.

There is a Sixth doctrine, plainly, and directly against the essenceof a Common-wealth; and 'tis this, That the Sovereign Power may be divided. For what is it to divide the Power of a Common-wealth, but to Dissolve it; for Powers divided mutually destroy each other. And for these doctrines, men are chiefly beholding to some of those, that making profession of the Laws, endeavour to make them depend upon their own learning, and not upon the Legislative Power.

And as False Doctrine, so also often-times the Example of differentGovernment in a neighbouring Nation, disposeth men to alteration of the form already settled. So the people of the Jews were stirred up to reject God, and to call upon the Prophet Samuel, for a King after the manner of the Nations: So also the lesser Cities of Greece, were continually disturbed, with seditions of the Aristocratical, and Democratical factions; one part of almost every Common-wealth, desiring to imitate the Lacedaemonians; the other, the Athenians. And I doubt not, but many men, have been contented to see the late troubles in England, out of an imitation of the Low Countries; supposing there needed no more to grow rich, than to change, as they had done, the form of their Government. For the constitution of man's nature, is of it self subject to desire novelty: When therefore they are provoked to the same, by the neighbourhood also of those that have been enriched by it, it is almost impossible for them, not to be content with those that solicit them to change; and love the first beginnings, though they be grieved with the continuance of disorder; like hot bloods, that having gotten the itch, tear themselves with their own nails, till they can endure the smart no longer.

And as to Rebellion in particular against Monarchy; one of themost frequent causes of it, is the Reading of the books of Policy, and Histories of the ancient Greeks, and Romans; from which, young men, and all others that are unprovided of the Antidote of solid Reason, receiving a strong, and delightful impression, of the great exploits of war, achieved by the Conductors of their Armies, receive withal a pleasing Idea, of all they have done besides; and imagine their great prosperity, not to have proceeded from the emulation of particular men, but from the virtue of their popular form of government: Not considering the frequent Seditions, and Civil wars, produced by the imperfection of their Policy. From the reading, I say, of such books, men have undertaken to kill their Kings, because the Greek and Latin writers, in their books, and discourses of Policy, make it lawful, and laudable, for any man so to do; provided before he do it, he call him Tyrant. For they say not Regicide, that is, killing of a King, but Tyrannicide, that is, killing of a Tyrant is lawful. From the same books, they that live under a Monarch conceive an opinion, that the Subjects in a Popular Common-wealth enjoy Liberty; but that in a Monarchy they are all Slaves. I say, they that live under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion; not they that live under a Popular Government: for they find no such matter. In sum, I cannot imagine, how any thing can be more prejudicial to a Monarchy, than the allowing of such books to be publicly read, without present applying such correctives of discreet Masters, as are fit to take away their Venom: Which Venom I will not doubt to compare to the biting of a mad Dog, which is a disease the Physicians call Hydrophobia, or fear of Water. For as he that is so bitten, has a continual torment of thirst, and yet abhorreth water; and is in such an estate, as if the poison endeavoured to convert him into a Dog: So when a Monarchy is once bitten to the quick, by those Democratical writers, that continually snarl at that estate; it wanteth nothing more than a strong Monarch, which nevertheless out of a certain Tyrannophobia, or fear of being strongly governed, when they have him, they abhor.

As there have been Doctors, that hold there be three Souls in a man; so there be also that think there may be more Souls, (that is, more Sovereigns,) than one, in a Common-wealth; and set up a Supremacy against the Sovereignty, Canons against Laws; and a Ghostly Authority against the Civil; working on men's minds, with words and distinctions, that of themselves signify nothing, but bewray (by their obscurity) that there walketh (as some think invisibly) another Kingdom, as it were a Kingdom of Fairies, in the dark. Now seeing it is manifest, that the Civil Power, and the Power of the Commonwealth is the same thing; and that Supremacy, and the Power of making (anons, and granting Faculties, implieth a Common-wealth; it followeth, that where one is Sovereign, another Supreme; where one can make Laws, and another make Canons; there must needs be two Common-wealths, of one & the same Subjects; which is a Kingdom divided in it self, and cannot stand. For notwithstanding the insignificant distinction of Temporal, and Ghostly, they are still two Kingdoms, and every Subject is subject to two Masters. For seeing the Ghostly Power challengeth the Right to declare what is Sin, it challengeth by consequence to declare what is Law, (Sin being nothing but the transgression of the Law;) and again, the Civil Power challenging to declare what is Law, every Subject must obey two Masters, who both will have their Commands be observed as Law; which is impossible. Or, if it be but one Kingdom, either the Civil, which is the Power of the Common-wealth, must be subordinate to the Ghostly, and then there is no Sovereignty but the Ghostly; or the Ghostly must be subordinate to the Temporal, and then there is no Supremacy but the Temporal. When therefore these two Powers oppose one another, the Common-wealth cannot but be in great danger of Civil war, and Dissolution. For the Civil Authority being more visible, and standing in the clearer light of natural reason cannot choose but draw to it in all times a very considerable part of the people: And the Spiritual, though it stand in the darkness of School distinctions, and hard words; yet because the fear of Darkness, and Ghosts, is greater than other fears, cannot want a party sufficient to Trouble, and sometimes to Destroy a Commonwealth. And this is a Disease which not unfitly may be compared to the Epilepsy, or Falling-sickness (which the Jews took to be one kind of possession by Spirits) in the Body Natural. For as in this Disease, there is an unnatural spirit, or wind in the head that obstructeth the roots of the Nerves, and moving them violently, taketh away the motion which naturally they should have from the power of the Soul in the Brain, and thereby causeth violent, and irregular motions (which men call Convulsions) in the parts; insomuch as he that is seized therewith, falleth down sometimes into the water, and sometimes into the fire, as a man deprived of his senses; so also in the Body Politic, when the Spiritual power, moveth the Members of a Common-wealth, by the terror of punishments, and hope of rewards (which are the Nerves of it,) otherwise than by the Civil Power (which is the Soul of the Common-wealth) they ought to be moved; and by strange, and hard words suffocates their understanding, it must needs thereby Distract the people, and either Overwhelm the Common-wealth with Oppression, or cast it into the Fire of a Civil war.

Sometimes also in the merely Civil government, there be morethan one Soul: As when the Power of levying money, (which is the Nutritive faculty,) has depended on a general Assembly; the Power of conduct and command, (which is the Motive faculty,) on one man; and the Power of making Laws, (which is the Rational faculty,) on the accidental consent, not only of those two, but also of a third; This endangereth the Common-wealth, sometimes for want of consent to good Laws; but most often for want of such Nourishment, as is necessary to Life, and Motion. For although few perceive, that such government, is not government, but division of the Common-wealth into three Factions, and call it mixed Monarchy; yet the truth is, that it is not one independent Common-wealth, but three independent Factions; nor one Representative Person, but three. In the Kingdom of God, there may be three Persons independent, without breach of unity in God that Reigneth; but where men Reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so. And therefore if the King bear the person of the People, and the general Assembly bear also the person of the People, and another Assembly bear the person of a Part of the people, they are not one Person, nor one Sovereign, but three Persons, and three Sovereigns.

To what Disease in the Natural Body of man, I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Common-wealth, I know not. But I have seen a man, that had another man growing out of his side, with an head, arms, breast; and stomach, of his own: If he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact.

Hitherto I have named such Diseases of a Common-wealth, asare of the greatest, and most present danger. There be other, not so great; which nevertheless are not unfit to be observed. As first, the difficulty of raising Money, for the necessary uses of the Common-wealth; especially in the approach of war. This difficulty ariseth from the opinion, that every Subject hath of a Propriety in his lands and goods, exclusive of the Sovereigns Right to the use of the same. From whence it cometh to pass, that the Sovereign Power, which foreseeth the necessities and dangers of the Commonwealth, (finding the passage of money to the public Treasure obstructed, by the tenacity of the people,) whereas it ought to extend it self, to encounter, and prevent such dangers in their beginnings, contracteth it self as long as it can, and when it cannot longer, struggles with the people by stratagems of Law, to obtain little sums, which not sufficing, he is fain at last violently to open the way for present supply, or Perish; and being put often to these extremities, at last reduceth the people to their due temper; or else the Commonwealth must perish. Insomuch as we may compare this Distemper very aptly to an Ague; wherein, the fleshy parts being congealed, or by venomous matter obstructed; the Veins which by their natural course empty themselves into the Heart, are not (as they ought to be) supplied from the Arteries, whereby there succeedeth at first a cold contraction, and trembling of the limbs; and afterwards a hot, and strong endeavour of the Heart, to force a passage for the Blood; and before it can do that, contenteth it self with the small refreshments of such things as cool for a time, till (if Nature be strong enough) it break at last the contumacy of the parts obstructed, and dissipateth the venom into sweat; or (if Nature be too weak) the Patient dieth.

Again, there is sometimes in a Common-wealth, a Disease, whichresembleth the Pleurisy; and that is, when the Treasure of the Common-wealth, flowing out of its due course, is gathered together in too much abundance, in one, or a few private men, by Monopolies, or by Farms of the Public Revenues; in the same manner as the Blood in a Pleurisy, getting into the Membrane of the breast, breedeth there an Inflammation, accompanied with a Fever, and painful stitches.

Also, the Popularity of a potent Subject, (unless the Commonwealthhave very good caution of his fidelity,) is a dangerous Disease; because the people (which should receive their motion from the Authority of the Sovereign,) by the flattery, and by the reputation of an ambitious man, are drawn away from their obedience to the Laws, to follow a man, of whose virtues, and designs they have no knowledge. And this is commonly of more danger in a Popular Government, than in a Monarchy, because an Army is of so great force, and multitude, as it may easily be made believe, they are the People. By this means it was, that Julius Caesar, who was set up by the People against the Senate, having won to himself the affections of his Army, made himself Master, both of Senate and People. And this proceeding of popular, and ambitious men, is plain Rebellion; and may be resembled to the effects of Witchcraft.

Another infirmity of a Common-wealth, is the immoderategreatness of a Town, when it is able to furnish out of its own Circuit, the number, and expense of a great Army: As also the great number of Corporations; which are as it were many lesser Common-wealths in the bowels of a greater, like worms in the entrails of a natural man. To which may be added, the Liberty of Disputingagainst absolute Power, by pretenders to Political Prudence; which though bred for the most part in the Lees of the people; yet animated by False Doctrines, are perpetually meddling with the Fundamental Laws, to the molestation of the Common-wealth; like the little Worms, which Physicians call Ascarides.

We may further add, the insatiable appetite, or Bulimia, of enlarging Dominion; with the incurable Wounds thereby many times received from the enemy; And the Wens, of ununited conquests, which are many times a burden, and with less danger lost, than kept; As also the Lethargy of Ease, and Consumption of Riot and Vain Expense.

Lastly, when in a war (foreign, or intestine,) the enemies get afinal Victory; so as (the forces of the Common-wealth keeping the field no longer) there is no farther protection of Subjects in their loyalty; then is the Common-wealth DISSOLVED, and every man at liberty to protect himself by such courses as his own discretion shall suggest unto him. For the Sovereign, is the public Soul, giving Life and Motion to the Common-wealth; which expiring, the Members are governed by it no more, than the Carcass of a man, by his departed (though Immortal) Soul. For though the Right of a Sovereign Monarch cannot be extinguished by the act of another; yet the Obligation of the members may. For he that wants protection, may seek it any where; and when he hath it, is obliged (without fraudulent pretence of having submitted himself out of fear,) to protect his Protection as long as he is able. But when the Power of an Assembly is once suppressed, the Right of the same perisheth utterly; because the Assembly it self is extinct; and consequently, there is no possibility for the Sovereignty to re-enter.

CHAP. XXX. Of the OFFICE of the Sovereign Representative.

The OFFICE of the Sovereign, (be it a Monarch, or anAssembly,) consisteth in the end, for which he was trusted with the Sovereign Power, namely the procuration of the safety of the people; to which he is obliged by the Law of Nature, and to render an account thereof to God, the Author of that Law, and to none but him. But by Safety here, is not meant a bare Preservation, but also all other Contentments of life, which every man by lawful Industry, without danger, or hurt to the Commonwealth, shall acquire to himself.

And this is intended should be done, not by care applied to Individuals,further than their protection from injuries, when they shall complain; but by a general Providence, contained in public Instruction, both of Doctrine, and Example; and in the making, and executing of good Laws, to which individual persons may apply their own cases.

And because, if the essential Rights of Sovereignty (specifiedbefore in the eighteenth Chapter) be taken away, the Commonwealth is thereby dissolved, and every man returneth into the condition, and calamity of a war with every other man, (which is the greatest evil that can happen in this life;) it is the Office of the Sovereign, to maintain those Rights entire; and consequently against his duty, First, to transfer to another, or to lay from himself any of them. For he that deserteth the Means, deserteth the Ends; and he deserteth the Means, that being the Sovereign, acknowledgeth himself subject to the Civil Laws; and renounceth the Power of Supreme Judicature; or of making War, or Peace by his own Authority; or of Judging of the Necessities of the Commonwealth; or of levying Money, and Soldiers, when, and as much as in his own conscience he shall judge necessary; or of making Officers, and Ministers both of War, and Peace; or of appointing Teachers, and examining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defence, Peace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against hisDuty, to let the people be ignorant, or mis-informed of the grounds, and reasons of those his essential Rights; because thereby men are easy to be seduced, and drawn to resist him, when the Commonwealth shall require their use and exercise.

And the grounds of these Rights, have the rather need to be diligently, and truly taught; because they cannot be maintained by any Civil Law, or terror of legal punishment. For a Civil Law, that shall forbid Rebellion, (and such is all resistance to the essential Rights of Sovereignty,) is not (as a Civil Law) any obligation, but by virtue only of the Law of Nature, that forbiddeth the violation of Faith; which natural obligation if men know not, they cannot know the Right of any Law the Sovereign maketh. And for the Punishment, they take it but for an act of Hostility; which when they think they have strength enough, they will endeavour by acts of Hostility, to avoid.

As I have heard some say, that Justice is but a word, without substance;and that whatsoever a man can by force, or art, acquire to himself, (not only in the condition of war, but also in a Common-wealth,) is his own, which I have already showed to be false: So there be also that maintain, that there are no grounds, nor Principles of Reason, to sustain those essential Rights, which make Sovereignty absolute. For if there were, they would have been found out in some place, or other; whereas we see, there has not hitherto been any Common-wealth, where those Rights have been acknowledged, or challenged. Wherein they argue as ill, as if the Savage people of America, should deny there were any grounds, or Principles of Reason, so to build a house, as to last as long as the materials, because they never yet saw any so well built. Time, and Industry, produce every day new knowledge. And as the art of well building, is derived from Principles of Reason, observed by industrious men, that had long studied the nature of materials, and the divers effects of figure, and proportion, long after mankind began (though poorly) to build: So, long time after men have begun to constitute Commonwealths, imperfect, and apt to relapse into disorder, there may, Principles of Reason be found out, by industrious meditation, to make their constitution (excepting by external violence) everlasting And such are those which I have in this discourse set forth: Which whether they come not into the fight of those that have Power to make use of them, or be neglected by them, or not, concerneth my particular interest, at this day, very little. But supposing that these of mine are not such Principles of Reason; yet I am sure they are Principles from Authority of Scripture; as I shall make it appear, when I shall come to speak of the Kingdom of God, (administered by Moses,) over the Jews, his peculiar people by Covenant.

But they say again, that though the Principles be right, yet Commonpeople are not of capacity enough to be made to understand them. I should be glad, that the Rich, and Potent Subjects of a Kingdom, or those that are accounted the most Learned, were no less incapable than they. But all men know, that the obstructions to this kind of doctrine, proceed not so much from the difficulty of the matter, as from the interest of them that are to learn. Potent men, digest hardly any thing that setteth up a Power to bridle their affections; and Learned men, any thing that discovereth their errors, and thereby lesseneth their Authority: whereas the Common-peoples minds, unless they be tainted with dependence on the Potent, or scribbled over with the opinions of their Doctors, are like clean paper, fit to receive whatsoever by Public Authority shall be imprinted in them. Shall whole Nations be brought to acquiesce in the great Mysteries of Christian Religion, which are above Reason; and millions of men be made believe, that the same Body may be in innumerable places, at one and the same time, which is against Reason; and shall not men be able, by their teaching, and preaching, protected by the Law, to make that received, which is so consonant to Reason, that any unprejudicated man, needs no more to learn it, than to hear it? I conclude therefore, that in the instruction of the people in the Essential Rights (which are the Natural, and Fundamental Laws) of Sovereignty, there is no difficulty, (whilst a Sovereign has his Power entire,) but what proceeds from his own fault, or the fault of those whom he trusteth in the administration of the Common-wealth; and consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be instructed; and not only his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security, against the danger that may arrive to himself in his natural Person, from Rebellion.

And (to descend to particulars) the People are to be taught, First,that they ought not to be in love with any form of Government they see in their neighbour Nations, more than with their own; nor (whatsoever present prosperity they behold in Nations that are otherwise governed than they,) to desire change. For the prosperity of a People ruled by an Aristocratical, or Democratical assembly, cometh not from Aristocracy, nor from Democracy, but from the Obedience, and Concord of the Subjects: nor do the people flourish in a Monarchy, because one man has the right to rule them, but because they obey him. Take away in any kind of State, the Obedience, (and consequently the Concord of the People,) and they shall not only not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience, to do no more than reform the Commonwealth, shall find they do thereby destroy it; like the foolish daughters of Peleus (in the fable;) which desiring to renew the youth of their decrepit Father, did by the Counsel of Medea, cut him in pieces, and boyle him, together with strange herbs, but made not of him a new man. This desire of change, is like the breach of the first of Gods Commandments: For there God says, Non habebis Does alienos; Thou shalt not have the Gods of other Nations; and in another place concerning Kings, that they are Gods.

Secondly, they are to be taught, that they ought not to be led withadmiration of the virtue of any of their fellow Subjects, how high soever he stand, nor how conspicuously soever he shine in the Common-wealth; nor of any Assembly, (except the Sovereign Assembly,) so as to defer to them any obedience, or honour, appropriate to the Sovereign only, whom (in their particular stations) they represent; nor to receive any influence from them, but such as is conveyed by them from the Sovereign Authority. For that Sovereign, cannot be imagined to love his People as he ought, that is not Jealous of them, but suffers them by the flattery of Popular men, to be seduced from their loyalty, as they have often been, not only secretly, but openly, so as to proclaim Marriage with them in facie Ecclesiae by Preachers; and by publishing the same in the open streets: which may fitly be compared to the violation of the second of the ten Commandments.

Thirdly, in consequence to this, they ought to be informed, howgreat a fault it is, to speak evil of the Sovereign Representative, (whether One man, or an Assembly of men;) or to argue and dispute his Power, or any way to use his Name irreverently, whereby he may be brought into Contempt with his People, and their Obedience (in which the safety of the Common-wealth consisteth) slackened. Which doctrine the third Commandment by resemblance pointeth to.

Fourthly, seeing people cannot be taught this, nor when 'tis taught,remember it, nor after one generation past, so much as know in whom the Sovereign Power is placed, without setting a part from their ordinary labour, some certain times, in which they may attend those that are appointed to instruct them; It is necessary that some such times be determined, wherein they may assemble together, and (after prayers and praises given to God, the Sovereign of Sovereigns) hear those their Duties told them, and the Positive Laws, such as generally concern them all, read and expounded, and be put in mind of the Authority that maketh them Laws. To this end had the Jews every seventh day, a Sabbath, in which the Law was read and expounded; and in the solemnity whereof they were put in mind, that their King was God; that having created the world in six days, he rested the seventh day; and by their resting on it from their labour, that that God was their King, which redeemed them from their servile, and painful labour in Egypt, and gave them a time, after they had rejoiced in God, to take joy also in themselves, by lawful recreation. So that the first Table of the Commandments, is spent all, in setting down the sum of Gods absolute Power; not only as God, but as King by pact, (in peculiar) of the Jews; and may therefore give light, to those that have Sovereign Power conferred on them by the consent of men, to see what doctrine they Ought to teach their Subjects.

And because the first instruction of Children, dependeth on thecare of their Parents; it is necessary that they should be obedient to them, whilst they are under their tuition; and not only so, but that also afterwards (as gratitude requireth,) they acknowledge the benefit of their education, by external signs of honour. To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord, with power over him of life and death; and that the Fathers of families, when by instituting a Commonwealth, they resigned that absolute Power, yet it was never intended, they should lose the honour due unto them for their education. For to relinquish such right, was not necessary to the Institution of Sovereign Power; nor would there be any reason, why any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish, and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them, than from other men. And this accordeth with the fifth Commandment.

Again, every Sovereign Ought to cause Justice to be taught, which(consisting in taking from no man what is his) is as much as to say, to cause men to be taught not to deprive their Neighbours, by violence, or fraud, of any thing which by the Sovereign Authority is theirs. Of things held in propriety, those that are dearest to a man are his own life, & limbs; and in the next degree, in most men,) those that concern conjugal affection; and after them riches and means of living. Therefore the People are to be taught, to abstain from violence to one another's person, by private revenges; from violation of conjugal honour; and from forcible rapine, and fraudulent surreption of one another's goods. For which purpose also it is necessary they be showed the evil consequences of false Judgement, by corruption either of Judges or Witnesses, whereby the distinction of propriety is taken away, and Justice becomes of no effect: all which things are intimated in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth Commandments.

Lastly, they are to be taught, that not only the unjust facts, butthe designs and intentions to do them, (though by accident hindered,) are Injustice; which consisteth in the pravity of the will, as well as in the irregularity of the act. And this is the intention of the tenth Commandment, and the sum of the second Table; which is reduced all to this one Commandment of mutual Charity, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self: as the sum of the first Table is reduced to the love of God; whom they had then newly received as their King.

As for the Means, and Conduits, by which the people may receivethis Instruction, we are to search, by what means so many Opinions, contrary to the peace of Man-kind, upon weak and false Principles, have nevertheless been so deeply rooted in them. I mean those, which I have in the precedent Chapter specified: as That men shall Judge of what is lawful and unlawful, not by the Law it self, but by their own Consciences; that is to say, by their own private Judgements: That Subjects sin in obeying the Commands of the Common-wealth, unless they themselves have first judged them to be lawful: That their Propriety in their riches is such, as to exclude the Dominion, which the Common-wealth hath over the same: That it is lawful for Subjects to kill such, as they call Tyrants: That the Sovereign Power may be divided, and the like; which come to be instilled into the People by this means. They whom necessity, or covetousness keepeth attent on their trades, and labour; and they, on the other side, whom superfluity, or sloth carrieth after their sensual pleasures, (which two sorts of men take up the greatest part of Man-kind,) being diverted from the deep meditation, which the learning of truth, not only in the matter of Natural Justice, but also of all other Sciences necessarily requireth, receive the Notions of their duty, chiefly from Divines in the Pulpit, and partly from such of their Neighbours, or familiar acquaintance, as having the Faculty of discoursing readily, and plausibly, seem wiser and better learned in cases of Law, and Conscience, than themselves. And the Divines, and such others as make show of Learning, derive their knowledge from the Universities, and from the Schools of Law, or from the Books, which by men eminent in those Schools, and Universities have been published. It is therefore manifest, that the Instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the right teaching of Youth in the Universities. But are not (may some man say) the Universities of England learned enough already to do that? or is it you will undertake to teach the Universities? Hard questions. Yet to the first, I doubt not to answer; that till towards the later end of Henry the eighth, the Power of the Pope, was always upheld against the Power of the Common-wealth, principally by the Universities; and that the doctrines maintained by so many Preachers, against the Sovereign Power of the King, and by so many Lawyers, and others, that had their education there, is a sufficient argument, that though the Universities were not authors of those false doctrines, yet they knew not how to plant the truth. For in such a contradiction of Opinions, it is most certain, that they have not been sufficiently instructed; and 'tis no wonder, if they yet retain a relish of that subtle liquor, wherewith they were first seasoned, against the Civil Authority. But to the later question, it is not fit, nor needful for me to say either I, or No: for any man that sees what I am doing, may easily perceive what I think.

The safety of the People, requireth further, from him, or them that have the Sovereign Power, that Justice be equally administered to all degrees of People; that is, that as well the rich, and mighty, as poor and obscure persons, may be righted of the injuries done them; so as the great, may have no greater hope of impunity, when they do violence, dishonour, or any Injury to the meaner sort, than when one of these, does the like to one of them: For in this consisteth Equity; to which, as being a Precept of the Law of Nature, a Sovereign is as much subject, as any of the meanest of his People. All breaches of the Law, are offences against the Common-wealth: but there be some, that are also against private Persons. Those that concern the Common-wealth only, may without breach of Equity be pardoned; for every man may pardon what is done against himself, according to his own discretion. But an offence against a private man, cannot in Equity be pardoned, without the consent of him that is injured; or reasonable satisfaction.

The Inequality of Subjects, proceedeth from the Acts of Sovereign Power; and therefore has no more place in the presence of the Sovereign; that is to say, in a Court of Justice, then the Inequality between Kings, and their Subjects, in the presence of the King of Kings. The honour of great Persons, is to be valued for their beneficence, and the aids they give to men of inferior rank, or not at all. And the violences, oppressions, and injuries they do, are not extenuated, but aggravated by the greatness of their persons; because they have least need to commit them. The consequences of this partiality towards the great, proceed in this manner. Impunity maketh Insolence; Insolence Hatred; and Hatred, an Endeavour to pull down all oppressing and contumelious greatness, though with the ruin of the Common wealth.

To Equal Justice, appertaineth also the Equal imposition ofTaxes; the Equality whereof dependeth not on the Equality of riches, but on the Equality of the debt, that every man oweth to the Common-wealth for his defence. It is not enough, for a man to labour for the maintenance of his life; but also to fight, (if need be,) for the securing of his labour. They must either do as the Jews did after their return from captivity, in re-edifying the Temple, build with one hand, and hold the Sword in the other; or else they must hire others to fight for them. For the Impositions that are laid on the People by the Sovereign Power, are nothing else but the Wages, due to them that hold the public Sword, to defend private men in the exercise of several Trades, and Callings. Seeing then the benefit that every one receiveth thereby, is the enjoyment of life, which is equally dear to poor, and rich; the debt which a poor man oweth them that defend his life, is the same which a rich man oweth for the defence of his; saving that the rich, who have the service of the poor, may be debtors not only for their own persons, but for many more. Which considered, the Equality of Imposition, consisteth rather in the Equality of that which is consumed, than of the riches of the persons that consume the same. For what reason is there, that he which laboureth much, and sparing the fruits of his labour, consumeth little, should be more charged, than he that living idly, getteth little, and spendeth all he gets; seeing the one hath no more protection from the Common-wealth, than the other? But when the Impositions, are laid upon those things which men consume, every man payeth Equally for what he useth: Nor is the Common-wealth defrauded, by the luxurious waste of private men.

And whereas many men, by accident unevitable, become unableto maintain themselves by their labour; they ought not to be left to the Charity of private persons; but to be provided for, (as far-forth as the necessities of Nature require, by the Laws of the Commonwealth. For as it is Uncharitableness in any man, to neglect the impotent; so it is in the Sovereign of a Common-wealth, to expose them to the hazard of such uncertain Charity.

But for such as have strong bodies, the case is otherwise: they areto be forced to work; and to avoid the excuse of not finding employment, there ought to be such Laws, as may encourage all manner of Arts; as Navigation, Agriculture, Fishing, and all manner of Manufacture that requires labour. The multitude of poor, and yet strong people still increasing, they are to be transplanted into Countries not sufficiently inhabited: where nevertheless, they are not to exterminate those they find there; but constrain them to inhabit closer together, and not range a great deal of ground, to snatch what they find; but to court each little Plot with art and labour, to give them their sustenance in due season. And when all the world is overcharged with Inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is War; which provideth for every man, by Victory, or Death.

To the care of the Sovereign, belongeth the making of GoodLaws. But what is a good Law? By a Good Law, I mean not a. Just Law: for no Law can be Unjust. The Law is made by the Sovereign Power, and all that is done by such Power, is warranted, and owned by every one of the people; and that which every man will have so, no man can say is unjust. It is in the Laws of a Commonwealth, as in the Laws of Gaming: whatsoever the Gamesters all agree on, is Injustice to none of them. A good Law is that, which is Needful, for the Good of the People, and withal Perspicuous.

For the use of Laws, (which are but Rules Authorised) is not tobind the People from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashness, or indiscretion; as Hedges are set, not to stop Travellers, but to keep them in the way. And therefore a Law that is not Needful, having not the true End of a Law, is not Good. A Law may be conceived to be Good, when it is for the benefit of the Sovereign; though it be not Necessary for the People; but it is not so. For the good of the Sovereign and People, cannot be separated. It is a weak Sovereign, that has weak Subjects; and a weak People, whose Sovereign wanteth Power to rule them at his will. Unnecessary Laws are not good Laws; but traps for Money: which where the right of Sovereign Power is acknowledged, are superfluous; and where it is not acknowledged, unsufficient to defend the People.

The Perspicuity, consisteth not so much in the words of the Lawit self, as in a Declaration of the Causes, and Motives, for which it was made. That is it, that shows us the meaning of the Legislator; and the meaning of the Legislator known, the Law is more easily understood by few, than many words. For all words, are subject to ambiguity; and therefore multiplication of words in the body of the Law, is multiplication of ambiguity: Besides it seems to imply, (by too much diligence,) that whosoever can evade the words, is without the compass of the Law. And this is a cause of many unnecessary Processes. For when I consider how short were the Laws of ancient times; and how they grew by degrees still longer; me thinks I see a contention between the Penners, and Pleaders of the Law; the former seeking to circumscribe the later; and the later to evade their circumscriptions; and that the Pleaders have got the Victory. It belongeth therefore to the Office of a Legislator, (such as is in all Common-wealths the Supreme Representative, be it one Man, or an Assembly,) to make the reason Perspicuous, why the Law was made; and the Body of the Law it self, as short, but in as proper, and significant terms, as may be.

It belongeth also to the Office of the Sovereign, to make a rightapplication of Punishments, and Rewards. And seeing the end of punishing is not revenge, and discharge of choler; but correction, either of the offender, or of others by his example; the severest Punishments are to be inflicted for those Crimes, that are of most Danger to the Public; such as are those which proceed from malice to the Government established; those that spring from contempt of Justice; those that provoke Indignation in the Multitude; and those, which unpunished, seem Authorised, as when they are committed by Sons, Servants, or Favorites of men in Authority: For Indignation carrieth men, not only against the Actors, and Authors of Injustice; but against all Power that is likely to protect them; as in the case of Tarquin; when for the Insolent act of one of his Sons, he was driven out of Rome, and the Monarchy it self dissolved. But Crimes of Infirmity; such as are those which proceed from great provocation, from great fear, great need, or from ignorance whether the Fact be a great Crime, or not, there is place many times for Lenity, without prejudice to the Common-wealth; and Lenity when there is such place for it, is required by the Law of Nature. The Punishment of the Leaders, and teachers in a Commotion; not the poor seduced People, when they are punished, can profit the Common-wealth by their example. To be severe to the People, is to punish that ignorance, which may in great part be imputed to the Sovereign, whose fault it was, they were no better instructed.

In like manner it belongeth to the Office, and Duty of the Sovereign,to apply his Rewards always so, as there may arise from them benefit to the Common-wealth: wherein consisteth their Use, and End; and is then done, when they that have well served the Common-wealth, are with as little expense of the Common Treasure, as is possible, so well recompensed, as others thereby may be encouraged, both to serve the same as faithfully as they can, and to study the arts by which they may be enabled to do it better. To buy with Money, or Preferment, from a Popular ambitious Subject, to be quiet, and desist from making ill impressions in the minds of the People, has nothing of the nature of Reward; (which is ordained not for disservice, but for service past;) nor a sign of Gratitude, but of Fear: nor does it tend to the Benefit, but to the Damage of the Public. It is a contention with Ambition, like that of Hercules with the Monster Hydra, which having many heads, for every one that was vanquished, there grew up three. For in like manner, when the stubbornness of one Popular man, is overcome with Reward, there arise many more (by the Example) that do the same Mischief, in hope of like Benefit: and as all forts of Manufacture, so also Malice increaseth by being vendible. And though sometimes a Civil war, may be deferred, by such ways as that, yet the danger grows still the greater, and the Public ruin more assured. It is therefore against the Duty of the Sovereign, to whom the Public Safety is committed, to Reward those that aspire to greatness by disturbing the Peace of their Country, and not rather to oppose the beginnings of such men, with a little danger, than after a longer time with greater.

Another Business of the Sovereign, is to choose good Counsellors;I mean such, whose advice he is to take in the Government of the Common-wealth. For this word Counsel, Consilium, corrupted from Considium, is of a large signification, and comprehendeth all Assemblies of men that sit together, not only to deliberate what is to be done hereafter, but also to judge of Facts past, and of Law for the present. I take it here in the first sense only: And in this sense, there is no choice of Counsel, neither in a Democracy, nor Aristocracy; because the persons Counselling are members of the person Counselled. The choice of Counsellors therefore is proper to Monarchy; In which, the Sovereign that endeavoureth not to make choice of those, that in every kind are the most able, dischargeth not his Office as he ought to do. The most able Counsellors, are they that have least hope of benefit by giving evil Counsel, and most knowledge of those things that conduce to the Peace, and Defence of the Common-wealth. It is a hard matter to know who expecteth benefit from public troubles; but the signs that guide to a just suspicion, is the soothing of the people in their unreasonable, or irremediable grievances, by men whose estates are not sufficient to discharge their accustomed expenses, and may easily be observed by any one whom it concerns to know it. But to know, who has most knowledge of the Public affairs, is yet harder; and they that know them, need them a great deal the less. For to know, who knows the Rules almost of any Art, is a great degree of the knowledge of the same Art; because no man can be assured of the truth of another's Rules, but he that is first taught to understand them. But the best signs of Knowledge of any Art, are, much conversing in it, and constant good effects of it. Good Counsel comes not by Lot, nor by Inheritance; and therefore there is no more reason to expect good Advice from the rich, or noble, in matter of State, than in delineating the dimensions of a fortress; unless we shall think there needs no method in the study of the Politics, (as there does in the study of Geometry,) but only to be lookers on; which is not so. For the Politics is the harder study of the two. Whereas in these parts of Europe, it hath been taken for a Right of certain persons, to have place in the highest Council of State by Inheritance; it is derived from the Conquests of the ancient Germans; wherein many absolute Lords joining together to conquer other Nations, would not enter in to the Confederacy, without such Privileges, as might be marks of difference in time following, between their Posterity, and the Posterity of their Subjects; which Privileges being inconsistent with the Sovereign Power, by the favour of the Sovereign, they may seem to keep; but contending for them as their Right, they must needs by degrees let them go, and have at last no further honour, than adhereth naturally to their abilities.

And how able soever be the Counsellors in any affair, the benefit of their Counsel is greater, when they give every one his Advice, and the reasons of it apart, than when they do it in an Assembly, by way of Orations; and when they have premeditated, than when they speak on the sudden; both because they have more time, to survey the consequences of action; and are less subject to be carried away to contradiction, through Envy, Emulation, or other Passions arising from the difference of opinion.

The best Counsel, in those things that concern not other Nations, but only the ease, and benefit the Subjects may enjoy, by Laws that look only inward, is to be taken from the general informations, and complaints of the people of each Province, who are best acquainted with their own wants, and ought therefore, when they demand nothing in derogation of the essential Rights of Sovereignty, to be diligently taken notice of. For without those Essential Rights, (as I have often before said,) the Common-wealth cannot at all subsist.

A Commander of an Army in chief, if he be not Popular, shallnot be beloved, nor feared as he ought to be by his Army; and consequently cannot perform that office with good success. He must therefore be Industrious, Valiant, Affable, Liberal and Fortunate, that he may gain an opinion both of sufficiency, and of loving his Soldiers. This is Popularity, and breeds in the Soldiers both desire, and courage, to recommend themselves to his favour; and protects the severity of the General, in punishing (when need is) the Mutinous, or negligent Soldiers. But this love of Soldiers, (if caution be not given of the Commanders fidelity,) is a dangerous thing to Sovereign Power; especially when it it is in the hands of an Assembly not popular. It belongeth therefore to the safety of the People, both that they be good Conductors, and faithful Subjects, to whom the Sovereign Commits his Armies.

But when the Sovereign himself is Popular; that is, reverenced and beloved of his People, there is no danger at all from the Popularity of a Subject. For Soldiers are never so generally unjust, as to side with their Captain; though they love him, against their Sovereign, when they love not only his Person, but also his Cause. And therefore those, who by violence have at any time suppressed the Power of their lawful Sovereign, before they could settle themselves in his place, have been always put to the trouble of contriving their Titles, to save the People from the shame of receiving them. To have a known Right to Sovereign Power, is so popular a quality, as he that has it needs no more, for his own part, to turn the hearts of his Subjects to him, but that they see him able absolutely to govern his own Family: Nor, on the part of his enemies, but a disbanding of their Armies. For the greatest and most active part of Mankind, has never hitherto been well contented with the present.

Concerning the Offices of one Sovereign to another, which are comprehended in that Law, which is commonly called the Law of Nations, I need not say any thing in this place; because the Law of Nations, and the Law of Nature, is the same thing. And every Sovereign hath the same Right, in procuring the safety of his People, that any particular man can have, in procuring the safety of his own Body. And the same Law, that dictateth to men that have no Civil Government, what they ought to do, and what to avoid in regard of one another, dictateth the same to Common-wealths, that is, to the Consciences of Sovereign Princes, and Sovereign Assemblies; there being no Court of Natural Justice, but in the Conscience only; where not Man, but God reigneth; whose Laws, (such of them as oblige all Mankind,) in respect of God, as he is the Author of Nature, are Natural; and in respect of the same God, as he is King of Kings, are Laws. But of the Kingdom of God, as King of Kings, and as King also of a peculiar People, I shall speak in the rest of this discourse.

CHAP. XXXI. Of the KINGDOM OF GOD BY NATURE.

That the condition of mere Nature, that is to say, of absoluteLiberty, 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 Common-wealth, 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 Common-wealth. 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.

God is King, let the Earth rejoice, saith the Psalmist. And again,God is King though the Nations be angry; and he that sitteth on the Cherubins, 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 it self 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 Gods Subjects; all the rest, are to be understood as Enemies.

To rule by Words, requires that such Words be manifestly madeknown; 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.

From the difference between the other two kinds of Gods 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.

The Right of Nature, whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheththose 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 Gods Power.

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) is the God of Israel to those that are Upright in Heart; and yet my feet were almost gone, my treadings had well-nigh slipped; 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, 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 dyed, 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.

Having spoken of the Right of Gods Sovereignty, as groundedonly 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 14th and 15th 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.

Honour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of thePower, 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 Latines understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifieth properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestows on any thing, 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.

From internal Honour, consisting in the opinion of Power andGoodness, 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.

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 later Arbitrary Worship.

And of Arbitrary Worship, there be two differences: Forsometimes 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.

Again, there is a Public, and a Private Worship. Public, isthe Worship that a Common-wealth performeth, as one Person. Private, is that which a Private person exhibiteth. Public, in respect of the whole Common-wealth, 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.

The End of Worship amongst men, is Power. For where a manseeth 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.

That we may know what worship of God is taught us by the lightof 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 Man-kind; 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.

Concerning the actions of Divine Worship, it is a most generalPrecept 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 Gods 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 Judgements certain; or between Common-wealths, to avoid War. And that disputing of Gods nature is contrary to his Honour: For it is supposed, that in this natural Kingdom of God, there is no other way to know any thing, but by natural Reason; that is, from the Principles of natural Science; which are so far from teaching us any thing of Gods 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, Thanksgiving, 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.

But seeing a Common-wealth is but one Person, it ought also toexhibit 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 Common-wealth is of any Religion at all.

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 Common-wealth, 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.

But because not all Actions are signs by Constitution; but some areNaturally signs of Honour, others of Contumely, these later (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 Common-wealth shall ordain to be Publicly and Universally in use, as signs of Honour, and part of Gods 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 men, hath place in the kingdom of God by Pact, and not by Nature.

Having thus briefly spoken of the Natural Kingdom of God, andhis 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 any thing 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.

And thus far concerning the Constitution, Nature, and Right ofSovereigns; and concerning the Duty of Subjects, derived from the Principles of Natural Reason. And now, considering how different this Doctrine is, from the Practise 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 Common-wealth 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,) further, 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.

OF A CHRISTIAN COMMON-WEALTH.

CHAP. XXXII. Of the Principles of CHRISTIAN POLITICS.

I Have derived the Rights of SovereignPower, 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 COMMON-WEALTH, 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 Gods 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 any thing 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 Submissionof 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; orby 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, shall 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 400 Prophets, of whom the K. of Israel asked counsel, concerningthe war he made against Ramoth Gilead, only Micaiah was a trueone. The Prophet that was sent to prophecy against the Altar set up by Jeroboam, 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 be hath spoken to you to Revolt from the Lord your God. In which words two things are to be observed; First, that God will not have miracles alone serve for arguments, to approve the Prophets 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 Kings 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 Gods 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 Gods 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. By which it appears, that false Prophets may have the power of miracles; yet are we notto take their doctrine for Gods Word. St. Paul says further to the Galatians, 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 Kingof 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 unsufficient 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. 18. 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's 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 deferr'd 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, wherebyto 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 Common-wealths; 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.

CHAP. XXXIII. Of the Number, Antiquity, Scope, Authority, and Interpreters of the Books of Holy SCRIPTURE.

BY the Books of Holy SCRIPTURE, are understood those, whichought 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 guided them, for the obtaining of Peace and Justice, to obey the authority of their several Common-wealths; 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 Hagiographa. The Septuagint, who were 70. 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 HolyScripture, 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.

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 Scanderbeg, is denominated from the subject. We read in the last Chapter of Deuteronomy, ver. 6. concerningthe 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, chap. 12. ver. 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 dyed before he came into it. Likewise Numbers 21. ver. 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 11 of Deuteronomy, and the following Chapters to the 27. which was also commanded to be written on stones, in their entry into the land of Canaan. And this also did Moses himself write, 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 theArk; and the same which having been lost, was long time afterfound again by Hilkiah, and sent to King Josias, who causing it to be read to the People, renewed the Covenant between God and them.

That the Book of Joshua was also written long after the time ofJoshua, may be gathered out of many places of the Book it self. Joshua had set up twelve stones in the middest of Jordan, for a monument of their passage; of which the Writer saith thus, They are there unto this day; 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; 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; which must needs be therefore long after the time of Joshua. Arguments of this kind there be many other; as Josh. 8. 29. 13. 13. 14. 14. 15. 63.

The same is manifest by like arguments of the Book of Judges, chap. 1. 21, 26. 6. 24. 10. 4. 15. 19. 17. 6. and Ruth 1. 1. but especially Judg. 18. 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.

That the Books of Samuel were also written after his own time,there are the like arguments, 1 Sam. 5. 5. 7. 13, 15. 27. 6. & 30. 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 faith, 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.

As for the two Books of the Kings, and the two Books of theChronicles, besides the places which mention such monuments, as the Writer saith, remained till his own days; such as are 1 Kings 9. 13. 9. 21. 10. 12. 12. 19. 2 Kings 2. 22. 8. 22. 10. 27. 14. 7. 16. 6. 17. 23. 17. 34. 17. 41. 1 Chron. 4. 41. 5. 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 Juda, 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.

The Books of Esdras and Nehemiah were written certainly aftertheir 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.

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.

The Book of Job hath no mark in it of the time wherein it was written:and though it appear sufficiently (Ezekiel 14. 14. and James 5. 11.) that he was no feigned person; yet the Book it self 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 it 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 stile 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.

The Psalms were written the most part by David, for the use of theQuire. To these are added some Songs of Moses, and other holy men; and some of them after the return from the Captivity, as the 137. and the 126. 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.

The Proverbs, being a Collection of wise and godly Sayings, partlyof 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.

The Books of Ecclesiastes and the Canticles have nothing that was not Solomons, 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 distinctions 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.

Of the Prophets, the most ancient, are Sophoniah, Jonas, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Michaiah, who lived in the time of Amaziah, and Azariah, otherwise Ozias, Kings of Judah. But the Book of Jonas is not properly a Register of his Prophecy, (for that is contained in these few words, Forty days and Ninivy shall be destroyed,) but a History or Narration of his frowardness and disputing Gods 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, Abdias, Nahum, and Habakkuk prophesied in the time of Josiah.

Ezekiel, Daniel, Aggeus, and Zacharias, in the Captivity.

When Joel and Malachi prophesied, 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 Ptolemaeus 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, chapt. 14. 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 later days, 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 mayst 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.

The Writers of the New Testament lived all in less than anage after Christs 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 Gods 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 364. 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 favorable 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. But it is not the Writer, but the authority of the Church, that maketh a Book Canonical. And although these Books werewritten 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 the 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 Gods 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 Gods people, till the time they cast off Gods 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; 1. in Moses, and the Priests; 2. in the man Christ; and 3. 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.

It is a question much disputed between the divers sects of ChristianReligion, 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 it self 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 Gods 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 Know edge 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.

As far as they differ not from the Laws of Nature, there is nodoubt, 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 Common-wealth, residing in the Sovereign, who only has the Legislative power. Again, if it be not the Legislative Authority of the Common-wealth, 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Common-wealth, or of the Church. But the Church, if it be one person, is the same thing with a Common-wealth of Christians; called a Common-wealth, 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 any thing; 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 Common-wealth, 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 Common-wealth, 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 Common-wealths, 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.

CHAP. XXXIV. Of the Signification of SPIRIT, ANGEL, and INSPIRATION in the Books of Holy Scripture.

Seeing the foundation of all true Ratiocination, is the constantSignification 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.

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, & 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 it self, 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 control 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 Gods 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 mad men are said to be possessed with a spirit.

Other signification of Spirit I find no where 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 honor him with such names as we conceive most honorable amongst our selves.

Gen. 1. 2. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters. Hereif 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. 8. 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 Gods work.

Gen. 41. 38. Pharaoh 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. 28. 3. Thou shalt speak (saith God) to all that are 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. 31. 3, 4, 5, 6. and 35. 31. And Isaiah 11. 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.

In the Book of Judges, an extraordinary Zeal, and Courage in thethe defence of Gods people, is called the Spirit of God; as when it excited Othoniel, Gideon, Jephtha, and Samson to deliver them from servitude, Judg. 3. 10. 6. 34. 11. 29. 13. 25. 14. 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. 11. 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. 19. 20.) is to be understood, not a Ghost, but an unexpected and sudden Zeal to join with them in their devotion.

The false Prophet Zedekiah, saith to Micaiah (1 Kings 22. 24.)Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee? Which cannot 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.

Gen. 2. 7. It is said, God made man of the dust of the Earth, and breathed into his nostrils (spiraculum vitae) 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 27. 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. 1. 20. the Spirit of life was in the wheels, is equivalent to, the wheels were alive. And (Ezek. 2. 30.) 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.

In the 11 chap. of Numbers. verse 17. I will take (saith God) of the Spirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall bear the burden 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 they had received authority so to do, and prophesied 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. 34. 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 Gods people into the promised land), but prevented by death, could not finish.

In the like sense it is said, (Rom. 8. 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 4. 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 4. 1.) And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost (that is, as it is expressed, Mat. 4. 1. and Mar. 1. 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 unproper, and unsignificant. 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.

The Disciples of Christ, seeing him walking upon the sea, (Mat. 14. 26. and Mark 6. 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 24. 3, 7.); so also (Acts 12. 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 Daemons. 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.

By the name of ANGEL, is signified generally, a Messenger; andmost 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 unproperly termed Gods 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 Daemons, 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 Sadduces,) 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 Mad-men, 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. 16. 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 Gods special presence there. Why therefore may not the Angels that appeared to Lot, and are called Gen. 19. 13. Men; and to whom, though they were two, Lot speaketh (ver. 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. 22. 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 Gods will supernaturally, and saves the labour of supposing any permanent Ghosts. The Angels which Jacob saw on the Ladder of Heaven (Gen. 28. 12.) were a Vision of his sleep; therefore only Fancy, and a Dream; yet being supernatural, and signs of Gods special presence, those apparitions are not improperly called Angels. The same is to be understood (Gen. 31. 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. 14. 9.) the Angel that went before the Army of Israel to the Red Sea, and then came behind it, is (verse 19.) the Lord himself; and he appeared not in the form of a beautiful man, but in form (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. 14. 9.) for the Armies guide: For this cloudy pillar, 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 Gods 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 Gods presence in supernatural operations; As when Moses (Exod. 33. 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 some what, 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 Gods 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 it self, (Dan. 12. 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, (Mat. 25. 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 Churches 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. 6. 3.) Know ye not that we shall judge the Angels? And 2 Pet. 2. 4. (For if God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down into hell. And (Jude 1, 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 (Mat. 22. 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 Saviours 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.

On the signification of the word Spirit, dependeth that of the wordINSPIRATION; 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. 2. 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 17. 25.) that he gave him life, and breath; that is, made him a living creature. And where it is said (2 Tim. 3. 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. 1. 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 Fullness 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 2. 28.) I will power 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 Vision. 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 2. 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 it self; but for an External sign of Gods special working on their hearts, to effect in them the internal graces, and holy virtues he thought requisite for the performance of their Apostleship.

CHAP. XXXV. Of the Signification in Scripture of KINGDOM OF GOD, of HOLY, SACRED, and SACRAMENT.

The Kingdom of God in the Writings of Divines, andspecially 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 Gods 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 Creators 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.

After this, it pleased God to speak to Abraham, and (Gen. 17. 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 (verse II.) 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 Gods 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 Gods 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. 4. 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.

This Covenant, at the Foot of Mount Sinai, was renewed byMoses (Exod. 19. 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. 2. 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 Lords Prayer) of daily use; so the other signifieth that which is overplus, and stored up, and enjoyed in a special manner; which the Latines 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. 2. 9.) Sacerdotium Regale, a Regal Priesthood; as also the Institution it self, by which no man might enter into the Sanctum Sanctorum, that is to say, no man might enquire Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods by special, not by general Right. All the Earth (as is said in the text) is Gods; 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 Common-wealth, 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 Sam. 8. 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. 12. 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 Common-wealth.

And after the Israelites had rejected God, the Prophets did foretell his restitution; as (Isaiah 24. 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 4. 7.) And the Lord shall reign over them in Mount Zion: This Mount Zion is in Jerusalem upon the Earth. And (Ezek. 20. 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 1. 32, 33.) He shall be great, and be called the Son of the most High, and the Lord shall give 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 Caesar, 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 17. 7.) That they did all of them contrary to the decrees of Caesar, 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 the New; when we say, For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and Glory, it is to be understood of Gods Kingdom, by force of our Covenant, not by the Right of Gods 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; ot 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 in stead 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 Generals 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 Cherubins 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 Lords 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 Gods 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.

Out of this literal interpretation of the Kingdom of God, arisethalso the true interpretation of the word HOLY. For it is a word, which in Gods Kingdom answereth to that, which men in their Kingdoms use to call Public, or the Kings.

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 Gods Nation, were called (Exod. 19. 6.) a Holy Nation. For by Holy, is always understood, either God himself, or that which is Gods in propriety; as by Public, is always meant, either the Person of the Common-wealth it self, or something that is so the Common-wealths, as no private person can claim any propriety therein.

Therefore the Sabbath (Gods day) is a Holy day; the Temple, (Gods house) a Holy house; Sacrifices, Tithes, and Offerings (Gods tribute) Holy duties; Priests, Prophets, and anointed Kings, under Christ (Gods Ministers) Holy men; the Celestial ministering Spirits (Gods 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 Gods Nation in propriety: but the Jews only were a Holy Nation. Why, but because they became his Propriety by covenant?

And the word Profane, is usually taken in the Scripture for the same with Common; and consequently their contraries, Holy, and Proper, in the Kingdom of God must be the same also. But figuratively, those men also are called Holy, that led such godly lives, as if they had forsaken all worldly designs, and wholly devoted, and given themselves to God. In the proper sense, that which is made Holy by Gods appropriating or separating it to his own use, is said to be sanctified by God, as the Seventh day in the fourth Commandment; and as the Elect in the New Testament were said to be sanctified, when they were endued with the Spirit of godliness. Andthat which is made Holy by the dedication of men, and given to God, so as to be used only in his public service, is called also SACRED, and said to be consecrated, as Temples, and other Houses of Public Prayer, and their Utensils, Priests, and Ministers, Victims, Offerings, and the external matter of Sacraments.

Of Holiness there be degrees: for of those things that are set apartfor the service of God, there may be some set apart again, for a nearer and more especial service. The whole Nation of the Israelites were a people Holy to God; yet the tribe of Levi was amongst the Israelites a Holy tribe; and amongst the Levites, the Priests were yet more Holy; and amongst the Priests, the High Priest was the most Holy. So the Land of Judea was the Holy Land; but the Holy City wherein God was to be worshipped, was more Holy; and again, the Temple more Holy than the City; and the Sanctum Sanctorum more Holy than the rest of the Temple.

A SACRAMENT, is a separation of some visible thing from commonuse; and a consecration of it to Gods service, for a sign, either of our admission into the Kingdom of God, to be of the number of his peculiar people, or for a Commemoration of the same. In the Old Testament, the sign of Admission was Circumcision; in the New Testament, Baptism. The Commemoration of it in the Old Testament, was the Eating (at a certain time, which was Anniversary) of the Paschal Lamb; by which they were put in mind of the night wherein they were delivered out of their bondage in Egypt; and in the New Testament, the celebrating of the Lords Supper; by which, we are put in mind, of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, by our Blessed Saviours death upon the cross. The Sacraments of Admission, are but once to be used, because there needs but one Admission; but because we have need of being often put in mind of our deliverance, and of our Allegiance, the Sacraments of Commemoration have need to be reiterated. And these are the principal Sacraments, and as it were the solemn oaths we make of our Allegiance. There be also other Consecrations, that may be called Sacraments, as the word implieth only Consecration to Gods service; but as it implies an oath, or promise of Allegiance to God, there were no other in the Old Testament, but Circumcision, and the Passover; nor are there any other in the New Testament, but Baptism, and the Lords Supper.

CHAP. XXXVI. Of the WORD OF GOD, and of PROPHETS.

When there is mention of the Word of God, or of Man, itdoth not signify a part of Speech, such as Grammarians call a Noun, or a Verb, or any simple voice, without a contexture with other words to make it significative; but a perfect Speech or Discourse, whereby the speaker affirmeth, denieth, commandeth, promiseth, threateneth, wisheth, or interrogateth. In which sense it is not Vocabulum, that signifies a Word; but Sermo, (in Greek λόγος) that is, some Speech, Discourse, or Saying.

Again, if we say the Word of God, or of Man, it may be understoodsometimes of the Speaker, (as the words that God hath spoken, or that a Man hath spoken: In which sense, when we say, the Gospel of St. Matthew, we understand St. Matthew to be the Writer of it: and sometimes of the Subject: In which sense, when we read in the Bible, The words of the days of the Kings of Israel, or Judah, 'tis meant, that the acts that were done in those days, were the Subject of those Words; And in the Greek, which (in the Scripture) retaineth many Hebraisms, by the Word of God is oftentimes meant, not that which is spoken by God, but concerning God, and his government; that is to say, the Doctrine of Religion: Insomuch, as it is all one, to say λόγος Θεοῦ, and Theologia; which is, that Doctrine which we usually call Divinity, as is manifest by the places following [Acts 13. 46.] Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you, but seeing you put it from you, and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. That which is here called the Word of God, was the Doctrine of Christian Religion; as it appears evidently by that which goes before. And [Acts 5. 20.] where it is said to the Apostles by an Angel, Go stand and speak in the Temple, all the Words of this life; by the Words of this life, is meant, the Doctrine of the Gospel; as is evident by what they did in the Temple, and is expressed in the last verse of the same Chap. Daily in the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Christ Jesus: In which place it is manifest, that Jesus Christ was the subject of this Word of life; or (which is all one) the subject of the Words of this life eternal, that our Saviour offered them. So [Acts 15. 7.] the Word of God, is called the Word of the Gospel, because it containeth the Doctrine of the Kingdom of Christ; and the same Word [Rom. 10. 8, 9.] is called the Word of Faith; that is, as is there expressed, the Doctrine of Christ come, and raised from the dead. Also [Mat. 13. 19.] When any one heareth the Word of the Kingdom; that is, the Doctrine of the Kingdom taught by Christ. Again, the same Word, is said [Acts 12. 24.] to grow and to be multiplied; which to understand of the Evangelical Doctrine is easy, but of the Voice, or Speech of God, hard and strange. In the same sense the Doctrine of Devils, signifieth not the Words of any Devil, but the Doctrine of Heathen men concerning Daemons, and those Phantasmswhich they worshipped as Gods.

Considering these two significations of the WORD OF GOD, as it is taken in Scripture, it is manifest in this later sense (where it is taken for the Doctrine of Christian Religion,) that the whole Scripture is the Word of God: but in the former sense not so. For example, though these words, I am the Lord thy God, &c. to the end of the Ten Commandments, were spoken by God to Moses; yet the Preface, God spake these words and said, is to be understood for the Words of him that wrote the holy History. The Word of God, as it is taken for that which he hath spoken, is understood sometimes Properly, sometimes Metaphorically. Properly, as the words, he hath spoken to his Prophets: Metaphorically, for his Wisdom, Power, and eternal Decree, in making the world; in which sense, those Fiats, Let their be light, Let there be a firmament, Let us make man, &c. [Gen. 1.] are the Word of God. And in the same sense it is said [John 1. 3.] All things were made by it, and without it was nothing made that was made: And [Heb. 1. 3.] He upholdeth all things by the Word of his Power; that is, by the Power of his Word; that is, by his Power: and [Heb. 11. 3. The worlds were framed by the Word of God; and many other places to the same sense: As also amongst the Latines, the name of Fate, which signifieth properly The word spoken, is taken in the same sense.

Secondly, for the effect of his Word; that is to say, for the thingit self, which by his Word is Affirmed, Commanded, Threatened, or Promised; as [Psalm 105. 19.] where Joseph is said to have been kept in prison, till his Word was come; that is, till that was come to pass which he had [Gen. 40. 13.] foretold to Pharaohs Butler, concerning his being restored to his office: for there by his word was come, is meant, the thing it self was come to pass. So also [1 King. 18. 36.] Elijah saith to God, I have done all these thy Words, in stead of I have done all these things at thy Word, or commandment: and [Jer. 17. 15.] Where is the Word of the Lord, is put for, Where is the Evil he threatened: And [Ezek. 12. 28.] There shall none of my Words be prolonged any more: by words are understood those things, which God promised to his people. And in the New Testament [Mat. 24. 35.] heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away; that is, there is nothing that I have promised or foretold, that shall not come to pass. And in this sense it is, that St. John the Evangelist, and, I think, St. John only calleth our Saviour himself as in the flesh the Word of God [as Joh. 1. 14.] the Word was made Flesh; that is to say, the Word, or Promise that Christ should come into the world; who in the beginning was with God; that is to say, it was in the purpose of God the Father, to send God the Son into the world, to enlighten men in the way of Eternal life; but it was not till then put in execution, and actually incarnate; So that our Saviour is there called the Word, not because he was the promise, but the thing promised. They that taking occasion from this place, do commonly call him the Verb of God, do but render the text more obscure. They might as well term him the Noun of God: for as by Noun, so also by Verb, men understand nothing but a part of speech, a voice, a sound, that neither affirms, nor denies, nor commands, nor promiseth, nor is any substance corporeal, or spiritual; and therefore it cannot be said to be either God, or Man; whereas our Saviour is both. And this Word which St. John in his Gospel saith was with God, is [in his 1 Epistle, verse 1.] called the Word of life; and [verse 2.] the Eternal life, which was with the Father: so that he can be in no other sense called the Word, than in that, wherein he is called Eternal life; that is, he that hath procured us Eternal life, by his coming in the flesh. So also [Apocalypse 19. 13.] the Apostle speaking of Christ, clothed in a garment dipped in blood, saith; his name is the Word of God; which is to be understood, as if he had said his name had been, He that was come according to the purpose of God from the beginning, and according to his Word and promises delivered by the Prophets. So that there is nothing here of the Incarnation of a Word, but of the Incarnation of God the Son, therefore called the Word, because his Incarnation was the Performance of the Promise; In like manner as the Holy Ghost is called the Promise.

There are also places of the Scripture, where, by the Word of God, issignified such Words as are consonant to reason, and equity, though spoken sometimes neither by Prophet, nor by a holy man. For Pharaoh Necho was an Idolater; yet his Words to the good King Josiah, in which he advised him by Messengers, not to oppose him in his march against Carchemish, are said to have proceeded from the mouth of God; and that Josiah not hearkening to them, was slain in the battle; as is to be read 2 Chron. 35. vers. 21, 22, 23. It is true, that as the same History is related in the first Book of Esdras, not Pharaoh, but Jeremiah spake these words to Josiah, from the mouth of the Lord. But we are to give credit to the Canonical Scripture, whatsoever be written in the Apocrypha.

The Word of God, is then also to be taken for the Dictates of reason, and equity, when the same is said in the Scriptures to be written in man's heart; as Psalm 36. 31. Jerem. 31. 33. Deut. 30. 11, 14. and many other like places.

The name of PROPHET, signifieth in Scripture sometimes Prolocutor; that is, he that speaketh from God to Man, or from man to God: And sometimes Predictor, or a foreteller of things to come: And sometimes one that speaketh incoherently, as men that are distracted. It is most frequently used in the sense of speaking from God to the People. So Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others were Prophets. And in this sense the High Priest was a Prophet, for he only went into the Sanctum Sanctorum, to enquire of God; and was to declare his answer to the people. And therefore when Caiphas said, it was expedient that one man should die for the people, St. John saith [chap. 11. 51.] that He spake not this of himself, but being High Priest that year, he prophesied that one man should die for the nation. Also they that in Christian Congregations taught the people [1 Cor. 14. 3.] are said to Prophecy. In the like sense it is, that God saith to Moses [Exod. 4. 16.] concerning Aaron, He shall be thy Spokes-man to the People; and he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God: that which here is Spokes-man, is [chap. 7. 1.] interpreted Prophet; See (saith God) I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet. In the sense of speaking from man to God, Abraham is called a Prophet [Genes. 20. 7.] where God in a Dream speaketh to Abimelech in this manner, Now therefore restore the man his wife, for he is a Prophet, and shall pray for thee; whereby may be also gathered, that the name of Prophet may be given, not unproperly to them that in Christian Churches, have a Calling to say public prayers for the Congregation. In the same sense, the Prophets that came down from the High place (or Hill of God) with a Psaltery, and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and a Harp [1 Sam. 10. 5, 6. and [vers. 10.] Saul amongst them, are said to Prophecy, in that they praised God, in that manner publicly. In the like sense, is Miriam [Exod. 15. 20.] called a Prophetess. So is it also to be taken [1 Cor. 11. 4, 5.] where St. Paul saith, Every man that prayeth or prophesieth with his head covered, &c. and every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered: For Prophecy in that place, signifieth no more, but praising God in Psalms, and Holy Songs; which women might do in the Church, though it were not lawful for them to speak to the Congregation. And in this signification it is, that the Poets of the Heathen, that composed Hymns and other sorts of Poems in the honor of their Gods, were called Vates (Prophets) as is well enough known by all that are versed in the Books of the Gentiles, and as is evident [Tit. 1. 12.] where St. Paul saith of the Cretians, that a Prophet of their own said, they were Liars; not that St. Paul held their Poets for Prophets, but acknowledgeth that the word Prophet was commonly used to signify them that celebrated the honour of God in Verse.

When by Prophecy is meant Prediction, or foretelling of futureContingents; not only they were Prophets, who were Gods Spokesmen, and foretold those things to others, which God had foretold to them; but also all those Impostors, that pretend by the help of familiar spirits, or by superstitious divination of events past, from false causes, to foretell the like events in time to come: of which (as I have declared already in the 12. chapter of this Discourse) there be many kinds, who gain in the opinion of the common sort of men, a greater reputation of Prophecy, by one casual event that may be but wrested to their purpose, than can be lost again by never so many failings. Prophecy is not an Art, nor (when it is taken for Prediction) a constant Vocation; but an extraordinary, and temporary Employment from God, most often of Good men, but sometimes also of the Wicked. The woman of Endor, who is said to have had a familiar spirit, and thereby to have raised a Phantasm of Samuel, and foretold Saul his death, was not therefore a Prophetess; for neither had she any science, whereby she could raise such a Phantasm; nor does it appear that God commanded the raising of it; but only guided that Imposture to be a means of Sauls terror and discouragement; and by consequent, of the discomfiture, by which he fell. And for Incoherent Speech, it was amongst the Gentiles taken for one sort of Prophecy, because the Prophets of their Oracles, intoxicated with a spirit, or vapor from the cave of the Pythian Oracle at Delphi, were for the time really mad, and spake like mad-men; of whose loose words a sense might be made to fit any event, in such sort, as all bodies are said to be made of Materia prima. In the Scripture I find it also so taken [1 Sam. 18. 10.] in these words, And the Evil spirit came upon Saul, and he Prophesied in the midst of the house.

And although there be so many significations in Scripture of theword Prophet; yet is that the most frequent, in which it is taken for him, to whom God speaketh immediately, that which the Prophet is to say from him, to some other man, or to the people. And hereupon a question may be asked, in what manner God speaketh to such a Prophet. Can it (may some say) be properly said, that God hath voice and language, when it cannot be properly said, he hath a tongue, or other organs, as a man? The Prophet David argueth thus, Shall he that made the eye, not see? or he that made the ear, not hear? But this may be spoken, not (as usually) to signify Gods nature, but to signify our intention to honor him. For to see, and hear, are Honorable Attributes, and may be given to God, to declare (as far as our capacity can conceive) his Almighty power. But if it were to be taken in the strict; and proper sense, one might argue from his making of all other parts of man's body, that he had also the same use of them which we have; which would be many of them so uncomely, as it would be the greatest contumely in the world to ascribe them to him. Therefore we are to interpret Gods speaking to men immediately, for that way (whatsoever it be), by which God makes them understand his will: And the ways whereby he doth this, are many; and to be sought only in the Holy Scripture: where though many times it be said, that God spake to this, and that person, without declaring in what manner; yet there be again many places, that deliver also the signs by which they were to acknowledge his presence, and commandment; and by these may be understood, how he spake to many of the rest.

In what manner God spake to Adam, and Eve, and Cain, and Noah, is not expressed; nor how he spake to Abraham, till such time as he came out of his own country to Sichem in the land of Canaan; and then [Gen. 12. 7.] God is said to have appeared to him. So there is one way, whereby God made his presence manifest; that is, by an Apparition, or Vision. And again, [Gen. 15. 1.] The Word of the Lord came to Abraham in a Vision; that is to say, somewhat, as a sign of Gods presence, appeared as Gods Messenger, to speak to him. Again, the Lord appeared to Abraham [Gen. 18. 1.] by an apparition of three Angels; and to Abimelech [Gen. 20. 3.] in a dream: To Lot [Gen. 19. 1.] by an apparition of two Angels: And to Hagar [Gen. 21. 17.] by the apparition of one Angel: And to Abraham again [Gen. 22. 11.] by the apparition of a voice from heaven: And [Gen. 26. 24.] to Isaac in the night; (that is, in his sleep, or by dream): And to Jacob [Gen. 18. 12.] in a dream; that is to say (as are the words of the text) Jacob dreamed that he saw a ladder, &c. And [Gen. 32. 1.] in a Vision of Angels: And to Moses [Exod. 3. 2.] in the apparition of a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: And after the time of Moses, (where the manner how God spake immediately to man in the Old Testament, is expressed) he spake always by a Vision, or by a Dream; as to Gideon, Samuel, Eliah, Elisha, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the rest of the Prophets; and often in the New Testament, as to Joseph, to St. Peter, to St. Paul, and to St. John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse.

Only to Moses he spake in a more extraordinary manner in Mount Sinai, and in the Tabernacle; and to the High Priest in the Tabernacle, and in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple. But Moses, and after him the High Priests were Prophets of a more eminent place, and degree in Gods favour; And God himself in express words declareth, that to other Prophets he spake in Dreams and Visions, but to his servant Moses, in such manner as a man speaketh to his friend. The words are these [Numb. 12. 6, 7, 8.] If there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make my self known to him in a Vision, and will speak unto him in a Dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house; with him I will speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. And [Exod. 33. 11.] The Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend. And yet this speaking of God to Moses, was by mediation of an Angel, or Angels, as appears expressly, Acts 7. ver. 35. and 53. and Gal. 3. 19. and was therefore a Vision, though a more clear Vision than was given to other Prophets. And conformable hereunto, where God saith (Deut. 13. 1.) If there arise amongst you a Prophet, or Dreamer of Dreams, the later word is but the interpretation of the former. And [Joel 2. 28.] Your sons and your daughters shall Prophecy; your old men shall dream Dreams, and your young men shall see Visions: where again, the word Prophecy is expounded by Dream, and Vision. And in the same manner it was, that God spake to Solomon, promising him Wisdom, Riches, and Honor; for the text saith, [1 Kings 3. 15.] And Solomon awoke, and behold it was a Dream: So that generally the Prophets extraordinary in the Old Testament took notice of the Word of God no otherwise, than from their Dreams, or Visions; that is to say, from the imaginations which they had in their sleep, or in an Ecstasy: which imaginations in every true Prophet were supernatural; but in false Prophets were either natural, or feigned.

The same Prophets were nevertheless said to speak by the Spirit; as [Zach. 7. 12.] where the Prophet speaking of the Jews, saith, They made their hearts hard as Adamant, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of Hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former Prophets. By which it is manifest, that speaking by the Spirit, or Inspiration, was not a particular manner of Gods speaking, different from Vision, when they that were said to speak by the Spirit, were extraordinary Prophets, such as for every new message, were to have a particular Commission, or (which is all one) a new Dream, or Vision.

Of Prophets, that were so by a perpetual Calling in the Old Testament,some were supreme, and some subordinate: Supreme were first Moses; and after him the High Priests, every one for his time, as long as the Priesthood was Royal; and after the people of the Jews, had rejected God, that he should no more reign over them, those Kings which submitted themselves to Gods government, were also his chief Prophets; and the High Priests office became Ministerial. And when God was to be consulted, they put on the holy vestments, and enquired of the Lord, as the King commanded them, and were deprived of their office, when the King thought fit. For King Saul [1 Sam. 13. 9.] commanded the burnt offering to be brought, and [1 Sam. 14. 18.] he commands the Priest to bring the Ark near him; and [ver. 19.] again to let it alone, because he saw an advantage upon his enemies. And in the same chapter Saul asketh counsel of God. In like manner King David, after his being anointed, though before he had possession of the Kingdom, is said to enquire of the Lord [1 Sam. 23. 2.] whether he should fight against the Philistines at Keilah; and [verse 10.] David commandeth the Priest to bring him the Ephod, to enquire whether he should stay in Keilah, or not. And King Solomon [1 Kings 2. 27.] took the Priesthood from Abiathar, and gave it [verse 35.] to Zadoc. Therefore Moses, and the High Priests, and the pious Kings, who enquired of God on all extraordinary occasions, how they were to carry themselves, or what event they were to have, were all Sovereign Prophets. But in what manner God spake unto them, is not manifest. To say that when Moses went up to God in Mount Sinai, it was a Dream, or Vision, such as other Prophets had, is contrary to that distinction which God made between Moses, and other Prophets, Numb. 12. 6, 7, 8. To say God spake or appeared as he is in his own nature, is to deny his Infiniteness, Invisibility, Incomprehensibility. To say he spake by Inspiration, or Infusion of the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit signifieth the Deity, is to make Moses equal with Christ, in whom only the Godhead [as St. Paul speaketh Col. 2. 9.] dwelleth bodily. And lastly, to say he spake by the Holy Spirit, as it signifieth the graces, or gifts of the Holy Spirit, is to attribute nothing to him supernatural. For God disposeth men to Piety, Justice, Mercy, Truth, Faith, and all manner of Virtue, both Moral, and Intellectual, by doctrine, example, and by several occasions, natural, and ordinary.

And as these ways cannot be applied to God, in his speaking to Moses, at Mount Sinai; so also, they cannot be applied to him, in his speaking to the High Priests, from the Mercy-Seat. Therefore in what manner God spake to those Sovereign Prophets of the Old Testament, whose office it was to enquire of him, is not intelligible. In the time of the New Testament, there was no Sovereign Prophet, but our Saviour; who was both God that spake, and the Prophet to whom he spake.

To subordinate Prophets of perpetual Calling, I find not anyplace that proveth God spake to them supernaturally; but only in such manner, as naturally he inclineth men to Piety, to Belief, to Righteousness, and to other virtues all other Christian men. Which way, though it consist in Constitution, Instruction, Education, and the occasions and invitements men have to Christian virtues; yet it is truly attributed to the operation of the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, (which we in our language call the Holy Ghost): For there is no good inclination, that is not of the operation of God. But these operations are not always supernatural. When therefore a Prophet is said to speak in the Spirit, or by the Spirit of God, we are to understand no more, but that he speaks according to Gods will, declared by the supreme Prophet. For the most common acceptation of the word Spirit, is in the signification of a man's intention, mind, or disposition.

In the time of Moses, there were seventy men besides himself, that Prophesied in the Camp of the Israelites. In what manner God spake to them, is declared in the 11 of Numbers, verse 25. The Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto Moses, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and gave it to the seventy Elders. And it came to pass, when the Spirit rested upon them, they Prophesied, and did not cease. By which it is manifest, first, that their Prophesying to the people, was subservient, and subordinate to the Prophesying of Moses; for that God took of the Spirit of Moses, to put upon them; so that they Prophesied as Moses would have them: otherwise they had not been suffered to Prophecy at all. For there was [verse 27.] a complaint made against them to Moses; and Joshua would have Moses to have forbidden them; which he did not, but said to Joshua, Be not jealous in my behalf. Secondly, that the Spirit of God in that place, signifieth nothing but the Mind and Disposition to obey, and assist Moses in the administration of the Government. For if it were meant they had the substantial Spirit of God; that is, the Divine nature, inspired into them, then they had it in no less manner than Christ himself, in whom only the Spirit of God dwelt bodily. It is meant therefore of the Gift and Grace of God, that guided them to co-operate with Moses; from whom their Spirit was derived. And it appeareth [verse 16.] that, they were such as Moses himself should appoint for Elders and Officers of the People: For the words are, Gather unto me seventy men, whom thou knowest to be Elders and Officers of the people: where, thou knowest, is the same with thou appointest, or hast appointed to be such. For we are told before [Exod. 18.] that Moses following the counsel of Jethro his Father-in-law, did appoint Judges, and Officers over the people, such as feared God; and of these, were those Seventy, whom God by putting upon them Moses spirit, inclined to aid Moses in the Administration of the Kingdom: and in this sense the Spirit of God is said [1 Sam. 16. 13, 14.] presently upon the anointing of David, to have come upon David, and left Saul; God giving his graces to him he chose to govern his people, and taking them away from him, he rejected. So that by the Spirit is meant Inclination to Gods service; and not any supernatural Revelation.

God spake also many times by the event of Lots; which were orderedby such as he had put in Authority over his people. So we read that God manifested by the Lots which Saul caused to be drawn [1 Sam. 14. 43.] the fault that Jonathan had committed, in eating a honey-comb, contrary to the oath taken by the people. And [Josh. 18. 10.] God divided the land of Canaan amongst the Israelite, by the lots that Joshua did cast before the Lord in Shiloh. In the same manner it seemeth to be, that God discovered [Joshua 7. 16, &c.] the crime of Achan. And these are the ways whereby God declared his Will in the Old Testament.

All which ways he used also in the New Testament. To the Virgin Mary, by a Vision of an Angel: To Joseph in a Dream: again to Paul in the way to Damascus in a Vision of our Saviour: and to Peter in the Vision of a sheet let down from heaven, with divers sorts of flesh, of clean, and unclean beasts; and in prison, by Vision of an Angel: And to all the Apostles, and Writers of the New Testament, by the graces of his Spirit; and to the Apostles again (at the choosing of Matthias in the place of Judas Iscariot) by lot.

Seeing then all Prophecy supposeth Vision, or Dream, (which two,when they be natural, are the same,) or some especial gift of God, so rarely observed in mankind, as to be admired where observed; And seeing as well such gifts, as the most extraordinary Dreams, and Visions, may proceed from God, not only by his supernatural, and immediate, but also by his natural operation, and by mediation of second causes; there is need of Reason and Judgment to discern between natural, and supernatural Gifts, and between natural, and supernatural Visions, or Dreams. And consequently men had need to be very circumspect, and wary, in obeying the voice of man, that pretending himself to be a Prophet, requires us to obey God in that way, which he in Gods name telleth us to be the way to happiness. For he that pretends to teach men the way of so great felicity, pretends to govern them; that is to say, to rule, and reign over them; which is a thing, that all men naturally desire, and is therefore worthy to be suspected of Ambition and Imposture; and consequently, ought to be examined, and tried by every man, before he yield them obedience; unless he have yielded it them already, in the institution of a Commonwealth; as when the Prophet is the Civil Sovereign, or by the Civil Sovereign Authorized. And if this examination of Prophets, and Spirits, were not allowed to every one of the people, it had been to no purpose, to set out the marks, by which every man might be able, to distinguish between those, whom they ought, and those whom they ought not to follow. Seeing therefore such marks are set out [Deut. 13. 1, &c.] to know a Prophet by; and [1 John 4. 1. &c.] to know a Spirit by: and seeing there is so much Prophesying in the Old Testament; and so much Preaching in the New Testament against Prophets; and so much greater a number ordinarily of false Prophets, than of true; every one is to beware of obeying their directions, at their own peril. And first, that there were many more false than true Prophets, appears by this, that when Ahab [1 Kings 12.] consulted four hundred Prophets, they were all false Impostors, but only one Michaiah. And a little before the time of the Captivity, the Prophets were generally liars. The Prophets (saith the Lord by Jeremy, cha. 14. verse 14.) prophecy Lies in my name. I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, nor spake unto them, they prophecy to you a false Vision, a thing of naught; and the deceit of their heart. In so much as God commanded the People by the mouth of the Prophet Jeremiah [chap. 23. 16.] not to obey them. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, hearken not unto the words of the Prophets, that prophecy to you. They make you vain, they speak a Vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.

Seeing then there was in the time of the Old Testament, such quarrelsamongst the Visionary Prophets, one contesting with another, and asking, When departed the Spirit from me, to go to thee? as between Michaiah, and the rest of the four hundred; and such giving of the Lye to one another, (as in Jerem. 14. 14.] and such controversies in the New Testament at this day, amongst the Spiritual Prophets: Every man then was, and now is bound to make use of his Natural Reason, to apply to all Prophecy those Rules which God hath given us, to discern the true from the false. Of which Rules, in the Old Testament, one was, conformable doctrine to that which Moses the Sovereign Prophet had taught them; and the other the miraculous power of foretelling what God would bring to pass, as I have already shown out of Deut. 13. 1. &c. And in the New Testament there was but one only mark; and that was the preaching of this Doctrine, That Jesus is the Christ, that is, the King of the Jews, promised in the Old Testament. Whosoever denied that Article, he was a false Prophet, whatsoever miracles he might seem to work; and he that taught it was a true Prophet. For St. John [1 Epist. 4. 2, &c.] speaking expressly of the means to examine Spirits, whether they be of God, or not; after he had told them that there would arise false Prophets, saith thus, Hereby know ye the Spirit of God. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; that is, is approved and allowed as a Prophet of God: not that he is a godly man, or one of the Elect, for this, that he confesseth, professeth, or preacheth Jesus to be the Christ; but for that he is a Prophet avowed. For God sometimes speaketh by Prophets, whose persons he hath not accepted; as he did by Baalam; and as he foretold Saul of his death, by the Witch of Endor. Again in the next verse, Every Spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of Christ. And this is the Spirit of Antichrist. So that the Rule is perfect on both sides; that he is a true Prophet, which preacheth the Messiah already come, in the person of Jesus; and he a false one that denyeth him come, and looketh for him in some future Impostor, that shall take upon him that honour falsely, whom the Apostle there properly calleth Antichrist. Every man therefore ought to consider who is the Sovereign Prophet; that is to say, who it is, that is Gods Vicegerent on Earth; and hath next under God, the Authority of Governing Christian men; and to observe for a Rule, that Doctrine, which in the name of God, he hath commanded to be taught; and thereby to examine and try out the truth of those Doctrines, which pretended Prophets with miracle, or without, shall at any time advance: and if they find it contrary to that Rule, to do as they did, that came to Moses, and complained that there were some that Prophesied in the Camp, whose Authority so to do they doubted of; and leave to the Sovereign, as they did to Moses to uphold, or to forbid them, as he should see cause; and if he disavow them, then no more to obey their voice; or if he approve them, then to obey them, as men to whom God hath given a part of the Spirit of their Sovereign. For when Christian men, take not their Christian Sovereign, for Gods Prophet; they must either take their own Dreams, for the Prophecy they mean to be governed by, and the tumour of their own hearts for the Spirit of God; or they must suffer themselves to be lead by some strange Prince; or by some of their fellow subjects, that can bewitch them, by slander of the government, into rebellion, without other miracle to confirm their calling, than sometimes an extraordinary success, and Impunity; and by this means destroying all laws, both divine, and human, reduce all Order, Government, and Society, to the first Chaos of Violence, and Civil war.

CHAP. XXXVII. Of MIRACLES, and their Use.

BY Miracles are signified the Admirable works of God: & thereforethey are also called Wonders. And because they are for the most part, done, for a signification of his commandment, in such occasions, as without them, men are apt to doubt, (following their private natural reasoning,) what he hath commanded, and what not, they are commonly in Holy Scripture, called Signs, in the same sense, as they are called by the Latines, Ostenta, and Portenta, from showing, and fore-signifying that, which the Almighty is about to bring to pass.

To understand therefore what is a Miracle, we must first understandwhat works they are, which men wonder at, and call Admirable. And there be but two things which make men wonder at any event: The one is, if it be strange, that is to say, such, as the like of it hath never, or very rarely been produced: The other is, if when it is produced, we cannot imagine it to have been done by natural means, but only by the immediate hand of God. But when we see some possible, natural cause of it, how rarely soever the like has been done; or if the like have been often done, how impossible soever it be to imagine a natural means thereof, we no more wonder, nor esteem it for a Miracle.

Therefore, if a Horse, or Cow should speak, it were a Miracle; because both the thing is strange, & the natural cause difficult to imagine: So also were it, to see a strange deviation of nature, in the production of some new shape of a living creature. But when a man, or other Animal, engenders his like, though we know no more how this is done, than the other; yet because 'tis usual, it is no Miracle. In like manner, if a man be metamorphosed into a stone, or into a pillar, it is a Miracle; because strange: but if a piece of wood be so changed; because we see it often, it is no Miracle: and yet we know no more, by what operation of God, the one is brought to pass, than the other.

The first Rainbow that was seen in the world, was a Miracle, because the first; and consequently strange; and served for a sign from God, placed in heaven, to assure his people, there should be no more an universal destruction of the world by Water. But at this day, because they are frequent, they are not Miracles, neither to them that know their natural causes, nor to them who know them not. Again, there be many rare works produced by the Art of man: yet when we know they are done; because thereby we know also the means how they are done, we count them not for Miracles, because not wrought by the immediate hand of God, but of human Industry.

Furthermore, seeing Admiration and Wonder, is consequent tothe knowledge and experience, wherewith men are endued, some more, some less; it followeth, that the same thing, may be a Miracle to one, and not to another. And thence it is, that ignorant, and superstitious men make great Wonders of those works, which other men, knowing to proceed from Nature, (which is not the immediate, but the ordinary work of God,) admire not at all: As when Eclipses of the Sun and Moon have been taken for supernatural works, by the common people; when nevertheless, there were others, could from their natural causes, have foretold the very hour they should arrive: Or, as when a man, by confederacy, and secret intelligence, getting knowledge of the private actions of an ignorant, unwary man, and thereby tells him, what he has done in former time; it seems to him a Miraculous thing; but amongst wise, and cautelous men, such Miracles as those, cannot easily be done.

Again, it belongeth to the nature of a Miracle, that it be wroughtfor the procuring of credit to Gods Messengers, Ministers, and Prophets, that thereby men may know, they are called, sent, and employed by God, and thereby be the better inclined to obey them. And therefore, though the creation of the world, and after that the destruction of all living creatures in the universal deluge, were admirable works; yet because they were not done to procure credit to any Prophet, or other Minister of God, they use not to be called Miracles. For how admirable soever any work be, the Admiration consisteth not in that it could be done, because men naturally believe the Almighty can do all things, but because he does it at the Prayer, or Word of a man. But the works of God in Egypt, by the hand of Moses, were properly Miracles; because they were done with intention to make the people of Israel believe, that Moses came unto them, not out of any design of his own interest, but as sent from God. Therefore after God had commanded him to deliver the Israelites from the Egyptian bondage, when he said They will not believe me, but will say, the Lord hath not appeared unto me, God gave him power, to turn the Rod he had in his hand into a Serpent, and again to return it into a Rod; and by putting his hand into his bosom, to make it leprous; and again by putting it out to make it whole, to make the Children of Israel believe (as it is verse 5.) that the God of their Fathers had appeared unto him: And if that were not enough, he gave him power to turn their waters into blood. And when he had done these Miracles before the people, it is said (verse 41.) that they believed him. Nevertheless, for fear of Pharaoh, they durst notyet obey him. Therefore the other works which were done to plague Pharaoh, and the Egyptians, tended all to make the Israelites believe in Moses, and were properly Miracles. In like manner if we consider all the Miracles done by the hand of Moses, and all the rest of the Prophets, till the Captivity; and those of our Saviour, and his Apostles afterward; we shall find, their end was always to beget, or confirm belief, that they came not of their own motion, but were sent by God. We may further observe in Scripture, that the end of Miracles, was to beget belief, not universally in all men, elect, and reprobate; but in the elect only; that is to say, in such as God had determined should become his Subjects. For those miraculous plagues of Egypt, had not for end, the conversion of Pharaoh; For God had told Moses before, that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh, that he should not let the people go: And when he let them go at last, not the Miracles persuaded him, but the plagues forced him to it. So also of our Saviour, it is written, (Mat. 13. 58.) that he wrought not many Miracles in his own country, because of their unbelief; and (in Mark 6. 5.) in stead of, he wrought not many, it is, he could work none. It was not because he wanted power; which to say, were blasphemy against God; nor that the end of Miracles was not to convert incredulous men to Christ; for the end of all the Miracles of Moses, of the Prophets, of our Saviour, and of his Apostles was to add men to the Church; but it was, because the end of their Miracles, was to add to the Church (not all men, but) such as should be saved; that is to say, such as God had elected. Seeing therefore our Saviour was sent from his Father, he could not use his power in the conversion of those, whom his Father had rejected. They that expounding this place of St. Mark, say, that this word, He could not, is put for, He would not, do it without example in the Greek tongue, (where Would not, is put sometimes for Could not, in things inanimate, that have no will; but Could not, for Would not, never,) and thereby lay a stumbling block before weak Christians; as if Christ could do no Miracles, but amongst the credulous.

From that which I have here set down, of the nature, and use ofa Miracle, we may define it thus, A MIRACLE, is a work of God, (besides his operation by the way of Nature, ordained in the Creation,) done, for the making manifest to his elect, the mission of an extraordinary Minister for their salvation.

And from this definition, we may infer; First, that in all Miracles, the work done, is not the effect of any virtue in the Prophet; because it is the effect of the immediate hand of God; that is to say, God hath done it, without using the Prophet therein, as a subordinate cause.

Secondly, that no Devil, Angel, or other created Spirit, can do a Miracle. For it must either be by virtue of some natural science, or by Incantation, that is, virtue of words. For if the Enchanters do it by their own power independent, there is some power that proceedeth not from God; which all men deny: and if they do it by power given them, then is the work not from the immediate hand of God, but natural, and consequently no Miracle.

There be some texts of Scripture, that seem to attribute the power of working wonders (equal to some of those immediate Miracles, wrought by God himself,) to certain Arts of Magic, and Incantation. As for example, when we read that after the Rod of Moses being east on the ground became a Serpent, the Magicians of Egypt did the like by their Enchantments; and that after Moses had turned the waters of the Egyptian Streams, Rivers, Ponds, and Pools of water into blood, the Magicians of Egypt did so likewise, with their Enchantments; and that after Moses had by the power of God brought frogs upon the land, the Magicians also did so with their Enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt; will not a man be apt to attribute Miracles to Enchantments; that is to say, to the efficacy of the sound of Words; and think the same very well proved out of this, and other such places? and yet there is no place of Scripture, that telleth us what an Enchantment is. If therefore Enchantment be not, as many think it, a working of strange effects by spells, and words; but Imposture, and delusion, wrought by ordinary means; and so far from supernatural, as the Impostors need not the study so much as of natural causes, but the ordinary ignorance, stupidity, and superstition of mankind, to do them; those texts that seem to countenance the power of Magic, Witchcraft, and Enchantment, must needs have another sense, than at first sight they seem to bear.

For it is evident enough, that Words have no effect, but on those thatunderstand them; and then they have no other, but to signify the intentions, or passions of them that speak; and thereby produce, hope, fear, or other passions, or conceptions in the hearer. Therefore when a Rod seemeth a Serpent, or the Waters Blood, or any other Miracle seemeth done by Enchantment; if it be not to the edification of Gods people, not the Rod, nor the Water, nor any other thing is enchanted; that is to say, wrought upon by the Words, but the Spectator. So that all the Miracle consisteth in this, that the Enchanter has deceived a man; which is no Miracle, but a very easy matter to do.

For such is the ignorance, and aptitude to error generally of all men, but especially of them that have not much knowledge of natural causes, and of the nature, and interests of men; as by innumerable and easy tricks to be abused. What opinion of miraculous power, before it was known there was a Science of the course of the Stars, might a man have gained, that should have told the people, This hour, or day the Sun should be darkened? A Juggler by the handling of his goblets, and other trinkets, if it were not now ordinarily practised, would be thought to do his wonders by the power at least of the Devil. A man that hath practised to speak by drawing in of his breath, (which kind of men in ancient time were called Ventriloqui,) and so make the weakness of his voice seem to proceed, not from the weak impulsion of the organs of Speech, but from distance of place, is able to make very many men believe it is a voice from Heaven, whatsoever he please to tell them. And for a crafty man, that hath enquired into the secrets, and familiar confessions that one man ordinarily maketh to another of his actions and adventures past, to tell them him again is no hard matter; and yet there be many, that by such means as that, obtain the reputation of being Conjurers. But it is too long a business, to reckon up the several sorts of those men, which the Greeks called Thaumaturgi, that is to say, workers of things wonderful; and yet these do all they do, by their own single dexterity. But if we look upon the Impostures wrought by Confederacy, there is nothing how impossible soever to be done, that is impossible to be believed. For two men conspiring, one to seem lame, the other to cure him with a charm, will deceive many: but many conspiring, one to seem lame, another so to cure him, and all the rest to bear witness; will deceive many more.

In this aptitude of mankind, to give too hasty belief to pretendedMiracles, there can be no better, nor I think any other caution, than that which God hath prescribed, first by Moses, (as I have said before in the precedent chapter,) in the beginning of the 13. and end of the 18. of Deuteronomy; That we take not any for Prophets, that teach any other Religion, than that which Gods Lieutenant, (which at that time was Moses,) hath established; nor any, (though he teach the same Religion,) whose Prediction we do not see come to pass. Moses therefore in his time, and Aaron, and his successors in their times, and the Sovereign Governor of Gods people, next under God himself, that is to say, the Head of the Church in all times, are to be consulted, what doctrine he hath established, before we give credit to a pretended Miracle, or Prophet. And when that is done, the thing they pretend to be a Miracle, we must both see it done, and use all means possible to consider, whether it be really done; and not only so, but whether it be such, as no man can do the like by his natural power, but that it requires the immediate hand of God. And in this also we must have recourse to Gods Lieutenant; to whom in all doubtful cases, we have submitted our private judgments. For example; if a man pretend, that after certain words spoken over a piece of bread, that presently God hath made it not bread, but a God, or a man, or both, and nevertheless it looketh still as like bread as ever it did; there is no reason for any man to think it really done; nor consequently to fear him, till he enquire of God, by his Vicar, or Lieutenant, whether it be done, or not. If he say not, then followeth that which Moses saith, (Deut. 18. 22.) he hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not fear him. If he say 'tis done, then he is not to contradict it. So also if we see not, but only hear tell of a Miracle, we are to consult the Lawful Church; that is to say, the lawful Head thereof, how far we are to give credit to the relators of it. And this is chiefly the case of men, that in these days live under Christian Sovereigns. For in these times, I do not know one man, that ever saw any such wondrous work, done by the charm, or at the word, or prayer of a man, that a man endued but with a mediocrity of reason, would think supernatural: and the question is no more, whether what we see done, be a Miracle; whether the Miracle we hear, or read of, were a real work, and not the Act of a tongue, or pen; but in plain terms, whether the report be true, or a lye. In which question we are not every one, to make our own private Reason, or Conscience, but the Public Reason, that is, the reason of Gods Supreme Lieutenant, Judge; and indeed we have made him Judge already, if we have given him a Sovereign power, to do all that is necessary for our peace and defence. A private man has always the liberty, (because thought is free,) to believe, or not believe in his heart, those acts that have been given out for Miracles, according as he shall see, what benefit can accrue by men's belief, to those that pretend, or countenance them, and thereby conjecture, whether they be Miracles, or Lies. But when it comes to confession of that faith, the Private Reason must submit to the Public; that is to say, to Gods Lieutenant. But who is this Lieutenant of God, and Head of the Church, shall be considered in its proper place hereafter.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Of the Signification in Scripture of ETERNAL LIFE, HELL, SALVATION, THE WORLD TO COME, and REDEMPTION.

The maintenance of Civil Society, depending on Justice; and Justice on the power of Life and Death, and other less Rewards and Punishments, residing in them that have the Sovereignty of the Common-wealth; It is impossible a Common-wealth should stand, where any other than the Sovereign, hath a power of giving greater rewards than Life; and of inflicting greater punishments, than Death. Now seeing Eternal life is a greater reward, than the life present; and Eternal torment a greater punishment than the death of Nature; It is a thing worthy to be well considered, of all men that desire (by obeying Authority) to avoid the calamities of Confusion, and Civil war, what is meant in holy Scripture, by Life Eternal, and Torment Eternal; and for what offences, and against whom committed, men are to be Eternally tormented; and for what actions, they are to obtain Eternal life.

And first we find, that Adam was created in such a condition oflife, as had he not broken the commandment of God, he had enjoyed it in the Paradise of Eden Everlastingly. For there was the Tree of life; whereof he was so long allowed to eat, as he should forbear to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; which was not allowed him. And therefore as soon as he had eaten of it, God thrust him out of Paradise, lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and live for ever. By which it seemeth to me, (with submission nevertheless both in this, and in all questions, whereof the determination dependeth on the Scriptures, to the interpretation of the Bible authorized by the Common-wealth, whose Subject I am,) that Adam if he had not sinned, had had an Eternal Life on Earth: and that Mortality entered upon himself, and his posterity, by his first Sin. Not that actual Death then entered; for Adam then could never have had children; whereas he lived long after, and saw a numerous posterity ere he dyed. But where it it is said, In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die, it must needs be meant of his Mortality, and certitude of death. Seeing then Eternal life was lost by Adams forfeiture, in committing sin, he that should cancel that forfeiture was to recover thereby, that Life again. Now Jesus Christ hath satisfied for the sins of all that believe in him; and therefore recovered to all believers, that ETERNAL LIFE, which was lost by the sin of Adam. And in this sense it is, that the comparison of St. Paul holdeth (Rom. 5. 18, 19.) As by the offence of one, Judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to Justification of Life. Which is again (1 Cor. 15. 21, 22.) more perspicuously delivered in these words, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Concerning the place wherein men shall enjoy that Eternal Life,which Christ hath obtained for them, the texts next before alleged seem to make it on Earth. For if as in Adam, all die, that is, have forfeited Paradise, and Eternal Life on Earth, even so in Christ all shall be made alive; then all men shall be made to live on Earth; for else the comparison were not proper. Hereunto seemeth to agree that of the Psalmist, (Psal. 133. 3.) Upon Zion God commanded the blessing, even Life for evermore: for Zion, is in Jerusalem, upon Earth: as also that of S. Joh. (Rev. 2. 7.) To him that overcometh I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. This was the tree of Adams Eternal life; but his life was to have been on Earth. The same seemeth to be confirmed again by St. Joh. (Rev. 21. 2.) where he saith, I John saw the Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a Bride adorned for her husband: and again v. 10. to the same effect: As if he should say, the new Jerusalem, the Paradise of God, at the coming again of Christ, should come down to Gods people from Heaven, and not they go up to it from Earth. And this differs nothing from that, which the two men in white clothing (that is, the two Angels) said to the Apostles, that were looking upon Christ ascending (Acts 1. 11.) This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him go up into Heaven. Which soundeth as if they had said, he should come down to govern them under his Father, Eternally here; and not take them up to govern them in Heaven; and is conformable to the Restoration of the Kingdom of God, instituted under Moses; which was a Political government of the Jews on Earth. Again, that saying of our Saviour (Mat. 22. 30.) that in the Resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels of God in heaven, is a description of an Eternal Life, resembling that which we lost in Adam in the point of Marriage. For seeing Adam, and Eve, if they had not sinned, had lived on Earth Eternally, in their individual persons; it is manifest, they should not continually have procreated their kind. For if Immortals should have generated, as Mankind doth now; the Earth in a small time, would not have been able to afford them place to stand on. The Jews that asked our Saviour the question, whose wife the woman that had married many brothers, should be, in the resurrection, knew not what were the consequences of Life Eternal: and therefore our Saviour puts them in mind of this consequence of Immortality; that there shall be no Generation, and consequently no marriage, no more than there is marriage, or generation among the Angels. The comparison between that Eternal life which Adam lost, and our Saviour by his Victory over death hath recovered; holdeth also in this, that as Adam lost Eternal Life by his sin, and yet lived after it for a time; so the faithful Christian hath recovered Eternal Life by Christs passion, though he die a natural death, and remain dead for a time; namely, till the Resurrection. For as Death is reckoned from the Condemnation of Adam, not from the Execution; so Life is reckoned from the Absolution, not from the Resurrection of them that are elected in Christ.

That the place wherein men are to live Eternally, after the Resurrection,is the Heavens, meaning by Heaven, those parts of the world, which are the most remote from Earth, as where the stars are, or above the stars, in another Higher Heaven, called Coelum Empyreum, (whereof there is no mention in Scripture, nor ground in Reason) is not easily to be drawn from any text that I can find. By the Kingdom of Heaven, is meant the Kingdom of the King that dwelleth in Heaven and his Kingdom was the people of Israel, whom he ruled by the Prophets his Lieutenants, first Moses, and after him Eleazar, and the Sovereign Priests, till in the days of Samuel they rebelled, and would have a mortal man for their King, after the manner of other Nations. And when our Saviour Christ, by the preaching of his Ministers, shall have persuaded the Jews to return, and called the Gentiles to his obedience, then shall there be a new Kingdom of Heaven; because our King shall then be God, whose throne is Heaven; without any necessity evident in the Scripture, that man shall ascend to his happiness any higher than Gods footstool the Earth. On the contrary, we find written (Joh. 3. 13.) that no man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man, that is in Heaven. Where I observe by the way, that these words are not, as those which go immediately before, the words of our Saviour, but of St. John himself; for Christ was then not in Heaven, but upon the Earth. The like is said of David (Acts 2. 34.) where St. Peter, to prove the Ascension of Christ, using the words of the Psalmist, (Psal. 16. 10.) Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, not suffer thine Holy one to see corruption, saith, they were spoken (not of David, but) of Christ; and to prove it, addeth this Reason, For David is not ascended into Heaven. But to this a man may easily answer, and say, that though their bodies were not to ascend till the general day of Judgment, yet their souls were in Heaven as soon as they were departed from their bodies; which also seemeth to be confirmed by the words of our Saviour (Luke 20. 37, 38.) who proving the Resurrection out of the words of Moses, saith thus, That the dead are raised, even Moses showed, at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the Dead, but of the Living; for they all live to him. But if these words be to be understood only of the Immortality of the Soul, they prove not at all that which our Saviour intended to prove, which was the Resurrection of the Body, that is to say, the Immortality of the Man. Therefore our Saviour meaneth, that those Patriarchs were Immortal; not by a property consequent to the essence, and nature of mankind; but by the will of God, that was pleased of his mere grace, to bestow Eternal life upon the faithful. And though at that time the Patriarchs and many other faithful men were dead, yet as it is in the text, they lived to God; that is, they were written in the Book of Life with them that were absolved of their sins, and ordained to Life eternal at the Resurrection. That the Soul of man is in its own nature Eternal, and a living Creature independent on the body; or that any mere man is Immortal, otherwise than by the Resurrection in the last day, (except Enos and Elias,) is a doctrine nor apparent in Scripture. The whole 14th Chapter of Job, which is the speech not of his friends, but of himself, is a complaint of this Mortality of Nature; and yet no contradiction of the Immortality at the Resurrection. There is hope of a tree (saith he verse 7.) if it be cast down, Though the root thereof wax old, and the stock thereof die in the ground, yet when it scenteth the water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a Plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away, yea, man giveth up the Ghost, and where is he? and (verse 12.) man lieth down, and riseth not, till the heavens be no more. But when is it, that the heavens shall be no more? St. Peter tells us, that it is at the general Resurrection. For in his 2nd Epistle, 3rd Chapter, and 7 verse, he saith, that the Heavens and the Earth that are now, are reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment, and perdition of ungodly men, and (verse 12.) looking for, and hasting to the coming of God, wherein the Heavens shall be on fire, and shall be dissolved, and the Elements shall melt with fervent heat. Nevertheless, we according to the promise look for new Heavens, and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Therefore where Job saith, man riseth not till the Heavens be no more; it is all one, as if he had said, the Immortal Life (and Soul and Life in the Scripture, do usually signify the same thing) beginneth not in man, till the Resurrection, and day of Judgement; and hath for cause, not his specifical nature, and generation; but the Promise. For St. Peter says not, We look for new heavens, and a new earth, (from Nature,) but from Promise.

Lastly, seeing it hath been already proved out of divers evident places of Scripture, in the 35. chapter of this book, that the Kingdom of God is a Civil Common-wealth, where God himself is Sovereign, by virtue first of the Old, and since of the New Covenant, wherein he reigneth by his Vicar, or Lieutenant; the same places do therefore also prove, that after the coming again of our Saviour in his Majesty, and glory, to reign actually, and Eternally; the Kingdom of God is to be on Earth. But because this doctrine (though proved out of places of Scripture not few, nor obscure) will appear to most men a novelty; I do but propound it; maintaining nothing in this, or any other paradox of Religion; but attending the end of that dispute of the sword, concerning the Authority, (not yet amongst my Country-men decided,) by which all sorts of doctrine are to be approved, or rejected; and whose commands, both in speech, and writing, (whatsoever be the opinions of private men) must by all men, that mean to be protected by their Laws, be obeyed. For the points of doctrine concerning the Kingdom God, have so great influence on the Kingdom of Man, as not to be determined, but by them, that under God have the Sovereign Power.

As the Kingdom of God, and Eternal Life, so also Gods Enemies,and their Torments after Judgment, appear by the Scripture, to have their place on Earth. The name of the place, where all men remain till the Resurrection, that were either buried, or swallowed up of the Earth, is usually called in Scripture, by words that signify under ground; which the Latines read generally Infernus, and Inferi, and the Greeks ἃδηϛ; that is to say, a place where men cannot see; and containeth as well the Grave, as any other deeper place. But for the place of the damned after the Resurrection, it is not determined, neither in the Old, nor New Testament, by any note of situation; but only by the company: as that it shall be, where such wicked men were, as God in former times in extraordinary, and miraculous manner, had destroyed from off the face of theEarth: As for example, that they are in Inferno, in Tartarus, or in the bottomless pit; because Corah, Dathan, and Abirom, were swallowed up alive into the earth. Not that the Writers of the Scripture would have us believe, there could be in the globe of the Earth, which is not only finite, but also (compared to the height of the Stars) of no considerable magnitude, a pit without a bottom; that is, a hole of infinite depth, such as the Greeks in their Demonology (that is to say, in their doctrine concerning Daemons,) and after them the Romans called Tartarus; of which Virgil says,

Bis patet in praeceps, tantum tenditque sub umbras, Quantus ad aethereum coeli suspectus Olympum:

for that is a thing the proportion of Earth to Heaven cannot bear: but that we should believe them there, indefinitely, where those men are, on whom God inflicted that Exemplary punishment.

Again, because those mighty men of the Earth, that lived in thetime of Noah, before the flood, (which the Greeks called Heroes, and the Scripture Giants, and both say, were begotten, by copulation of the children of God, with the children of men,) were for their wicked life destroyed by the general deluge; the place of the Damned, is therefore also sometimes marked out, by the company of those deceased Giants; as Proverbs 21. 16. The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding, shall remain in the congregation of the Giants, and Job 26. 5. Behold the Giants groan under water, and they that dwell with them. Here the place of the Damned, is under the water. And Isaiah 14. 9. Hell is troubled how to meet thee, (that is, the King of Babylon) and will displace the Giants for thee: and here again the place of the Damned, (if the sense be literal,) is to be under water.

Thirdly, because the Cities of Sodom, and Gomorrah, by the extraordinarywrath of God, were consumed for their wickedness with Fire and Brimstone, and together with them the country about made a stinking bituminous Lake: the place of the Damned is sometimes expressed by Fire, and a Fiery Lake: as in the Apocalypse ch. 21. 8. But the timorous, incredulous, and abominable, and Murderers, and Whoremongers, and Sorcerers, and Idolaters, and all Liars, shall have their part in the Lake that burneth with Fire, and Brimstone; which is the second Death. So that it is manifest, that Hell Fire, which is here expressed by Metaphor, from the real Fire of Sodom, signifieth not any certain kind, or place of Torment; but is to be taken indefinitely, for Destruction, as it is in the 20th Chapter, at the 14. verse; where it is said, that Death and Hell were cast into the Lake of Fire; that is to say, were abolished, and destroyed; as if after the day of Judgment, there shall be no more Dying, nor no more going into Hell; that is, no more going to Hades (from which word perhaps our word Hell is derived,) which is the same with no more Dying.

Fourthly, from the Plague of Darkness inflicted on the Egyptians,of which it is written (Exod. 10. 23.) They saw not one another, neither rose any man from his place for three days; but all the Children of Israel had light in their dwellings; the place of the wicked after Judgment, is called Utter Darkness, or (as it is in the original) Darkness without. And so it is expressed (Mat. 22. 13.) where the King commandeth his Servants, to bind hand and foot the man that had not on his Wedding garment, and to cast him out, εἰς το σκότος το ἐξώτερον, External darkness, or Darkness without: which though translated Utter darkness, does not signify how great, but where that darkness is to be; namely, without the habitation of Gods Elect.

Lastly, whereas there was a place near Jerusalem, called the Valley of the Children of Hinnon; in a part whereof, called Tophet, the Jews had committed most grievous Idolatry, sacrificing their children to the Idol Moloch; and wherein also God had afflicted his enemies with most grievous punishments; and wherein Josias had burnt the Priests of Moloch upon their own Altars, as appeareth at large in the 2 of Kings chap. 23. the place served afterwards, to receive the filth, and garbage which was carried thither, out of the City; and there used to be fires made, from time to time, to purify the air, and take away the stench of Carrion. From this abominable place, the Jews used ever after to call the place of the Damned, by the name of Gehenna, or Valley of Hinnon. And this Gehenna, is that word, which is usually now translated HELL; and from the fires from time to time there burning, we have the notion of Everlasting, and Unquenchable Fire.

Seeing now there is none, that so interprets the Scripture, as thatafter the day of Judgment, the wicked are all Eternally to be punished in the Valley of Hinnon; or that they shall so rise again, as to be ever after under ground, or under water; or that after the Resurrection, they shall no more see one another; nor stir from one place to another; it followeth, me thinks, very necessarily, that that which is thus said concerning Hell Fire, is spoken metaphorically; and that therefore there is a proper sense to be enquired after, (for of all Metaphors there is some real ground, that may be expressed in proper words) both of the Place of Hell, and the nature of Hellish Torments, and Tormenters.

And first for the Tormenters, we have their nature, and properties,exactly and properly delivered by the names of, The Enemy, or Satan; The Accuser, or Diabolus; The Destroyer, or Abaddon. Which significant names, Satan, Devil, Abaddon, set not forth to us any Individual person, as proper names use to do; but only an office, or quality; and are therefore Appellatives; which ought not to have been left untranslated, as they are, in the Latin, and Modern Bibles; because thereby they seem to be the proper names of Daemons; and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of Devils; which at that time was the Religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.

And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant, the Enemy of them that shall be in the Kingdom of God; therefore if the Kingdom of God after the Resurrection, be upon the Earth, (as in the former Chapter I have shown by Scripture it seems to be,) The Enemy, and his Kingdom must be on Earth also. For so also was it, in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For Gods Kingdom was in Palestine; and the Nations round about, were the Kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently by Satan, is meant any Earthly Enemy of the Church.

The Torments of Hell, are expressed sometimes, by weeping, and gnashing of teeth, as Mat. 8. 12. Sometimes, by the worm of Conscience; as Isa. 66. 24. and Mark 9. 44, 46, 48: sometimes, by Fire, as in the place now quoted, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, and many places beside: sometimes by shame, and contempt, as Dan. 12. 2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the Earth, shall awake; some to Everlasting life; and some to shame, and everlasting contempt. All which places design metaphorically a grief, and discontent of mind, from the sight of that Eternal felicity in others, which they themselves through their own incredulity, and disobedience have lost. And because such felicity in others, is not sensible but by comparison with their own actual miseries; it followeth that they are to suffer such bodily pains, and calamities, as are incident to those, who not only live under evil and cruel Governors, but have also for Enemy, the Eternal King of the Saints, God Almighty. And amongst these bodily pains, is to be reckoned also to every one of the wicked a second Death. For though the Scripture be clear for an universal Resurrection; yet we do not read, that to any of the Reprobate is promised an Eternal life. For whereas St. Paul (1 Cor. 15. 42, 43.) to the question concerning what bodies men shall rise with again, saith, that the body is sown in corruption, and is raised in incorruption; It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; Glory and Power cannot be applied to the bodies of the wicked: Nor can the name of Second Death, be applied to those that can never die but once: And although in Metaphorical speech, a Calamitous life Everlasting, may be called an Everlasting Death yet it cannot well be understood of a Second Death. The fire prepared for the wicked, is an Everlasting Fire: that is to say, the estate wherein no man can be without torture, both of body and mind, after the Resurrection, shall endure for ever; and in that sense the Fire shall be unquenchable, and the torments Everlasting: but it cannot thence be inferred, that he who shall be cast into that fire, or be tormented with those torments, shall endure, and resist them so, as to be eternally burnt, and tortured, and yet never be destroyed, nor die. And though there be many places that affirm Everlasting Fire, and Torments (into which men may be cast successively one after another for ever;) yet I find none that affirm there shall be an Eternal Life therein of any individual person; but to the contrary, an Everlasting Death, which is the Second Death: For after Death, and the Grave shall have delivered up the dead which were in them, and every man be judged according to his works; Death and the Grave shall also be cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the Second Death. Whereby it is evident, that there is to be a Second Death of every one that shall be condemned at the day of Judgement, after which he shall die no more.

The joys of Life Eternal, are in Scripture comprehended allunder the name of SALVATION, or being saved. To be saved, is to be secured, either respectively, against special Evils, or absolutely, against all Evil, comprehending Want, Sickness, and Death it self. And because man was created in a condition Immortal,not subject to corruption, and consequently to nothing that tendeth to the dissolution of his nature; and fell from that happiness by the sin of Adam; it followeth, that to be saved from Sin, is to be saved from all the Evil, and Calamities that Sin hath brought upon us. And therefore in the Holy Scripture, Remission of Sin, and Salvation from Death and Misery, is the same thing, as it appears by the words of our Saviour, who having cured a man sick of the Palsy, by saying, (Mat. 9. 2.) Son be of good cheer, thy Sins be forgiven thee; and knowing that the Scribes took for blasphemy, that a man should pretend to forgive Sins, asked them (v. 5.) whether it were easier to say, Thy Sins be forgiven thee, or, Arise and walk; signifying thereby, that it was all one, as to the saving of the sick, to say, Thy Sins are forgiven, and Arise and walk; and that he used that form of speech, only to show he had power to forgive Sins. And it is besides evident in reason, that since Death and Misery, were the punishments of Sin, the discharge of Sin, must also be a discharge of Death and Misery; that is to say, Salvation absolute, such as the faithful are to enjoy after the day of Judgment, by the power, and favour of Jesus Christ, who for that cause is called our SAVIOUR.

Concerning Particular Salvations, such as are understood, 1 Sam. 14. 39. as the Lord liveth that saveth Israel, that is, from their temporary enemies, and 2 Sam. 22. 4. Thou art my Saviour, thou savest me from violence; and 2 Kings 13. 5. God gave the Israelites a Saviour, and so they were delivered from the hand of the Assyrians, and the like, I need say nothing; there being neither difficulty, nor interest, to corrupt the interpretation of texts of that kind.

But concerning the General Salvation, because it must be in theKingdom of Heaven, there is great difficulty concerning the Place. On one side, by Kingdom (which is an estate ordained by men for their perpetual security against enemies, and want) it seemeth that this Salvation should be on Earth. For by Salvation is set forth unto us, a glorious Reign of our King, by Conquest; not a safety by Escape: and therefore there where we look for Salvation, we must look also for Triumph; and before Triumph, for Victory; and before Victory, for Battle; which cannot well be supposed, shall be in Heaven. But how good soever this reason may be, I will not trust to it, without very evident places of Scripture. The state of Salvation is described at large, Isaiah 33. ver. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

Look upon Zion, the City of our solemnities; [thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.

But there the glorious Lord will be unto us a place of broad rivers, and streams; wherein shall go no Galley with oars; neither shall gallant ship pass thereby.

For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.

Thy tacklings are loosed; they could not well strengthen their mast; they could not spread the sail: then is the prey of a great spoil divided; the lame take the prey.

And the Inhabitant shall not say, I am sick; the people that shall dwell therein shall be forgiven their Iniquity.

In which words we have the place from whence Salvation is to proceed, Jerusalem, a quiet habitation; the Eternity of it, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down, &c. The Saviour of it, the Lord, their Judge, their Lawgiver, their King, he will save us; the Salvation, the Lord shall be to them as abroad mote of swift waters, &c. the condition of their Enemies, their tacklings are loose, their masts weak, the lame shall take the spoil of them. The condition of the Saved, The Inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: And lastly, all this is comprehended in Forgiveness of sin, The people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity. By which it is evident, that Salvation shall be on Earth, then, when God shall reign, (at the coming again of Christ) in Jerusalem; and from Jerusalem shall proceed the Salvation of the Gentiles that shall be received into Gods Kingdom: as is also more expressly declared by the same Prophet, Chap. 65. 20, 21. And they (that is, the Gentiles who had any Jew in bondage) shall bring all your brethren, for an offering to the Lord, out of all nations, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain, Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the Children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the House of the Lord. And I will also take of them for Priests and for Levites, saith the Lord: Whereby it is manifest, that the chief seat of Gods Kingdom (which is the Place, from whence the Salvation of us that were Gentiles, shall proceed) shall be Jerusalem: And the same is also confirmed by our Saviour, in his discourse with the woman of Samaria, concerning the place of Gods worship; to whom he saith, John 4. 22. that the Samaritans worshipped they knew not what, but the Jews worship what they knew, For Salvation is of the Jews (ex Iudae is, that is, begins at the Jews): as if he should say, you worship God, but know not by whom he will save you, as we do, that know it shall be by one of the tribe of Judah, a Jew, not a Samaritan. And therefore also the woman not impertinently answered him again, We know the Messias shall come. So that which out Saviour saith, Salvation is from the Jews, is the same that Paul says (Rom. 1. 16, 17.) The Gospel is the power of God to Salvation to every one that believeth: To the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; from the faith of the Jew, to the faith of the Gentile. In the like sense the Prophet Joel describing the day of Judgment, (chap. 2. 30, 31.) that God would show wonders in heaven, and in earth, blood, and fire, and pillars os smoke. The Sun should be turned to darkness, and the Moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come, he addeth verse 32. and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. For in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem shall be Salvation. And Obadiah verse 17. saith the same, Upon Mount Zion shall be Deliverance; and there shall be holiness, and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions, that is, the possessions of the Heathen, which possessions he expresseth more particularly in the following verses, by the mount of Esau, the Land of the Philistines, the fields of Ephraim, of Samaria, Gilead, and the Cities of the South, and concludes with these words, the Kingdom shall be the Lords. All these places are for Salvation, and the Kingdom of God (after the day of Judgement) upon Earth. On the other side, I have not found any text that can probably be drawn, to prove any Ascension of the Saints into Heaven; that is to say, into any Coelum Empyreum, or other ethereal Region; saving that it is called the Kingdom of Heaven: which name it may have, because God, that was King of the Jews, governed them by his commands, sent to Moses by Angels from Heaven; and after their revolt, sent his Son from Heaven, to reduce them to their obedience; and shall send him thence again, to rule both them, and all other faithful men, from the day of Judgment, Everlastingly: or from that, that the Throne of this our Great King is in Heaven; whereas the Earth is but his Footstool. But that the Subjects of God should have any place as high as his Throne, or higher than his Footstool, it seemeth not suitable to the dignity of a King, nor can I find any evident text for it in holy Scripture.

From this that hath been said of the Kingdom of God, and of Salvation, it is not hard to interpret what is meant by the WORLD TO COME. There are three worlds mentioned in Scripture, the Old World, the Present World, and the World to come. Of the first, St. Peterspeaks, If God spared not the Old World, but saved Noah the eighth person, a Preacher of righteousness, bringing the flood upon the world of the ungodly, &c. So the first World, was from Adam to the general Flood. Of the present World, our Saviour speaks (John 18. 36.) My Kingdom is not of this World. For he came only to teach men the way of Salvation, and to renew the Kingdom of his Father, byhis doctrine. Of the World to come, St. Peter speaks, Nevertheless we according to his promise look for new Heavens, and a new Earth. This is that WORLD, wherein Christ coming down from Heaven, in the clouds, with great power, and glory, shall send his Angels, and shall gather together his elect, from the four winds, and from the uttermost parts of the Earth, and thence forth reign over them, (under his Father) Everlastingly.

Salvation of a sinner, supposeth a precedent REDEMPTION; forhe that is once guilty of Sin, is obnoxious to the Penalty of the same; and must pay (or some other for him) such Ransom, as he that is offended, and has him in his power, shall require. And seeing the person offended, is Almighty God, in whose power are all things; such Ransom is to be paid before Salvation can be acquired, as God hath been pleased to require. By this Ransom, is not intended a satisfaction for Sin, equivalent to the Offence; which no sinner for himself, nor righteous man can ever be able to make for another: The damage a man does to another, he may make amends for by restitution, or recompense, but sin cannot be taken away by recompense; for that were to make the liberty to sin, a thing vendible. But sins may be pardoned to the repentant, either gratis, or upon such penalty, as God is pleased to accept. That which God usually accepted in the Old Testament, was some Sacrifice, or Oblation. To forgive sin is not an act of Injustice, though the punishment have been threatened. Even amongst men, though the promise of Good, bind the promiser; yet threats, that is to say, promises of Evil, bind them not; much less shall they bind God, who is infinitely more merciful than men. Our Saviour Christ therefore to Redeem us, did not in that sense satisfy for the Sins of men, as that his Death, of its own virtue, could make it unjust in God to punish sinners with Eternal death; but did make that Sacrifice, and Oblation of himself, at his first coming, which God was pleased to require, for the Salvation at his second coming, of such as in the mean time should repent, and believe in him. And though this act of our Redemption, be not always in Scripture called a Sacrifice, and Oblation, but sometimes a Price; yet by Price we are not to understand any thing, by the value whereof, he could claim right to a pardon for us, from his offended Father; but that Price which God the Father was pleased in mercy to demand.

CHAP. XXXIX. Of the signification in Scripture of the word CHURCH.

The word Church, (Ecclesia) signifieth in the Books of HolyScripture divers things. Sometimes (though not often) it is taken for Gods House, that is to say, for a Temple, wherein Christians assemble to perform holy duties publicly; as, 1 Cor. 14. ver. 34. Let your women keep silence in the Churches: but this is Metaphorically put, for the Congregation there assembled; and hath been since used for the Edifice itself, to distinguish between the Temples of Christians, and Idolaters. The Temple of Jerusalem was Gods house, and the House of Prayer; and so is any Edifice dedicated by Christians to the worship of Christ, Christs house: and therefore the Greek Fathers call it Κυριακή, The Lords house; and thence, in our language it came to be called Kyrke, and Church.

Church (when not taken for a House) signifieth the same that Ecclesia signified in the Grecian Common-wealths; that is to say, a Congregation, or an Assembly of Citizens, called forth, to hear the Magistrate speak unto them; and which in the Common-wealth of Rome was called Concio, as he that spake was called Ecclesiastes, and Concionator. And when they were called forth by lawful Authority,it was Ecclesia legitima, a Lawful Church, ἔννομος Ἐκκλησία. But when they were excited by tumultuous, and seditious clamor, then it was a confused Church, Ἐκκλησία συγκεχυμένη.

It is taken also sometimes for the men that have right to be of the Congregation, though not actually assembled; that is to say, for the whole multitude of Christian men, how far soever they be dispersed: as (Act. 8. 3.) where it is said, that Saul made havoc of the Church: And in this sense is Christ said to be Head of the Church. And sometimes for a certain part of Christians, as (Col. 4. 15. Salute the Church that is in his house. Sometimes also for the Elect only; as (Ephes. 5. 27.) A Glorious Church, without spot, or wrinkle, holy, and without blemish; which is meant of the Church triumphant, or, Church to come. Sometimes, for a Congregation assembled, of professors of Christianity, whether their profession be true, or counterfeit, as it is understood, Mat. 18. 17. where it is said, Tell it to the Church, and if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Gentile, or Publican.

And in this last sense only it is that the Church can be taken for onePerson; that is to say, that it can be said to have power to will, to pronounce, to command, to be obeyed, to make laws, or to do any other action whatsoever; For without authority from a lawful Congregation, whatsoever act be done in a concourse of people, it is the particular act of every one of those that were present, and gave their aid to the performance of it; and not the act of them all in gross, as of one body; much less the act of them that were absent, or that being present, were not willing it should be done. According to this sense, I define a CHURCH to be, A company of men professing Christian Religion, united in the person of one Sovereign; at whose command they ought to assemble, and without whose authority they ought not to assemble. And because in all Common-wealths, that Assembly, which is without warrant from the Civil Sovereign, is unlawful; that Church also, which is assembled in any Common-wealth, that hath forbidden them to assemble, is an unlawful Assembly.

It followeth also, that there is on Earth, no such universal Church,as all Christians are bound to obey; because there is no power on Earth, to which all other Common-wealths are subject: There are Christians, in the Dominions of several Princes and States; but every one of them is subject to that Common-wealth, whereof he is himself a member; and consequently, cannot be subject to the commands of any other Person. And therefore a Church, such a one as is capable to Command, to Judge, Absolve, Condemn, or do any other act, is the same thing with a Civil Common-wealth, consisting of Christian men; and is called a Civil State, for that the subjects of it are Men; and a Church, for that the subjects thereof are Christians. Temporal and Spiritual Government, are but two words brought into the world, to make men see double, and mistake their Lawful Sovereign. It is true, that the bodies of the faithful, after the Resurrection, shall be not only Spiritual, but Eternal: but in this life they are gross, and corruptible. There is therefore no other Government in this life, neither of State, nor Religion, but Temporal; nor teaching of any doctrine, lawful to any Subject, which the Governor both of the State, and of the Religion, forbiddeth to be taught: And that Governor must be one; or else there must needs follow Faction, and Civil war in the Common-wealth, between the Church and State; between Spiritualists, and Temporalists; between the Sword of Justice, and the Shield of Faith; and (which is more) in every Christian man's own breast, between the Christian, and the Man. The Doctors of the Church, are called Pastors; so also are Civil Sovereigns: But if Pastors be not subordinate one to another, so as that there may be one chief Pastor, men will be taught contrary Doctrines, whereof both may be, and one must be false. Who that one chief Pastor is, according to the law of Nature, hath been already shown; namely, that it is the Civil Sovereign: And to whom the Scripture hath assigned that Office, we shall see in the Chapters following.

CHAP. XL. Of the RIGHTS of the Kingdom of God, in Abraham, Moses, the High Priests, and the Kings of Judah.

The Father of the Faithful, and first in the Kingdom of Godby Covenant, was Abraham. For with him was the Covenant first made; wherein he obliged himself, and his seed after him, to acknowledge and obey the commands of God; not only such, as he could take notice of, (as Moral Laws,) by the light of Nature; but also such, as God should in special manner deliver to him by Dreams, and Visions. For as to the Moral law, they were already obliged, and needed not have been contracted withal, by promise of the Land of Canaan. Nor was there any Contract, that could add to, or strengthen the Obligation, by which both they, and all men else were bound naturally to obey God Almighty: And therefore the Covenant which Abraham made with God, was to take for the Commandment of God, that which in the name of God was commanded him, in a Dream, or Vision; and to deliver it to his family, and cause them to observe the same.

In this Contract of God with Abraham, we may observe three points of important consequence in the government of Gods people. First, that at the making of this Covenant, God spake only to Abraham; and therefore contracted not with any of his family, or seed, otherwise than as their wills (which make the essence of all Covenants) were before the Contract involved in the will of Abraham; who was therefore supposed to have had a lawful power, to make them perform all that he covenanted for them. According whereunto (Gen. 18. 18, 19.) God saith, All the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed in him, For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord. From whence may be concluded this first point, that they to whom God hath not spoken immediately, are to receive the positive commandments of God, from their Sovereign; as the family and seed of Abraham did from Abraham their Father, and Lord, andCivil Sovereign. And consequently in every Common-wealth, they who have no supernatural Revelation to the contrary, ought to obey the laws of their own Sovereign, in the external acts and profession of Religion. As for the inward thought, and belief of men, which human Governors can take no notice of, (for God only knoweth the heart) they are not voluntary, nor the effect of the laws, but of the unrevealed will, and of the power of God; and consequently fall not under obligation.

From whence proceedeth another point; that it was not unlawfulfor Abraham, when any of his Subjects should pretend Private Vision, or Spirit, or other Revelation from God, for the countenancing of any doctrine which Abraham should forbid, or when they followed, or adhered to any such pretender, to punish them; and consequently that it is lawful now for the Sovereign to punish any man that shall oppose his Private Spirit against the Laws: For he hath the same place in the Common-wealth, that Abraham had in his own Family.

There ariseth also from the same, a third point; that as none butAbraham in his family, so none but the Sovereign in a Christian Common-wealth, can take notice what is, or what is not the Word of God. For God spake only to Abraham; and it was he only, that was able to know what God said, and to interpret the same to his family: And therefore also, they that have the place of Abraham in a Common-wealth, are the only Interpreters of what God hath spoken.

The same Covenant was renewed with Isaac; and afterwards withJacob; but afterwards no more, till the Israelites were freed from the Egyptians, and arrived at the Foot of Mount Sinai: and then it was renewed by Moses (as I have said before, chap. 35.) in such manner, as they became from that time forward the Peculiar Kingdom of God; whose Lieutenant was Moses, for his own time: and the succession to that office was settled upon Aaron, and his heirs after him, to be to God a Sacerdotal Kingdom for ever.

By this constitution, a Kingdom is acquired to God. But seeing Moses had no authority to govern the Israelites, as a successor to the right of Abraham, because he could not claim it by inheritance; it appeareth not as yet, that the people were obliged to take him for Gods Lieutenant, longer than they believed that God spake unto him. And therefore his authority (notwithstanding the Covenant they made with God) depended yet merely upon the opinion they had of his Sanctity, and of the reality of his Conferences with God, and the verity of his Miracles; which opinion coming to change, they were no more obliged to take any thing for the law of God, which he propounded to them in Gods name. We are therefore to consider, what other ground there was, of their obligation to obey him. For it could not be the commandment of God that could oblige them; because God spake not to them immediately, but by the mediation of Moses himself: And our Saviour saith of himself,If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true; much less if Moses bear witness of himself, (especially in a claim of Kingly power over Gods people) ought his testimony to be received. His authority therefore, as the authority of all other Princes, must be grounded on the Consent of the People, and their Promise to obey him. And so it was: For the people (Exod. 20. 18.) when they saw the Thunderings, and the Lightnings, and the noise of the Trumpet, and the mountain smoking, removed, and stood a far off. And they said unto Moses, speak thou with us, and we will hear, but let not God speak with us lest we die. Here was their promise of obedience; and by this it was they obliged themselves to obey whatsoever he should deliver unto them for the Commandment of God.

And notwithstanding the Covenant constituteth a SacerdotalKingdom, that is to say, a Kingdom hereditary to Aaron; yet that is to be understood of the succession, after Moses should be dead. For whosoever ordereth, and establisheth the Policy, as first founder of a Common-wealth (be it Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy) must needs have Sovereign Power over the people all the while he is doing of it. And that Moses had that power all his own time, is evidently affirmed in the Scripture. First, in the text last before cited, because the people promised obedience, not to Aaron but to him. Secondly, (Exod. 24. 1, 2.) And God said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel. And Moses alone shall come near the Lord, but they shall not come nigh, neither shall the people go up with him. By which it is plain, that Moses who was alone called up to God, (and not Aaron, nor the other Priests, nor the Seventy Elders, nor the People who were forbidden to come up) was alone he, that represented to the Israelites the Person of God; that is to say, was their sole Sovereign under God. And though afterwards it be said (verse 9.) Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel, and there was under his feet, as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone. &c. yet this was not till after Moses had been with God before, and had brought to the people the words which God had said to him. He only went for the business of the people; the others, as the Nobles of his retinue, were admitted for honour to that special grace, which was not allowed to the people; which was, as in the verse after appeareth) to see God and live. God laid not his hand upon them, they saw God, and did eat and drink (that is, did live), but did not carry any commandment from him to the people. Again, it is every where said, The Lord spake unto Moses, as in all other occasions of Government; so also in the ordering of the Ceremonies of Religion, contained in the 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 Chapters of Exodus, and throughout Leviticus: to Aaron seldom. The Calf that Aaron made, Moses threw into the fire. Lastly, the question of the Authority of Aaron, by occasion of his and Miriams mutiny against Moses, was (Numbers 12.) judged by God himself for Moses. So also in the question between Moses, and the People, who had the Right of Governing the People, when Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, and two hundred and fifty Princes of the Assembly gathered themselves together (Numb. 16. 3.) against Moses, and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are Holy, every one of them, and the Lord is amongst them, why lift you up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord? God caused the Earth to swallow Corah, Dathan, and Abiram with their wives and children alive, and consumed those two hundred and fifty Princes with fire. Therefore neither Aaron, nor the People, nor any Aristocracy of the chief Princes of the People, but Moses alone had next under God the Sovereignty over the Israelites: And that not only in causes of Civil Policy, but also of Religion: For Moses only spake with God, and therefore only could tell the People, what it was that God required at their hands. No man upon pain of death might be so presumptuous as to approach the Mountain where God talked with Moses. Thou shalt set bounds (saith the Lord, Exod. 19. 12.) to the people round about, and say, Take heed to yourselves that you go not up into the Mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the Mount shall surely be put to death. And again (verse 21.) Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze. Out of which we may conclude, that whosoever in a Christian Common-wealth holdeth the place of Moses, is the sole Messenger of God, and Interpreter of his Commandments. And according hereunto, no man ought in the interpretation of the Scripture to proceed further than the bounds which are set by their several Sovereigns. For the Scriptures since God now speaketh in them, are the Mount Sinai; the bounds whereof are the Laws of them that represent Gods Person on Earth. To look upon them, and therein to behold the wondrous works of God, and learn to fear him is allowed; but to interpret them; that is, to pry into what God saith to him whom he appointeth to govern under him, and make themselves Judges whether he govern as God commandeth him, or not, is to transgress the bounds God hath set us, and to gaze upon God irreverently.

There was no Prophet in the time of Moses, nor pretender to theSpirit of God, but such as Moses had approved, and Authorized. For there were in his time but Seventy men, that are said to Prophecy by the Spirit of God, and these were of all Moses his election; concerning whom God said to Moses (Numb. 11. 16.) Gather to me Seventy of the Elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the Elders of the People. To these God imparted his Spirit; but it was not a different Spirit from that of Moses; for it is said (verse 25.) God came down in a cloud, and took of the Spirit that was upon Moses, and gave it to the Seventy Elders. But as I have shown before (chap. 36.) by Spirit, is understood the Mind; so that the sense of the place is no other than this, that God endued them with a mind conformable, and subordinate to that of Moses, that they might Prophecy, that is to say, speak to the people in Gods name, in such manner, as to set forward (as Ministers of Moses, and by his authority) such doctrine as was agreeable to Moses his doctrine. For they were but Ministers; and when two of them Prophesied in the Camp, it was thought a new and unlawful thing; and as it is in the 27. and 28. verses of the same Chapter, they were accused of it, and Joshua advised Moses to forbid them, as not knowing that it was by Moses his Spirit that they Prophesied. By which it is manifest, that no Subject ought to pretend to Prophecy, or to the Spirit, in opposition to the doctrine established by him, whom God hath set in the place of Moses.

Aaron being dead, and after him also Moses, the Kingdom, asbeing a Sacerdotal Kingdom, descended by virtue of the Covenant, to Aarons Son, Eleazar the High Priest: And God declared him (next under himself) for Sovereign, at the same time that he appointed Joshua for the General of their Army. For thus God saith expressly (Numb. 27. 21.) concerning Joshua; He shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask counsel for him, before the Lord, at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the Children of Israel with him: Therefore the Supreme Power of making War and Peace, was in the Priest. The Supreme Power of Judicature belonged also to the High Priest: For the Book of the Law was in their keeping; and the Priests and Levites only, were the subordinate Judges in causes Civil, as appears in Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10. And for the manner of Gods worship, there was never doubt made, but that the High Priest till the time of Saul, had the Supreme Authority. Therefore the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power were both joined together in one and the same person, the High Priest; and ought to be so, in whosoever governeth by Divine Right; that is, by Authority immediate from God.

After the death of Joshua, till the time of Saul, the time between is noted frequently in the Book of Judges, that there was in those days no King in Israel; and sometimes with this addition, that every man did that which was right in his own eyes. By which is to be understood, that where it is said, there was no King, is meant, there was no Sovereign Power in Israel. And so it was, if we consider the Act, and Exercise of such power. For after the death of Joshua, & Eleazar, there arose another generation (Judges 2. 10.) that knew not the Lord, nor the works which he had done for Israel, but did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim. And the Jews had that quality which St. Paul noteth, to look for a sign, not only before they would submit themselves to the government of Moses, but also after they had obliged themselves by their submission. Whereas Signs, and Miracles had for End to procure Faith, not to keep men from violating it, when they have once given it; for to that men are obliged by the law of Nature. But if we consider not the Exercise, but the Right of Governing, the Sovereign power was still in the High Priest. Therefore whatsoever obedience was yielded to any of the Judges (who were men chosen by God extraordinarily, to save his rebellious subjects out of the hands of the enemy,) it cannot be drawn into argument against the Right the High Priest had to the Sovereign Power, in all matters, both of Policy and Religion. And neither the Judges, nor Samuel himself had an ordinary, but extraordinary calling to the Government; and were obeyed by the Israelites, not out of duty, but out of reverence to their favour with God, appearing in their wisdom, courage, or felicity. Hitherto therefore the Right of Regulating both the Policy, and the Religion, were inseparable.

To the Judges, succeeded Kings: And whereas before, all authority,both in Religion, and Policy, was in the High Priest; so now it was all in the King. For the Sovereignty over the people, which was before, not only by virtue of the Divine Power, but also by a particular pact of the Israelites in God, and next under him, in the High Priest, as his Vicegerent on earth, was cast off by the People, with the consent of God himself. For when they said to Samuel (1 Sam. 8. 5.) make us a King to judge us, like all the Nations, they signified that they would no more be governed by the commands that should be laid upon them by the Priest, in the name of God; but by one that should command them in the same manner that all other nations were commanded; and consequently in deposing the High Priest of Royal authority, they deposed that peculiar Government of God. And yet God consented to it, saying to Samuel (verse 7.) Hearken unto the voice of the People, in all that they shall say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. Having therefore rejected God, in whose Right the Priests governed, there was no authority left to the Priests, but such as the King was pleased to allow them; which was more, or less, according as the Kings were good, or evil. And for the Government of Civil affairs, it is manifest, it was all in the hands of the King. For in the same Chapter, verse 20. They say they will be like all the Nations; that their King shall be their Judge, and go before them, and fight their battles; that is, he shall have the whole authority, both in Peace and War. In which is contained also the ordering of Religion: for there was no other Word of God in that time, by which to regulate Religion, but the Law of Moses, which was their Civil Law. Besides, we read (1 Kings 2. 27.) that Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest before the Lord: He had therefore authority over the High Priest, as over any other Subject; which is a great mark of Supremacy in Religion. And we read also (1 Kings 8.) that he dedicated the Temple; that he blessed the People; and that he himself in person made that excellent prayer, used in the Consecrations of all Churches, and houses of Prayer; which is another great mark of Supremacy in Religion. Again, we read (2 Kings 22.) that when there was question concerning the Book of the Law found in the Temple, the same was not decided by the High Priest but Josiah sent both him, and others to enquire concerning it, of Hulda, the Prophetess; which is another mark of the Supremacy in Religion. Lastly, we read (1 Chron. 26. 30.) that David made Hashabiah and his brethren, Hebronites, Officers of Israel among them Westward, in all business of the Lord, and in the service of the King. Likewise (verse 32.) that he made other Hebronites, rulers over the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh (these were the rest of Israel that dwelt beyond Jordan) for every matter pertaining to God, and affairs of the King. Is not this full Power, both temporal and spiritual, as they call it, that would divide it? To conclude; from the first institution of Gods Kingdom, to the Captivity, the Supremacy of Religion, was in the same hand with that of the Civil Sovereignty; and the Priests office after the election of Saul, was not Magisterial, but Ministerial.

Notwithstanding the government both in Policy and Religion,were joined, first in the High Priests, and afterwards in the Kings, so far forth as concerned the Right; yet it appeareth by the same Holy History, that the people understood it not; but there being amongst them a great part, and probably the greatest part, that no longer than they saw great miracles, or (which is equivalent to a miracle) great abilities, or great felicity in the enterprises of their Governors, gave sufficient credit, either to the fame of Moses, or to the Colloquies between God and the Priests; they took occasion as oft as their Governors displeased them, by blaming sometimes the Policy, sometimes the Religion, to change the Government, or revolt from their Obedience at their pleasure: And from thence proceeded from time to time the civil troubles, divisions, and calamities of the Nation. As for example, after the death of Eleazar and Joshua, the next generation which had not seen the wonders of God, but were left to their own weak reason, not knowing themselves obliged by the Covenant of a Sacerdotal Kingdom, regarded no more the Commandment of the Priest, nor any law of Moses, but did every man that which was right in his own eyes; and obeyed in Civil affairs, such men, as from time to time they thought able to deliver them from the neighbour Nations that oppressed them; and consulted not with God (as they ought to doc,) but with such men, or women, as they guessed to be Prophets by their Predictions of things to come; and though they had an Idol in their Chapel, yet if they had a Levite for their Chaplain, they made account they worshipped the God of Israel.

And afterwards when they demanded a King, after the manner of the nations; yet it was not with a design to depart from the worship of God their King; but despairing of the justice of the sons of Samuel, they would have a King to judge them in Civil actions; but not that they would allow their King to change the Religion which they thought was recommended to them by Moses. So that they always kept in store a pretext, either of Justice, or Religion, to discharge themselves of their obedience, whensoever they had hope to prevail. Samuel was displeased with the people, for that they desired a King, (for God was their King already, and Samuel had but an authority under him); yet did Samuel, when Saul observed not his counsel, in destroying Agag as God had commanded, anoint another King, namely, David, to take the succession from his heirs. Rehoboam was no Idolater; but when the people thought him an Oppressor; that Civil pretence carried from him ten Tribes to Jeroboam an Idolater. And generally through the whole History of the Kings, as well of Judah, as of Israel, there were Prophets that always controlled the Kings, for transgressing the Religion; and sometimes also for Errorsof State; as Jehosaphat was reproved by the Prophet Jehu, for aiding the King of Israel against the Syrians; and Hezekiah, by Isaiah, for showing his treasures to the Ambassadors of Babylon. By all which it appeareth, that though the power both of State and Religion were in the Kings; yet none of them were uncontrolled in the use of it, but such as were gracious for their own natural abilities, or felicities. So that from the practise of those times, there can no argument be drawn, that the Right of Supremacy in Religion was not in the Kings, unless we place it in the Prophets; and conclude, that because Hezekiah praying to the Lord before the Cherubins, was not answered from thence, nor then, but afterwards by the Prophet Isaiah, therefore Isaiah was supreme Head of the Church; or because Josiah consulted Hulda the Prophetess, concerning the Book of the Law, that therefore neither he, nor the High Priest, but Hulda the Prophetess had the Supreme authority in matter of Religion; which I think is not the opinion of any Doctor.

During the Captivity, the Jews had no Common-wealth at all:And after their return, though they renewed their Covenant with God, yet there was no promise made of obedience, neither to Esdras, nor to any other: And presently after they became subjects to the Greeks (from whose Customs, and Demonology, and from the doctrine of the Cabalists, their Religion became much corrupted): In such sort as nothing can be gathered from their confusion, both in State and Religion, concerning the Supremacy in either. And therefore so far forth as concerneth the Old Testament, we may conclude, that whosoever had the Sovereignty of the Common-wealth amongst the Jews, the same had also the Supreme Authority in matter of Gods external worship; and represented Gods Person; that is the person of God the Father; though he were not called by the name of Father, till such time as he sent into the world his Son Jesus Christ, to redeem mankind from their sins, and bring them into his Everlasting Kingdom, to be saved for evermore. Of which we are to speak in the Chapter following.

CHAP. XLI. Of the OFFICE of our BLESSED SAVIOUR.

WE find in Holy Scripture three parts of the Office of theMessiah: The first of a Redeemer, or Saviour: The second of a Pastor, Counsellor, or Teacher, that is, of a Prophet sent from God, to convert such as God hath elected to Salvation: The third of a King, an eternal King, but under his Father, as Moses and the High Priests were in their several times. And to these three parts are correspondent three times. For our Redemption he wrought at his first coming, by the Sacrifice, wherein he offered up himself for our sins upon the Cross: our Conversion he wrought partly then in his own Person; and partly worketh now by his Ministers; and will continue to work till his coming again. And after his coming again, shall begin that his glorious Reign over his elect, which is to last eternally.

To the Office of a Redeemer, that is, of one that payeth the Ransom ofSin, (which Ransom is Death,) it appertaineth, that he was Sacrificed, and thereby bare upon his own head, and carried away from us our iniquities, in such sort as God had required. Not that the death of one man, though without sin, can satisfy for the offences of all men, in the rigour of Justice, but in the Mercy of God, that ordained such Sacrifices for sin, as he was pleased in his mercy to accept. In the Old Law (as we may read, Leviticus the 16.) the Lord required, that there should every year once, be made an Atonement for the Sins of all Israel, both Priests, and others; for the doing whereof, Aaron alone was to sacrifice for himself and the Priests a young Bullock; and for the rest of the people, he was to receive from them two young Goats, of which he was to sacrifice one; but as for the other, which was the Scape Goat, he was to lay his hands on the head thereof, and by a confession of the iniquities of the people, to lay them all on that head, and then by some opportune man, to cause the Goat to be led into the wilderness, and there to escape, and carry away with him the iniquities of the people. As the Sacrifice of the one Goat was a sufficient (because an acceptable) price for the Ransom of all Israel; so the death of the Messiah, is a sufficient price, for the Sins of all mankind, because there was no more required. Our Saviour Christs sufferings seem to be here figured, as clearly; as in the oblation of Isaac, or in any other type of him in the Old Testament: He was both the sacrificed Goat, and the Scape Goat; He was oppressed, and he was afflicted (Esay 53. 7.); he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is dumb before the shearer, so opened he not his mouth: Here he is the sacrificed Goat. He hath born our Griefs, (ver. 4.) and carried our sorrows: And again, (ver. 6.) the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all: And so he is the Scape Goat. He was cut off from the land of the living (ver. 8.) for the transgression of my People: There again he is the sacrificed Goat. And again, (ver. 11.) he shall bear their sins: He is the Scape Goat. Thus is the Lamb of God equivalent to both those Goats; sacrificed, in that he dyed; and escaping, in his Resurrection; being raised opportunely by his Father, and removed from the habitation of men in his Ascension.

For as much therefore, as he that redeemeth, hath no title tothe thing redeemed, before the Redemption, and Ransom paid; and this Ransom was the Death of the Redeemer; it is manifest, that our Saviour (as man) was not King of those that he Redeemed, before he suffered death; that is, during that time he conversed bodily on the Earth. I say, he was not then King in present, by virtue of the Pact, which the faithful make with him in Baptism: Nevertheless, by the renewing of their Pact with God in Baptism, they were obliged to obey him for King, (under his Father) whensoever he should be pleased to take the Kingdom upon him. According whereunto, our Saviour himself expressly saith, (John 18. 36.) My Kingdom is not of this world. Now seeing the Scripture maketh mention but of two worlds; this that is now, and shall remain to the day of Judgment, (which is therefore also called, the last day;) and that which shall be after the day of Judgement, when there shall be a new Heaven, and a new Earth; the Kingdom of Christ is not to begin till the general Resurrection. And that is it which our Saviour saith, (Mat. 16. 27.) The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his Angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. To reward every man according to his works, is to execute the Office of a King; and this is not to be till he come in the glory of his Father, with his Angels. When our Saviour saith, (Mat. 23. 2.) The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; All therefore whatsoever they bid you do, that observe and do; he declareth plainly, that he ascribeth Kingly Power, for that time, not to himself, but to them. And so he doth also, where he saith, (Luke 12. 14.) Who made me a Judge, or Divider over you? And (John 12. 47.) I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. And yet our Saviour came into this world that he might be a King, and a Judge in the world to come: For he was the Messiah, that is, the Christ, that is, the Anointed Priest, and the Sovereign Prophet of God; that is to say, he was to have all the power that was in Moses the Prophet, in the High Priests that succeeded Moses, and in the Kings that succeeded the Priests. And St. John says expressly (chap. 5. ver. 22.) The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son. And this is not repugnant to that other place, I came not to judge the world: for this is spoken of the world present, the other of the world to come; as also where it is said, that at the second coming of Christ, (Mat. 19. 28.) Ye that have followed me in the Regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his Glory, ye shall also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

If then Christ whilst he was on Earth, had no Kingdomin this world, to what end was his first coming? It was to restore unto God, by a new Covenant, the Kingdom, which being his by the Old Covenant, had been cut off by the rebellion of the Israelites in the election of Saul. Which to do, he was to preach unto them, that he was the Messiah, that is, the King promised to them by the Prophets; and to offer himself in sacrifice for the sins of them that should by faith submit themselves thereto; and in case the nation generally should refuse him, to call to his obedience such as should believe in him amongst the Gentiles. So that there are two parts of our Saviours Office during his abode upon the Earth: One to Proclaim himself the Christ; and another by Teaching, and by working of Miracles, to persuade, and prepare men to live so, as to be worthy of the Immortality Believers were to enjoy, at such time as he should come in majesty, to take possession of his Fathers Kingdom. And therefore it is, that the time of his preaching, is often by himself called the Regeneration; which is not properly a Kingdom, and thereby a warrant to deny obedience to the Magistrates that then were, (for he commanded to obey those that sate then in Moses chair, and to pay tribute to Caesar; but only an earnest of the Kingdom of God that was to come, to those to whom God had given the grace to be his disciples, and to believe in him; For which cause the Godly are said to be already in the Kingdom of Grace, as naturalized in that heavenly Kingdom.

Hitherto therefore there is nothing done, or taught by Christ,that tendeth to the diminution of the Civil Right of the Jews, or of Caesar. For as touching the Common-wealth which then was amongst the Jews, both they that bare rule amongst them, and they that were governed, did all expect the Messiah, and Kingdom of God; which they could not have done if their Laws had forbidden him (when he came) to manifest, and declare himself. Seeing therefore he did nothing, but by Preaching, and Miracles go about to prove himself to be that Messiah, he did therein nothing against their laws. The Kingdom he claimed was to be in another world: He taught all men to obey in the mean time them that sate in Moses seat: He allowed them to give Caesar his tribute, and refused to take upon himself to be a Judge. How then could his words, or actions be seditious, or tend to the overthrow of their then Civil Government? But God having determined his sacrifice, for the reduction of his elect to their former covenanted obedience, for the means, whereby he would bring the same to effect, made use of their malice, and ingratitude. Nor was it contrary to the laws of Caesar. For though Pilate himself (to gratify the Jews) delivered him to be crucified; yet before he did so, he pronounced openly, that he found no fault in him: And put for title of his condemnation, not as the Jews required, that he pretended to be King; but simply, That he was King of the Jews; and notwithstanding their clamour, refused to alter it; saying, What I have written, I have written.

As for the third part of his Office, which was to be King, Ihave already shown that his Kingdom was not to begin till the Resurrection. But then he shall be King, not only as God, in which sense he is King already, and ever shall be, of all the Earth, in virtue of his omnipotence; but also peculiarly of his own Elect, by virtue of the pact they make with him in their Baptism. And therefore it is, that our Saviour saith (Mat. 19. 28.) that his Apostles should sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory: whereby he signified that he should reign then in his human nature; and (Mat. 16. 27.) The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his Angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works. The same we may read, Mark 13. 26. and 14. 62. and more expressly for the time, Luke 22. 29, 30. I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. By which it is manifest, that the Kingdom of Christ appointed to him by his Father, is not to be before the Son of Man shall come in Glory, and make his Apostles Judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. But a man may here ask, seeing there is no marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven, whether men shall then eat, and drink; what eating therefore is meant in this place? This is expounded by our Saviour (John 6. 27.) where he saith, Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give you. So that by eating at Christs table, is meant the eating of the Tree of Life; that is to say, the enjoying of Immortality, in the Kingdom of the Son of Man. By which places, and many more, it is evident, that our Saviours Kingdom is to be exercised by him in his human nature.

Again, he is to be King then, no otherwise than as subordinate,or Vicegerent of God the Father, as Moses was in the wilderness; and as the High Priests were before the reign of Saul: and as the Kings were after it. For it is one of the Prophecies concerning Christ, that he should be like (in Office) to Moses: I will raise them up a Prophet (saith the Lord, Deut. 18. 18.) from amongst their Brethren like unto thee, and will put my words into his mouth, and this similitude with Moses, is also apparent in the actions of our Saviour himself, whilst he was conversant on Earth. For as Moses chose twelve Princes of the tribes, to govern under him; so did our Saviour choose twelve Apostles, who shall sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel: And as Moses authorized Seventy Elders, to receive the Spirit of God, and to Prophecy to the people, that is, (as I have said before,) to speak unto them in the name of God; so our Saviour also ordained seventy Disciples, to preach his Kingdom, and Salvation to all Nations. And as when a complaint was made to Moses, against those of the Seventy that prophesied in the camp of Israel, he justified them in it, as being subservient therein to his government; so also our Saviour, when St. John complained to him of a certain man that cast out Devils in his name, justified him therein, saying, (Luke 9. 50.) Forbid him not, for he that is not against us, is on our part.

Again, our Saviour resembled Moses in the institution of Sacraments, both of Admission into the Kingdom of God, and of Commemoration of his deliverance of his Elect from their miserable condition. As the Children of Israel had for Sacrament of their Reception into the Kingdom of God, before the time of Moses, the rite of Circumcision, which rite having been omitted in the Wilderness, was again restored as soon as they came into the land of Promise; so also the Jews, before the coming of our Saviour, had a rite of Baptizing, that is, of washing with water all those that being Gentiles, embraced the God of Israel. This rite St. John the Baptist used in the reception of all them that gave their names to the Christ, whom he preached to be already come into the world; and our Saviour instituted the same for a Sacrament to be taken by all that believed in him. From what cause the rite of Baptism first proceeded, is not expressed formally in the Scripture; but it may be probably thought to be an imitation of the law of Moses, concerning Leprosy; wherein the Leprous man was commanded to be kept out of the camp of Israel for a certain time; after which time being judged by the Priest to be clean, he was admitted into the camp after a solemn Washing. And this may therefore be a type of the Washing in Baptism; wherein such men as are cleansed of the Leprosy of Sin by Faith, are received into the Church with the solemnity of Baptism. There is another conjecture drawn from the Ceremonies of the Gentiles, in a certain case that rarely happens; and that is, when a man that was thought dead, chanced to recover, other men made scruple to converse with him, as they would do to converse with a Ghost, unless he were received again into the number of men, by Washing, as Children new born were washed from the uncleanness of their nativity, which was a kind of new birth. This ceremony of the Greeks, in the time that Judaea was under the Dominion of Alexander, and the Greeks his successors, may probably enough have crept into the Religion of the Jews. But seeing it is not likely our Saviour would countenance a Heathen rite, it is most likely it proceeded from the Legal Ceremony of Washing after Leprosy. And for the other Sacrament, of eating the Paschal Lamb, it is manifestly imitated in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; in which the Breaking of the Bread, and the pouring out of the Wine, do keep in memory our deliverance from the Misery of Sin, by Christs Passion, as the eating of the Paschal Lamb, kept in memory the deliverance of the Jews out of the Bondage of Egypt. Seeing therefore the authority of Moses was but subordinate, and he but a Lieutenant to God; it followeth, that Christ, whose authority, as man, was to be like that of Moses, was no more but subordinate to the authority of his Father. The same is more expressly signified, by that that he teacheth us to pray, Our Father, Let thy Kingdom come; and, For thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory; and by that it is said, that He shall come in the Glory of his Father; and by that which St. Paul saith, (1 Cor. 15. 24.) then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; and by many other most express places.

Our Saviour therefore, both in Teaching, and Reigning,representeth (as Moses did) the Person of God; which God from that time forward, but not before, is called the Father; and being still one and the same substance, is one Person as represented by Moses, and another Person as represented by his Son the Christ. For Person being a relative to a Representer, it is consequent to plurality of Representers, that there be a plurality of Persons, though of one and the same Substance.