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.