PRophesy or Revelation is the true Knowledge of any thing revealed to Men by God; and he is a Pro­phet, who declares and expounds those things which God hath revealed, to Persons that cannot have any certain know­ledge of those Revelations, but must there­fore only by mere Faith receive and em­brace them. A Prophet was by the Iews called Nabi, (that is) an Orator or Inter­preter; as appears in the 7 th chap. of Exodus v. 1 st. And the Lord said unto Moses, see I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet, as if he should have said, Aron by Interpreting to Pharaoh, what thou say'st, shall Act the Part of a Prophet, and thou the Part of God.

We will speak of Prophets in the next Chapter, but in this only of Prophesy. It follows from the definition which hath been given of it, that Natural knowledge [Page 2] may be called Prophesy; for those things which we know by the light of nature, depend only upon the knowledge of God, and his Eternal decrees: but because this knowledge is natural to all Mankind, being founded upon Principles common to all Men; 'tis of no value with the vulgar, who always affecting things rare and out of their Road, despise the Gifts of Nature; and therefore whereever mention is made of Prophetical knowledge, they totally exclude Natural, which may with as much right be called Divine, as the o­ther whatever it be; seeing the Nature of God of which we participate, and the de­crees of God, dictate it unto us, neither doth Natural knowledge differ from that which Men call Divine, but only because Divine knowledge exceedeth the Limits of Natural; and because the Laws of Hu­mane Nature considered in themselves, cannot be the cause of Divine knowledge: but Natural knowledge in respect of the certainty which it includes, and in respect of the Fountain from whence it proceeds, namely from God himself, doth in no wise give place to Prophetical knowledge, un­less some will think or rather dream, that the Prophets had Humane Bodies, but not Humane Souls, and therefore their per­ceptions and knowledge were of a quite different Nature from ours.

[Page 3]But though natural knowledge be Di­vine, yet they that possess and propa­gate it, cannot be called Prophtes, because the things which they teach, may with equal certainty, and in as high a degree, be Apprehended and Embraced by others, as well as by themselves, and that too not by Faith only.

Since therefore our Mind for no other reason, but only because it containeth in it self, the Nature of God, as its Object, and also participating thereof, is able to Form certain Notions which explicate the Nature of things, and teach us the use of Life, we may with reason conclude, that the Nature of Man's mind, being what 'tis conceived to be, is the prime Cause of Divine Revelation, for all those things which we clearly and distinctly understand, the Idea of God (as we have already shewn) and Nature dictate to us, not in words, but in a much more excellent manner, and such as best suites with the Nature of the Mind, as every one finds by his own experience, who hath but tasted what certain know­ledge is: but because my cheif purpose is to speak of those things which belong only to the Scripture, that little I have said of Natural knowledge shall suffice, and I now proceed to other causes and means, by which God reveals to Men, those things [Page 4] which do exceed, and also those which do not exceed the bounds of Natural know­ledge, (for nothing hinders but that those things which we know by the Light of Nature, God may by other ways, com­municate to Men) of which now I will more fully Treat.

But whatsoever is said upon this Subject, ought to be fetcht only from Scripture; for we can say no more of things that pass our understanding, then that which the Prophets have deliver'd to us, either by word or writing; and because we have not any Prophets that I know in these our days, all that we have to do, is diligently to peruse the Sacred Volums which the Prophets have left us; but still with this caution, that we determin nothing posi­tively of things of this Nature, nor attri­bute any thing to the Prophets themselves, which they have not plainly spoken and taught. But it is in the first place to be observed, that the Iews never used to make mention of mediate and particular Causes, nor ever regarded them; but for the promoting of Religion, Piety, and Devotion, had always recourse to God, (for Example) if they got Money by the Trade of Merchandizing, they said God gave it, if they earnestly desired to do any thing, they said God disposed their Hearts [Page 5] to it, if they seriously thought on any thing, they said it was declared to them by God; so that every thing which the Scripture saith God declared to any one, is not to be taken for Prophesy and Supernatural knowledge, but that only which the Scrip­ture expresly declares, or from the Circum­stances of the narration, plainly appears to be Prophesy and Revelation:

If then we run through all the Sacred Volums, we shall find, that all those things which God revealed to the Prophets, were revealed to them either by words, or by Figures and Signs, or else by both to­gether, and that the words, and Signs, were either real and true, without the ima­gination of the hearing and seeing Pro­phet; or but imaginary (that is) the fancy and imagination of the Prophet, even when he was awake, was so disposed, that he verily thought, he heard words, or saw and beheld some thing or sign. God in a true and real voice, revealed those Laws to Moses, which he prescribed to the Iews; as appears by the 25 th chap. of Exod. v. 22. where he saith, And there will I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy Seat, from between thee two Cheru­bims which plainly shews, that God made use of some real voice, seeing Moses where­ever he pleased, found God ready to speak [Page 6] to him; and that only this voice, by which the Law was Published, was a true and real voice, I will presently shew.

One would think that the voice by which God called Samuel was real; be­cause in the first Book of Sam. the 3 d. chap. and last verse, it is said, The Lord appeared again in Shiloh, for the Lord revealed him­self to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord, as if he had said, the appearance of God to Samuel, was nothing else, but Gods making known himself to him by word, or signifyed no more, then that Samuel heard God speaking: but because we are forced to distinguish between the Prophesy of Moses, and that of the other Prophets, it must be concluded, that the voice heard by Samuel, was but imaginary; because it was like the voice of Ely, which he had so often heard, and therefore the sooner wrought upon his fancy; for being thrice called, Samuel still thought it was by Ely, the voice which Abimelech heard was imaginary, for it said Gen. chap. 20. v. 6, God said unto him in a Dream, and therefore Abimelech not waking, but in his sleep, (the time when the fancy is naturally most apt to imagin things that are not) might have a strong Impression of Gods Will upon his Imagination.

[Page 7]It is the Opinion of some Iews, that the words of the Decalogue, were not vocally pronounced by God; but that the Israelites only heard a noise, which did not articu­lately form words, but that the People during the noise, mentally understood the Laws of the Decalogue, which was once also my own Opinion, because I found the words of the Decalogue in Exodus, to dif­fer from those of the Decalogue in Deutro­nomy: whence it might seem to follow, seeing God spake but once, that the Deca­logue is not the very words of God, but only contains the Sence or signification of his Will. But unless we will wrest the Scripture, it must be granted, that the Israelites did hear a real and true voice; for the 4 th vers. of the 5 th chap. of Deut. saith, The Lord talked with you Face to Face in the Mount, (that is) as two Men use Per­sonally and Corporally, to communicate their conceptions one to another; there­fore it seems much more consonant to Scripture, that God did really create a voice, by which he revealed the Decalogue; but the reason why the words of the two Decalogues vary, may be seen in the 8 th fol­lowing Chapter of this Book; yet that neither fully solves the doubt; for it seems very Irrational, to conclude that any thing created by, and depending on, [Page 8] God as all other created Beings do, should be able to express or expound, the Essence or Existence of God Personally, viz. by saying in the first Person, I am the Lord thy God, though where a Man says with his Mouth, I understand, yet no Body thinks 'tis the mouth of that Man, but his Mind that understands; but because the mouth hath Reference to the Nature of the Man that said it, and the Person also to whom it was said knows what is the Nature of the Intellect, he easily under­stands the mind of the speaking Person, by a Comparative consideration of himself, but they who knew nothing of God, but his mere name, and desired him to speak that they might be certain of his Existence, how could they be satisfyed in their Request by any Creatures saying, I am thy God; when that Creature which said so, did no more resemble God, nor belong to his Nature, then any other Creature did, what if God should have Framed the Lips of Moses, yea of any Beast? to have articu­latly pronounced and spoken those words, I am thy God doth it follow, that the Is­raelites should thereby have understood the Being and Existence of God? Moreover, the Scripture seems plainly to declare, that God himself spoke, (and for that end descended from Heaven down upon Mount [Page 9] Sinai) and that not only the Iews heard him speak, but also the Nobles and Elders, as we read in the 24 th c. of Ex. Neither doth the Law revealed to Moses, to or from which, nothing was to be added or taken away, and was the Establisht Law of the Country, ever command that we should believe God to be Incorporeal, and to have no Shape or Figure; but only that we should believe there is a God, and should Worship him only, and that the Iews might not depart from his Worship, he commanded that they should not fancy or make any likeness or Image of him; for since they had never seen any likeness of God, they could make no Image which would Resemble God, but necessarily some other Creature which they had seen; and so bestow the Worship and Honour of God upon that Creature. The Scripture expressly declares God to have Figure, and that Moses when he heard God speak, happened to see it, though indeed it was but his back parts; in which there is a hidden Mistery, of which we will hereafter speak more at large. I will now go on to quote those places, which de­clare the means, whereby God hath revealed his Decrees to Men.

That Revelation may happen only by Signs or Figures is plain by the 21 th chap. of the 1 st. Book of Chron. where God de­clared [Page 10] his Anger to David, by an Angel holding a drawn Sword in his hand, in like manner to Balaam, and though Maimonides and some others would have it thought, that in this Story and all others, which relate the appearing of Angels, as to Manoah, and to Abraham when he would have Sacrificed his Son; the Apparitions were always in sleep, (not that any Man broad waking is able to see an Angel) yet they talk to no purpose, for they minded nothing else, but straining Scripture to countenance Aristotle's and their own idle Figments, than which nothing can be more ridiculous.

God revealed to Ioseph, his future Do­minion by Images, that were not real and external, but internal and depen­ding only upon the Imagination of the Prophet.

By Signs and Words God revealed to Iosua, that he would Fight for the Israelites, by shewing to him an Angel with a Sword in his hand, as Captain of the Host, and by words also, which Iosua heard from the Angel, it was represented to Isaiah by Figures chap. 6. That God's Pro­vidence would desert the People, by ima­gining the most holy God on a very high Throne, and the Israelites polluted and plunged in the filth of their Sins, and so at [Page 11] a great distance from God: by which signs he understood the present miserable state of the People; but their future calamities were revealed to him by words spoken, as it were, by God himself. And of this kind, I could bring many Examples out of Sacred Writ, were they not so generally known to all; but all these things are more clearly proved by the Text it self; in the 12 th. Chap. Numb. v. 6, 7. If there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make my self known to him in a Visi­on (that is by signs and hieroglyphics (but as for the Prophesy of Moses, it was vision without signs) and will make my self known to him in a dream (that is not in a true real voice and words.) But to my Servant Moses not so, with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark Speeches, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold (that is) beholding me as a Friend and Compa­nion, speaks to me without fear, as it is in the 33. chap. of Exod. v. 11. Therefore with­out doubt the rest of the Prophets, did not hear a true and real voice, which yet more evidently appears out of the 34. chap. of Deu. v. 10. And there arose not a Prophet since in I­srael like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; which must be understood by voice only, for Moses himself, as the 33. chap. of Exod. plainly declares, did never see God's Face.

[Page 12]Beside these ways and means, I have mentioned, I find no other in Sacred Srip­ture, whereby God hath communicated himself to Men; and therefore (as I have already said) no other are to be supposed or admitted, and though we may clearly understand, that God may immediately com­municate himself to Men, for he without u­sing any Corporeal Means doth communicate his Essence to our Minds; yet that any man by the mind alone, should comprehend those things, which are not contained in the Prin­ciples of Natural Knowledge, nor can be de­duced from them; must necessarily argue, that that mans mind, is far more Noble and Excel­lent, then any Human Understanding; Wherefore I believe, never any Man ar­rived to so great a degree of Perfection a­bove others, beside Christ, to whom the purposes of God, for the Salvation of mankind, were immediately revealed. So that God did manifest himself to the Apo­stles, by the Mind of Christ, as he did be­fore to Moses by an Aereal Voice, and there­fore the Voice of Christ, like that which Mo­ses heard, may be called the Voice of God. And in this Sense also we may say, the Wis­dom of God viz. Wisdom more then Human, assumed Human Nature in Christ, and Christ was the Way to Salvation.

But I think it necessary for me here to [Page 13] declare, that some things, which some Churches determine and maintain, con­cerning Christ, I do neither assert nor deny; for I ingenuously confess, I do not under­stand them, those things which I have af­firmed, I have collected out of the Scrip­ture it self. I have no where read, that God appeared or spoke to Christ, but that God was revealed to the Apostles by Christ, who was the Way to Salvation. And last­ly that the Old Law was not delivered immediately by God, but by an Angel. Wherefore if Moses spake to God Face to Face, as a Man useth to do with his Friend, (that is by the mediation of two Bodies) Christ communed with God mentally or Mind to Mind. I do therefore maintain, that beside Christ, no Man ever reeived any Revelation from God, but by the help of the Imagination, or by the help of Words or Signs, and therefore to Prophesy, there is not so much need of a perfect Under­standing, as of a Lively Imagination, as shall be shown in the following Chapter, we are now to inquire what the Scripture means by the Spirit of God, infused into the Prophets, or the Prophets speaking by the Spirit of God; to find out the meaning of these Phrases and Expressions, it is first necessary, to search what the Hebrew word Ruagh signifies, which the Vulgar interprets Spirit.

[Page 14]The word Ruagh, in its Proper and Ge­nuine Sense, signifies Wind, but is very frequently used, to signifie many other things, which nevertheless are derived from Wind: For sometimes it signifies Breath, Psal. 135. v. 17 th. Neither is there any Breath in their Mouths. Secondly it signifies Life or Respiration. 1 st. Book of Sam. chap. 30. v. 12. His Spirit came again to him, (that is he breathed.) Third­ly, it is taken for Courage and Strength, Iosu. chap. 11 th. v. 11 th. There was not a Man left to breath. Ezek. chap. 2. v. 2. And the Spirit (that is Strength) entered into me and set me upon my Feet. Fourth­ly, it is taken for Vertue and fitness, Iob. chap. 32. v. 8. There is a Spirit in Man, (that is as appears in the following Verse.) Wisdom and Understanding, but is not al­ways to be found in the Aged, for I now find it depends upon the particular Qualifi­cation aud Capacity of a Man. So in the 27. chap. of Numb. v. 8. Take thee Iosua the Son of Nun, a Man in whom is the Spirit. Fifthly, It is taken for a Man's Opinion, Numb. chap. 14 v. 24. Because he had a­nother Spirit with him. Proverbs chap. 1 st. v. 23. I will pour out my Spirit, (that is my Mind) unto you. And in this Sense. It is used to signifie the Will, Purpose, or Resolution, the Appetite, the Desire, [Page 15] and the Anger or Passion of the Mind: Ezek. chap. 1. v. 12. They went every one straight forward whether the Spirit, (or their Will) was to go, they went. Isaiah. chap. 30. v. 1. That take Councel but not of me, that cover with a Covering but not of my Spi­rit. Isai. chap. 29. v. 10. The Lord hath poured out upon you the Spirit, (that is) the desire of deep Sleep, Iudges chap. 8. v. 3. Then their Spirit (that is Anger) was abated towards him. Prov. chap. 16. v. 32. He that ruleth his Spirit, (that is his Appetite) is better then he that taketh a City. Prov. chap. 25. v. 28. He that hath no rule over his own Spirit, is like a City broken down. Isai. chap. 33. v. 11. Your Spirit (in the English Translation Breath) as Fire shall de­vour you. Moreover this Word Ruagh, as it fignifies the Mind, so doth it serve to ex­press the Passions, and sometimes the gifts of the mind. A high Spirit signifies Pride, a lowly Spirit humilitly, an evil Spirit ha­tred and melancholly, a good Spirit kind­ness and benignity, the Spirit of jealou­sie, the Spirit of fornication, the Spirit of wisdom, council, fortitude, which because in Hebrew, Substantives are oftner used than Adjectives, signify a wise, prudent, valiant Mind. Sixthly, it signifies the life or soul, Eccles. chap. 3. v. ii. Spiritus idem est omnibus, The same breath is to all, and the Spirit returns [Page 16] to God that gave it. Lastly, it signisies the quarters of the World (from whence the wind blows) and likewise the sides of any thing which stands towards those quarters, as appears, Ezek.chap. 37. v.9. and chap. 42. v. 16,17,18,19. &c. Now it is to be noted, that a thing is attributed to God, and said to be God's; First, because it pertaineth to the Nature of God, and is as it were a part of God; as when we say the Power of God, the Eyes of God. Secondly, when a thing is in the Power of God and Acts accord­ing to his Will and Pleasure; so in Scrip­ture the Heavens are called the Heavens of God, because they are his Chariot and place of Abode. Assyria is called the Scourge of God, and Nebuchadnezzer the Servant of God. Thirdly, when a thing is dedicated to God, as the Temple of God, the Nazarite of God, the Bread of God. Fourthly, that which hath been deliver'd by the Prophets, and not revealed by the Light of Nature, therefore the Law of Moses is called the Law of God. Fifthly, when any thing is superlatively exprest; as the Mountains of God, (that is) the high­est Hills; the sleep of God that is deep sleep; in this sence is to be understood the 11 th Verse of the 4 th Chap. of Amos, where God says, I have overthrown some of you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, (that [Page 17] is) like that memorable overthrow: for seeing God himself speaks, it cannot other­wise be properly exprest, the Natural Knowledge of Solomon is called Divine, and the Knowledge of God, because it was so much above that which is common. The Psalms speak of the Cedars of God, to express their extraordinary height, in the First Book of Sam. Chap. 10. v. 7. it is said, The fear of the Lord fell on the People, which signifies a very great fear and in this sense, all things which exceeded the Capa­city of the Iews, and whose natural Causes where not known to them, were always referr'd and attributed to God. Tempests were called Gods Chiding and Threat­nings, Thunder and Lightning his Darts and Arrows, they thought God kept the Winds shut up in the Caverns of the Earth, which they called his Treasuries; in which Opinion they differ'd from the Heathen, only by believing God, and not AEolus, to be their Ruler; upon this ground Mi­racles are also called the Works of God, that is stupendious, wonderful works, tho' indeed all things in Nature are the Works of God, and only by Divine Power act and subsist; in the same Sence the Psalmist calls the Miracles done in Egypt the Powers of God, because in the Iews greatest danger, they open'd a way to their safety and de­liverance, [Page 18] when they least expected it, and were therefore so much admir'd by them.

Seeing then the Works of Nature which are strange and unusual, are called the Works of God, and Trees of extraordinary height and magnitude, the Trees of God, it is no wonder that in Genesis, Men very Valiant and of great Stature, tho' impious Rob­bers and Fornicators, were called the Sons of God, the Ancient Heathen as well as the Iews, used to attribute to God, every thing in which any one excell'd other Men; Pharaoh when he heard the Interpretation of his Dream said, that the Spirit of the Gods was in Ioseph, and Nebuchadnezzar said, the Spirit of the Holy Gods was in Daniel; nothing was more frequent among the Latines, then to say things very curiously wrought, were done by a Divine Hand, which Expression if a Man would turn into Hebrew, he must say done by the Hand of God.

By these places I have quoted, many other in Scripture where mention is made of the Spirit of God, may be easily under­stood and explained, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Iehovah, in some places signifie nothing but a vehement dry and destroying Wind, as Isa. Chap. 40. v. 7. The Grass withereth, the Flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it. Also Gen. Chap. 1st. v. 2. and the Spirit of God (that [Page 19] is a strong Wind) moved upon the Waters. It also signifies a great Mind or Courage, the Courage of Gideon and Sampson, are stiled in Scripture the Spirit of God (that is) a bold daring Mind, ready to undertake and attempt any thing. So also any par­ticular vertue or skill more then ordinary is in Scripture called the Spirit of God, Exod. Chap. 31. v. 3. And I have filled him with the Spirit of God in Wisdom and Work­manship speaking of Bezaleel; so Isa. Chap. 11. v. 2. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, (that is) as the Prophet more fully explains himself, the Vertue of Wis­dom, Councel and Might: in like manner Sauls Melancholy, is called an Evil Spirit of God, or from God, that is, deep Melan­choly; for Sauls Servants who called his Melancholy the Melancholy of God, were they that sent for Musick to recreate him, which shew'd that they did not think his Melancholy to be any more than Natural, sometimes by the Spirit of God is signified the Life of Man, Iob Chap. 27. v. 3. The Spirit of God is in my Nostrils alluding to what is said Gen. Chap. 2. v. 7. God breath­ed into Mans Nostrils the Breath of Life; so Ezek. Chap. 37. v. 14. saith, Prophesying to the Dead, and I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, that is I will restore Life to you, in the same Sense speaks, Iob Ch. 34. v. 14. If he [Page 20] gather unto himself his Spirit and his Breath; so likewise is to be understood the 3 Verse of the 6 th Chap. of Gen. My Spirit also shall not al­ways strive with Manfor that he also is flesh, (that is) Man hereafter shall do according to the dictates of his Flesh, and not of his Mind, which I gave him to discern Good from Evil, Psal. 51. v. 10, 11. David says, Create in me a clean Heart O God, and renew a right Spirit within me, cast me not away out of thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me; because it was believed, that Sins came only from the Flesh, and that the Soul or Mind did incline Men only to good: there­fore the Psalmist implores Gods Assistance against his carnal Affections, and prays that his Mind or Soul which God gave him, may be preserved and kept by God, now because the Scripture describes God like a Man, and because the Common Peoples Capacity is weak doth attribute to God a Mind, affections of Mind, and likewise a Body and Breath, therefore the Spirit of God is many times in Scripture taken for the Will, the Mind, the Power, and the Breath of Gods Mouth, Isa. Chap. 40. v. 13. the Prophet saith, who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord (that is) who hath dis­posed the mind of God, to will any thing which he himself hath not determin'd. Likewise Chap. 63. v. 10. They rebelled and [Page 21] vexed his Holy Spirit. Hence it is, that some­times 'tis taken for the Law of Moses, be­cause it doth as it were explain and unfold Gods Mind; for Isa. in the 11 th V. of the 63. Ch. saith, where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him, (that is) the Law; as is clearly Collected from the Context. Nehemiah Ch. 9. v. 20. saith, thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them, speaking of the time of the Law, Deut. Ch. 4. v. 6. Moses speaking of the Law saith, This is your wisdom and under­standing, so David, Psal. 43. v. 11. saith, Thy good Spirit leadeth me into the Land of Vprightness, (that is) thy mind revealed to us, leadeth us into the right way, the Spi­rit of God also signifies the Breath of God, which is as improperly attributed to God as is Body or Mind, Psal. 33. v. 6. And all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth, it signifies the power and might of God, Iob Chap. 33. v. 4. The Spirit of God hath made me (that is) the Power of God or rather his decree, for the Psalmist speaking poetically saith, by the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the Breath of his Mouth. Also Psal. 139. v. 7. It is said whether shall I go from thy Spirit, where Spirit signifies Gods Power and presence. Lastly, the Spirit of God is used in Scripture, to express the affections of Gods Mind, namely his Benignity Mer­cy, [Page 22] &c. Michah Chap. 2. v. 7. Is the Spirit of the Lord straightned, are these his doings? so Zachary Chap. 4. v. 6. not by might not by power but by my Spirit, (that is) only by my Mercy, and in this Sense I think, ought to be understood the 12 th Verse of the 7 th Chapter of Zachary, They made their Hearts as an Adamant Stone, least they should hear the Law and the Words which the Lord of Hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former Prophets, where Spirit must signifie mercy, in this Sense speaketh also the Prophet Haggai Chap. 2. v. 5. Loe my Spirit, that is my Grace and Mercy remaineth among you, fear ye not; Isa. Chap. 48. v. 16. It is said, the Lord and his Spirit hath sent me, there Spirit may be understood to signifie the Will and Mercy of God, or his mind re­vealed in the Law; for the Prophet saith from the beginning (that is when he first came to declare Gods Wrath and Judg­ments against them, he spake not in secret, from the time that it was published there was I, but now I am a Messenger of Joy sent by the Mercy of God to proclaim your restauration: it may also as I have already said be taken for the mind and will of God, revealed in the Law, (that is) he by the Command of the Law Levit. Chap. 19. v. 17. came to admonish them; there­fore under the same conditions and in the same manner, he warns as Moses did, and [Page 23] at last like Moses, ends with predicting their restauration, but in my Opinion the first Exposition seems the best.

To return to what was first intended, by all these Quotations it is evident, that these following plain Phrases of Scripture. The Prophets had the Spirit of God. God poured out his Spirit upon Men. Men were filled with the Spirit of God, and with the Holy Ghost, signifie nothing more, then that the Prophets had some particular ex­traordinary Vertue above other Men, and were Persons very Eminent for their constant piety: Moreover, that they understood the Mind and Will of God; for we have shewn, that the Spirit in the Hebrew Language, signifies both the mind and the purpose and resolutions of the mind; yea the Law, because it makes known Gods Mind, is called the Spirit and Mind of God: so that the imagination of the Prophets, foras­much as by it the decrees and purposes of God were revealed, may likewise be called the Mind of God, and the Prophets may be said to have the Spirit of God, now though the Mind and Will of God, be Written in our minds, and his Eternal pur­poses and decrees be Engraven on our Hearts; and consequently (to use the Scripture Phrase) we also understand the Mind of God; yet because natural Know­ledge is common to all Men, it is very [Page 24] little esteem'd, and the Iews who valued themselves above all other Nations, ex­treamly despised it, because it was com­mon to all Mankind. Lastly, the Prophets were said to have the Spirit of God, because Men were altogether ignorant of the Causes of Prophetical Knowledge, and did not only admire it, but as they did all o­ther strange and unusual things, as­cribed it to God as the immediate Au­thor of it.

We may then without any scruple affirm, that the Prophets did no other way under­stand the revelations of God, then by the help of imagination; that is by the means of words or signs, and these either real or imaginary: for seeing we find in Scrip­ture, no other means beside these, it is not lawful to suppose or fancy any other: but by what Laws and Rules of Nature it was done, I confess I am utterly igno­rant. I might with others say, it was done by the Power of God; but it would be little to the purpose, and no more then if I should by some unintelligible terms ex­press the form of any thing, all things are done by the Power of God, for the Power of Nature is nothing but the Power of God, and 'tis certain that we therefore do not understand the Power of God, be­cause we are ignorant of natural Causes; [Page 25] and we very foolishly have recourse to the Power of God, when we know not the natural Cause of any thing, (that is) when we are ignorant of Gods Power, but we have now no need of knowing the cause of prophetical Knowledge, for as I have al­ready intimated, we only endeavour to find out what the Scripture teacheth us, that from thence as from the precepts of Nature we may know our Duty, but with the Causes of Scripture-Doctrines we have nothing to do. Seeing then the Prophets by the help of imagination, understood those things which God revealed, there is no doubt but they perceived many things, which were beyond the extent of natural understanding, for from words and signs many more Ideas may be formed, then can be only out of those Principles and No­tions, upon which all our natural Know­ledge is founded.

Hence it is evident, why the Prophets perceived and declared all things paraboli­cally and in dark Speeches, and exprest all spiritual things after a corporal manner, because that doth better sute with the na­ture of the imagination; neither can we now wonder, why the Scripture or the Prophets, spake so improperly and obscure­ly of the Spirit or Mind of God, as Numb. Chap. 11. v. 17. I will come down and talk [Page 26] with thee there; and I will take of the Spirit which is upon thee, and put it on them. Like­wise in the 1 st Book of Kings chap. 22. v. 11. and Zedekiah the Son of Chenaanah made him Horns of Iron, and he said, thus saith the Lord, with these shalt thou push the Syrians till thou hast consumed them, Michah saw God sitting, Daniel saw him like an Old Man cloathed in white Garments, Ezekiel like fire, and they who were with Christ descending like a Dove, the Apostles like Cloven Tongues, and Paul before his Conversion like a great light, all which Visions, agree with those fancies and imaginations, which the vul­gar have of God and of Spirits. Lastly, because the imagination is wandring and unconstant, Prophesy did not long con­tinue with the Prophets, nor was it fre­quent but very rare, and as there were but very few that had it, so likewise 'twas very seldom; we are now to inquire, how the Prophets could be sure of those things, which they perceived only by the strength of imagination, and not by the certain Principles of mental Knowledge: but whatever may be said concerning this Particular, ought to be fetcht from Scrip­ture, tho' (as we have already confest) we have no true knowledge of the thing, and cannot explain it by its first Causes; how­ever [Page 27] what the Scripture declareth con­cerning the truth and certainty of the Prophets. I will shew in the following Chapter, wherein I resolve to treat of Prophets.

IT appears by the preceding Chapter, that the Prophets were not endued with perfection of mind above other Men; but only with strength and vivacity of imagination, which Scripture-Histories abundantly testify: Solomon excell'd all o­thers in Wisdom but not in the gift of Prophesy, Heman, Darda, Kalcoll, tho' Men very Wise, yet were no Prophets, when plain Countrymen who had no Learning, yea Women as Hagar, Abrahams Maid had that gift: which is agreeable both to Reason and Experience; for they who most excel in fancy and imagination, are less apt to understand things clearly, and they that have excellent understand­ings, have their fancy and imagination not [Page 28] so strong, but better kept within compass, that it may not be confounded with the intellect: those Men therefore, who endea­vor out of the Books of the Prophets, to find the true knowledge of Natural and Spiritual things, are extremely mistaken; which I purpose to shew at large, because the Times, Philosophy, and the matter it self requires it. I will not at all value what superstition babbles to the contrary, which hates nothing more then such Men as live good Lives, and are lovers of true solid knowledge; with shame be it spoken, 'tis now come to that pass, that they who free­ly confess, they have no particular Idea of God, and only know him by created Beings (of whose Causes they are Igno­rant,) are presently branded with the Name of Atheists.

To proceed orderly in proving the Point; I will shew, that there was a difference between the Prophets, not only in respect of imagination and temperament of Body, but also in respect of the Opinions where­with they were prepossest; so that they never became the more Learned by Pro­phesy; which I will presently more fully make out, but I must first speak of the Prophets certainty, because it belongs to the Subject of this Chapter, and because it contributes somewhat to the Proof of what I design to demonstrate.

[Page 29]Because simple imagination doth not in its own Nature include certainty, as every clear and distinct Idea doth; there must necessarily some other thing accompany imagination, to make us sure of the things we imagin, and that is reasoning whence it follows, that Prophesy of it self, doth not include certainty; because it depends only upon the imagination, and therefore the Prophets themselves, were not certain of what God revealed, by the Revelation it self, but by some sign; as appears by A­braham Gen. chap. 15. v. 8. And he said, Lord God whereby shall I know that I shall In­herit it? asking a Sign after he heard the promise: without doubt he believed God, and did not ask the sign that he might be­lieve, but that he might be sure the pro­mise came from God. The same thing more plainly appears by Gideon, Judges chap. 6. v. 17, and he said unto him if I have found Grace in thy sight then shew me a Sign, that thou talkest with me. God said to Moses, let this be a sign unto thee, Ezechiah who well knew that Isaiah was a Prophet, asked a sign of him when he foretold his recovery; which shews that the Prophets had always some sign, by which they were certain of the things they Prophetically imagined; and therefore Moses Deut. chap. [Page 30] 18. v. 22. bids the People ask a sign of any that pretend to Prophesy, which sign was to be foretelling some future event. Prophesy therefore in this particular gives Place to Natural knowledge, which needs no sign, but in its own Nature includes certainty; but the certainty of Prophesy, was not Mathematical, but only Moral, which also appears by Scripture Deut. chap. 13. Moses warneth the People, that if any Pro­phet should teach them to Worship any o­ther God, tho' he confirmed his Doctrine by Signs and Miracles, yet the Prophet was to be put to death; for Moses goes on and says that God did by Signs and Miracles prove the People, whether they loved the Lord with all their heart. Christ in like manner warneth his Disciples, telling them Math. chap. 24. v. 24. there should arise false Christs and false Prophets, and should shew great signs and wonders. Eze­chiel chap. 14. v. 9. plainly declares that God sometimes deceives Men with false Revelations; And if the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet; which Mi­chaiah also testifies of the Prophets of Ahab, 1 st. Book of Kings chap. 22. v. 21. 22, 23.

And tho' this shews Prophesy to be a thing somewhat doubtful and uncertain, yet it had a great deal of certainty in it, [Page 31] for God never deceiveth the Godly and Elect, but according to that saying in the 1 st. Book of Sam. chap. 24. v. 13. As saith the Proverb of the Ancients, wickedness pro­ceedeth from the wicked, but my hand shall not be upon thee, and as it likewise appears by the History of Abigal and her discourse, God useth pious Persons as Instruments of his goodness, and wicked Men for Execu­tioners of his wrath, this likewise is made Evident by the Case of the Prophet Michai­ah, for tho' God had decreed Ahab should be deceived by the Prophets, he made use of false Prophets; but to a good Prophet, revealed the Truth of what was to hap­pen, and did not hinder the Prophet from foretelling the Truth; but still the cer­tainty of the Prophet was but Moral, be­cause no Man can justify himself before God, nor boast that he is the Instrument of God, the Anger of God led David to Number the People, whose Piety the Scrip­ture sufficiently declares, all Prophetical certainty was founded upon three Parti­culars. First the Prophets did as strongly, and with as much vivacity imagin the things revealed, as Men waking use to do the things they see; Secondly the certainty of the Prophets was confirm'd by a Sign, and Thirdly because their Minds were continual­ly inclin'd to Vertue and Justice, tho' the [Page 32] Scripture doth not always make mention of the sign, yet we ought to believe the Prophets still had a sign; for the Scripture doth many times leave out circumstances and conditions, and relates things as sup­posed to be known. Moreover, it is to be granted, that the Prophets, who Prophesied nothing new, but what was contain'd in the Law of Moses, had no need of a sign; (for example,) the Prophesy of Ieremy con­cerning the destruction of Ierusalem, needed no sign, because 'twas confirm'd by the Prophesies of the rest of the Prophets, and by the threatnings of the Law; but for the confirmation of Hananiahs Prophesy, who against all the Prophets foretold the sudden Restauration of the City, there was necessi­ty of a sign, till the coming to pass of what he predicted should make it good, Ierem. chap. 28. v. 9, 10.

Seing then the certainty of Prophesy which depended upon signs, was not Ma­thematical (that is such as necessarily fol­low'd from the thing apprehended or seen) but only Moral; and that signs were given to satisfy and convince the Prophet him­self, it likewise follows, that signs were given according to the Opinion and Ca­pacity of the Prophet; so that the sign which made one Prophet confident and cer­tain of his Prophesy, could not assure ano­ther, [Page 33] as the signs were different and vari­ous, so also Revelation it self did vary in every Prophet, according to the disposition of his imagination, the temper of his con­stitution, or the Opinions wherewith he was prepossest, (for example) if a Prophet were chearful and merry, to him were revealed Victories and Peace, which cause Mirth and Gladness; such things using to take up the fancy of such Men, to a Man sad and melancholly were revealed Wars, Plagues and Evils to come; if a Prophet were kind, merciful, chollerique or severe, accordingly were his Revelations: The fancy of the Prophet was also sometimes, the cause that Revelations differed in Stiles for if the Prophet were of an elegant and exalted fancy, the mind of God was made known to him in an eloquent lofty Stile, if the Prophets fancy were obscure and con­fused, so was in like manner his Revelati­on, when Revelations were made to a Country rustick, the signs represented were Oxen, Cows, &c. to a Souldier, Captains and Armies, to a Courtier, Palaces and regal Thrones. Lastly Prophesy varied ac­cording to the Opinions wherewith the Prophets were affected, Math. chap. 11. to the Magi addicted to Astrology, the Nativity of Christ was revealed by a Star appearing in the East, to the Dreamers or Prophets [Page 34] of Nebuchadnezzar was revealed the de­struction of Ierusalem by inspecting the en­trails of Beasts; that King also understood it from Oracles and the Shooting of Arrows into the Air. To Prophets who believed Men had free Will, and Acted according to their will and choise, God revealed himself as indifferent, and ignorant of Mens future Actions, all which Particulars we will singly prove, by Places of Scrip­ture.

First it appears by the 2 d Book of Kings chap. 3. v. 15. that Elisha before he Pro­phesy'd to Iehoram, desired a Minstrel to Play before him, and that till he was pleased with the Music of the Instrument he could not, because he was Angry with the King, foretel what should happen; they who are Angry with any Person, are apt and inclined to imagin Evil rather then good, but they are mistaken who say God is never revealed to Angry and Melancholly Persons; for to Moses who was incensed against Pharaoh, without the help of any Musical Instrument, God revealed that miserable Plague of the death of their first born, Exod. chap. 11. God was revealed to Angry Cain, to angry and impatient Eze­chiel was revealed the misery and obsti­nacy of the Iews, Ezek. chap. 3. v. 14. Ieremy sad and weary of his Life, Pro­phesy'd [Page 35] the Captivity of the Iews, so that Iosiah would not consult him, but sent to a Woman Hilkiah the Prophetess, to whose milder disposition the mercy of God was more likely to be revealed 2 d Book of the Chron. chap. 24. v. 22. Michiah never Pro­phesy'd any good to Ahab (as did some other Prophets in the 1 st Book of the Kings chap. 20. v. 13.) but all his Life time Pro­phesy'd Evil; as plainly appears in the 1 st Book of the Kings, chap. 22. v. 8. and more plainly in the 2 d. Book of Chron. chap. 18. v. 7. the Prophets therefore in respect of the different temperament of their Body, inclined to some Revelations more then to others. The Stile also of Prophesy, dif­fered according to the Eloquence of every Prophet; the Prophesies of Ezekiel and Amos are Written in a lower and less Elegant Stile, then those of Isaiah and Na­hum; and if any who understand the He­brew Tongue, desire to inquire narrowly into these things, let them compare some Chapters one with another of diverse Pro­phets upon the same Subject, and they shall find a great deal of difference in the Stile: compare the first Chapter of the Courtier Isaiah, from the 11 th vers. to the 20 th, with the 5 th chap. of the Herdsman Amos, from the 21 th to the 24 th verse, com­pare the Order and Reasons of the Pro­phesy [Page 36] of Ieremy, which he wrote chap. the 49 th at Edom; with the Order and Rea­sons of Obadiah: compare the 40 th chap. of Isai. v. 19, 20. and his 44 th chap. from verse the 8 th, with the 8 th chap. 6 th verse and the 13 th chap. 2 d. verse, of the Prophet Hosea, if all things be considered, it is very Evident that God had no peculiar Stile of speaking, but according to the Learning and Capacity of the Prophet, it was either Elegant, Concise, Sharp, Rude, Prolix or Obscure: Prophetical Representations and Hierogliphicks were various, tho' they signify'd the same thing: for the Glory of God leaving the Temple, was otherwise represented to Isaiah, then it was to Eze­kiel; the Rabbines would have both re­presentations to be the same, and that Eze­kiel being a Country Man, extraordinarily admired his own; and therefore described it with all its Circumstances: but unless the Rabbines were assured by Faithful Traditi­on the thing was so indeed, we are not bound to believe them; for Isaiah saw Seraphims with six Wings, and Ezekiel Beasts with four, Isaiah saw God clo­thed and sitting upon a Throne, Ezekiel saw him like Fire, both of them without doubt saw God as each was wont to ima­gin Representations also varyed, not on­ly in their manner and form, but in their [Page 37] clearness and perspicuity; for the Repre­sentations made to Zachary were so ob­scure, that they could not be understood by the Prophet himself without Explicati­on, as appears by the Story; and those of Daniel, tho' explain'd, were not under­stood by him, which happened not in Re­spect of the difficulty of the thing revea­led (for it concerned Human Affairs, which exceed not the bounds of Human Capacity but only as they are future) but because Da­niel was not so well able to Prophesy waking, as in his sleep; which appears by his being so terrify'd in the beginning of the Reve­lation, that he was scarce able to stand, and therefore through weakness of imagi­nation and want of strength, things were so obscurely Represented to him, that he could not understand them, tho' they were Expounded, and here it is to be observed, that the Wonders which Daniel heard were only imaginary, and therefore being at that time so much troubled, it is no wonder that he could not understand by words which he so confusedly and ob­scurely imagin'd, but they that say God would not clearly reveal the matter to Daniel, seem not to have read the words of the Angel, who said expresly, Dan. chap. 10. v. 14. Now am I come to make thee understand what shall befal thy People in [Page 38] the latter days, &c. those things therefore remain'd obscure, because at that time there was no Man found, who so much excell'd in the strength and Power of ima­gination, as to have a clearer Revelation made to him. Lastly the Prophets to whom it was revealed that God would take away Eliah, perswaded Elisha that he was only to be Translated to some other place, where he might be found by them; which Evidently proves that they did not right­ly understand Gods Revelation, there is no need of being larger upon these Parti­culars; for nothing is more manifest in Scripture, then that God did bestow upon some Prophets, a much greater Portion of the Gift of Prophesy, then he did upon o­thers; but that Prophesy and Represen­tations differ'd, according to the Opinions which the Prophets maintain'd, and that Prophets were prejudiced with different, yea contrary, Opinions (I mean concerning things meerly Speculative; but as to things relating to honesty and good manners, we ought to think otherwise) I will more ex­actly and fully prove, because 'tis a mat­ter of greater moment, and from thence will conclude, that Prophesy never left the Prophets more Learned, but left them in the Opinions wherewith they were prepos­sest, and for that reason in things meerly [Page 39] Speculative, no Man is obliged to believe them.

Many men have very unadvisedly per­swaded themselves, that the Prophets knew all things, within the compass of Human Understanding, and tho' some places of Scripture tell us plainly, that the Prophets did not know some things; yet they are rather willing to confess, they do not un­derstand those places of Scripture, then yeild the Prophets were Ignorant of any thing; or else they endeavour so to wrest the Words of Scripture, that they would have it say, that which it doth not mean. If either of these be lawful, then Farewel to all Scripture, for in vain do we endea­vour to prove any thing by Scripture, if those things which are most clear in it, shall be reckon'd amongst those that are obscure and unintelligible, or else shall be interpret­ed as we please. (For example) nothing is more plain then that Iosuah, and perhaps he that wrote the Book of Iosuah, did be­live; that the Sun moved about the Earth, that the Earth had no motion, and that the Sun for some time stood still: Yet ma­ny because they will not allow of any muta­tion in the Heavens, so expound that Place, that it shall not seem to imply any such thing; but others, who think themselves better Phylosophers, because they believe [Page 40] the Eatrh moves, and the Sun stands still, or at least moves not about the Earth, do with might and main, endeavour to wrest the Proof of their Opinion, out of the same Scripture against its plain Words: In­deed at these Men, I much wonder, is any Man obliged to believe, that Iosuah a Souldier was perfectly skill'd in Astronomy? and that a Miracle could not be revealed to him, or that the Light of the Sun, could not remain longer above the Horizon then ordinary, unless Iosuah understood the Cause thereof; both seem to me ridiculous, and I had rather plainly say, that Iosuah did not know the true Cause of that continuing Light, and that all the Army with him did think, that the Sun had adiuvrual moti­on about the Earth, and that it's standing still that particular Day was the true Cause of its longer shining; but did not understand, that the great abundance of Hail, which the 11 th. Verse of the 10 th. chap. of Iosuah says, was then in the Re­gion of the Air, might cause a greater re­fraction of Light then ordinary, or some other thing of like Nature, which is not our Business here to inquire. In like manner according to the Capacity of Isaiah, a Sign was given by the Shadow's going back up­on the Dyal of Ahaz, because his Opinion was, that the Sun moved and not the Earth; [Page 41] and for Parhelij perhaps, he never dreamt of any such thing, which we may without any scruple maintain, for the Sign might really happen, and be foretold to the King, though the Prophet were ignorant of the true Cause thereof: The same may be said of Solomon's Building, that if all the mea­sures and Proportions of it were revealed by God, they were revealed according to Solomon's Capacity and Opinion, for seeing we are not bound to believe that Solomon was an exact Mathematician, we may law­fully affirm, that he knew not what pro­portion the Diameter of a Circle ought to bear to the Peripheria or Circumference, but thought with the common sort of Work­men, that it should be as three to one; but if it be lawful to say, that we do not un­derstand the Text in the 1 st. Book of Kings, chap. 7. v. 23. Truly I know not what we can understand from Scripture, since there the Building is simply and historically related; if it be lawful to suppose the Scrip­ture meant otherwise, but, for some Rea­son to us unknown, would write in that manner, what can follow but a total over­throw of all Scripture? and then there is nothing so absurd or wicked, which Ma­lice can invent, that may not under Scrip­ture Authority be countenanced and com­mitted; but what we maintain savors not [Page 42] of Impiety, for Solomon, Isaiah, Ioshua &c. tho' Prophets, were Men subject to Human Infirmities. The drowning of all Mankind by a Deluge, was revealed to Noah accord­ing to his capacity, for he thought no Part of the World was inhabited but Palestine, and the Prophets without any prejudice to their Piety, might be, yea were Ignorant, not only of things of this Nature, but al­so, of Matters of greater consequence, for they discovered very little of the Divine At­tributes, but had mean and Vulgar Opinions of God, to which their Revelations were accommodated; as by many Testimonies of Scripture shall be proved, so that we may plainly see, they were not so much commended for the Excellencies and Subli­mity of their Knowledge, as for their Piety and constancy of Mind.

Adam was the first Man to whom God revealed himself: Yet he knew not that God was Omnipresent and Omniscient; for he hid himself from God and endeavour'd to excuse his Sin to God, as if he had been be­fore a Man; therefore God was revealed to him according to his Opinion and Capaci­ty, that is, as one who was not every where, and as one Ignorant of Adam's Sin; For Adam heard, or seemed to hear God walk­ing in the Garden, calling and asking A­dam where art thou? Asking likewise be­cause [Page 43] Adam was ashamed, whether he had eaten of the forbidden Tree? Adam there­fore knew no other Attribute of God, then that he was the maker of all things. God was revealed to Cain according to his Capacity (that is) as one ignorant of Hu­man Actions, nor did he need any higher Knowledge of God to repent of his Sin. To Laban God revealed himself, as the God of Abraham, because Laban believed that every Nation had a peculiar God, as ap­pears Gen. chap. 31. v. 29. Where he saith to Iacob, the God of your Father spoke to me Yesternight. Abraham was ignorant of God's Vbiquity and Prescience; for as soon as he heard the Sentence against Sodom, he prayed that God would not execute it, till he knew whether all deserved the Punish­ment, Gen. chap. 18 th. v. 24. Peradventure there may be found Fifty righteous within the City. Nor was God otherwise revealed to him, for in Abraham's imagination God said, verse. 21 th. I will go down now and see whether they have done according to the Cry of it, which is come unto me, and if not, I will know. God's Testimony of Abraham in Gen. chap. 12. v. 19. Speaks of nothing but Abraham's Obedience, and that he would command his Children, and his Houshold after him to keep the Way of the Lord, and to do Judgment and Justice; [Page 44] but says nothing of any extraordinary knowledge or Conceptions, that he had of God. Moses did not perfectly know that God was Omniscient, and that Human Actions were govern'd by his Decrees; for tho' God told him, Exod. chap. 3. v. 8. That the Israelites would hearken to his Voice, yet Moses doubted and said in the 1 st. verse of the 4 th. chapter. What if they will not believe me nor hearken to my Voice? And therefore God was revealed to him, as indifferent and ignorant of Mens future Actions, for he gave unto him two Signs and said, Exod. chap. 4. v. 8, 9. And if it shall come to pass they will not believe thee, nor hearken to the Voice of the first Sign, they will believe the Voice of the latter Sign, but if they will not believe the latter Sign, then take of the Water of the River &c. And in­deed if a Man will without prejudice con­sider the Opinions of Moses, it will clearly appear, that Moses thought God a Being that always was, is, and ever shall be; and therefore called him Iehovah, which in Hebrew expresseth those three times of ex­isting; but of his Nature he declared no more, then that he was very merciful, kind and very jealous, as appears in many Pla­ces of the Pentateuch. He believed and taught also, that this Being was so different from all other Beings, that he could not be exprest by the likeness of any other visible [Page 45] Thing; that he was invisible, not because he thought beholding him was in it self im­possible; but only in respect of Human Frailty, he thought also that this Being was in regard of his own Power, single and but one, he allow'd that there were other Be­ings, which by the Order and Command of God, were God's Substitutes and Vice­gerents (that is) Beings to whom God gave Power and Authority to govern Nati­ons, to provide for and take care of them; but Moses declared the Being, which the Iews were bound to worship, to be the most high God (that is) in the Hebrew Phrase, the God of all Gods; therefore Mo­ses in his Song, Exod. chap. 15. v. 11. saith, who is like unto thee O Lord amongst the Gods! and Iethro Exod. chap. 18. v. 11. saith, Now I know that the Lord is greater then all Gods (that is) I must acknowledge with Moses, that Iehovah is greater then all Gods, and of Singular Power: but whether Moses believed, that the Beings which were God's Vicegerents were created by God, may be doubted, since he said nothing (that we know) of their Creation or Original. Another of Moses's Doctrines was, that this being out of a Chaos, Gen. chap. 1 st. v. 2. brought this Visible World into Form and Order, furnished Nature with the Seeds of all things, and therefore hath absolute Pow­er and Authority over all things, as it is [Page 46] Deut. chap. 10. v. 14, 15. And by that ab­solute Power, chose the Iewish Nation for himself, and appointed a Particular Place of the Earth for their Habitation, Deut. chap. 4. v. 19. and chap. 32. v. 8. But o­ther Nations and Countries, he left to the care of other Gods substituted by him, and therefore God was called the God of Is­rael, and the God of Ierusalem, 2 d. Book of Chron. chap. 32. v. 19. And other Gods were called the Gods of the Nations: For this Reason the Jews believed, that the Country which God chose for them, re­quired a particular and different worship of God, from that of other Countries, nor would they suffer the worship of other Gods, or any worship proper to other Countries to be exercised amongst them, it was believed that the People whom the King of Assyria brought into the Country of the Iews, were devoured by Lyons, be­cause they knew not the manner of the worship of the God of the Land, 2 d. Book of Kings chap. 17. v. 24, 25. It is the O­pinion of Aben Ezra, that Iacob upon this Ground, when he was about returning into his own Country, commanded his Sons to put away the Gods of the Land in which they were; and prepare themselves for a new Way of Worship, Gen. chap. 35. v. 23. David told Saul, because he was by Perse­cution [Page 47] compell'd to forsake his Country, that he was driven out from the Inheritance of the Lord, and sent to serve other Gods 1 st. Book of Sam. chap. 26. v. 19. Lastly, Moses believed that God had his Habitation in the Heavens, Deut. chap. 33. v. 26 Which was a frequent Opinion among the Heathen. Now if we carefully observe the Revelations of Moses, we shall find them fitted and suited to those Conceptions and Opinions which he had of God: be­cause he believed that God's Nature was Gracious, Merciful, Longsuffering &c. Therefore according to this Opinion, and these Attributes was God revealed to him, Exod. chap. 34. v. 6, 7. Where it is decla­red why God appeared to him: also Exod. chap. 20. v. 4, 5. In Exod. chap. 33. v. 18. We read that Moses desired to see God, but because Moses, as hath been already said, had formed in his imagination no Likeness or Figure of God, and as I have already shewed, God was not revealed to the Pro­phets, but according to the disposition of their Fancy and Imagination, therefore God appeared to him under no Image or Similitude, and the Reason of it was, be­cause 'twas repugnant and contrary to the imagination of Moses; but other Pro­phets, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel testify that they saw God. Moses was answered [Page 48] by God in the 20 th Verse of the 33. Chap. of Exod. thou canst not see my Face; and because Moses believed that God was visi­ble (that is it imply'd no contradiction in the Divine Nature to be so) else he had never made such a request, therefore God also answer'd, no Man shall see my Face and live, giving a Reason suitable to Moses's Opinion; for God did not say that his Divine Nature was in it self invisible, and impossible to be seen; as indeed it is, but that it could not be seen because of hu­man Weakness and Frailty. After the Israelites had worshipt the Golden Calf, that God might reveal to Moses the Is­raelites should become like other Nations, God tells him, Exod. Chap. 33. v. 2, 3. that he would send an Angel (that is a Being) who instead of the supreme Being, should take care of the Israelites; but that he himself would be no more in the midst of them: and from this Moses was to con­clude, that the Israelites were thenceforth not to be beloved by God any more then other Nations, who were committed to the care of Angels or other Beings, as appears by the 16 th Verse of the Chapter. Lastly, because Moses believed that God dwelt in Heaven, therefore was God re­vealed as descending from Heaven upon Mount Sinai, and Moses that he might [Page 49] speak with God ascended the Mount, which he needed not to have done, had he thought God to be in all places: The Israelites knew very little of God, tho' he was revealed to them; as was sufficiently manifested, by their bestowing on a Calf, the Honour and Worship due to God; and by saying to that Calf, these be thy Gods, O Israel, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. Nor is it to be believed, that Men accustomed to the Superstitions of Egypt, Ignorant and broken to the Yoke of a tedious Bondage, should have any right Understanding of God; or that Moses should teach them any thing more, then a peculiar manner and way of living; not instructing them as a Philosopher, to make living well their free and voluntary choice; but as a Legislator compelling them by the Commands and Power of Law: So that a good Life, the Love and Service of God, was to them rather Ser­vitude then true Liberty, or the Grace and Gift of God: for Moses Commanded them to love God and keep his Law; that they might acknowledge their deliverance out of Egypt to be by God, he terrifyed them with threatnings in case they Transgrest the Law, and promis'd them many Blessings, if they carefully observed it; So that he dealt with the Israelites, as Parents use to [Page 50] do with Children void of Reason, which is an Evidence, that they were ignorant, how Excellent a thing Vertue is, and what was true happiness. Ionas thought he could fly from the presence of God, which imply'd, that he also believed God had substituted other Powers, to take care of those Countries and Nations which were not within the Territories of Iudea, in all the Old Testament, we read of no Person who spoke so rationally of God as Solomon, who for natural Knowledge excell'd all the Men of his time, and therefore thought himself above the Law (which was only given to those who wanted the dictates of Reason and natural Understanding) and slighted the observance of those Laws, which particularly concern'd him as he was King, and consisted in three Particu­lars, as may be seen, Deut. Chap. 17. v. 16, 17. he was indeed to blame in breaking those Laws, and did not do like a Philoso­pher, when he deliver'd himself up to pleasure and sensuality; yet we read in Ecclesiastes, he declared all the Goods of Fortune to be Vanity, and that nothing is to be so highly prized as Wisdom and Un­derstanding, and no punishment equal to a Mans being a Fool, Prov. Chap. 17. But let us return to the Prophets, of whose differing Opinions we have taken notice, [Page 51] the Rabbines who have left us the Books of the Prophets now extant, found the Opinions of Ezekiel so contrary to those of Moses, as may be seen in the Treatise of the Sabbath ( Chap. 1 st fol. 13. page 2 d.) that they were near resolving not to receive the Book of Ezekiel for Canonical, and had conceal'd it, if a certain Person called Hananiah, had not undertaken to expound it, which some report he did with great Labour and Study; so that 'tis not certain whether it were a Commentary he wrote, and was perhaps lost, or that he changed and glossed upon Ezekiels words and dis­courses, according to his own fancy; how­ever it was, the 18 th Chapter of Ezekiel doth not seem to agree with the 34 Chap. of Exod. v. 7; nor with the 32 Chap. of Ieremy v. 18. Samuel believed that when God had decreed any thing, he never re­pented or changed that decree, 1 st Book of Sam. Chap. 14. v. 29; Saul when he re­pented of his Sin and desired to worship God; Samuel told him God would not change his Decree, but the contrary was revealed to Ieremy, for when ever God decreed good or evil to any Nation, if Men became either better or worse, before the Execution of the Sentence, God did accordingly alter his decrees, Ierem. Chap. 18. v. 8, 10. the Prophet Ioel beleived that [Page 52] God repented of the Evil which he at any time decreed, Io. Chap. 2. v. 13. in the 4 th Chap. of Gen. v. 7. it clearly appears, that it is in Mans Power to overcome Evil Temptations, and to live well by what God said to Cain, who notwithstanding as we find in Scripture and in Iosephus, ne­ver subdued his Passions, by the forecited Text in Ieremy, we may conclude that God changeth his purposes either of doing good or evil, according to Mens living well or wickedly; yet on the contrary, St. Paul teacheth nothing more plainly, then that Men have no Power over themselves, against the Temptations and Lusts of the Flesh, but by the particular Mercy and E­lection of God; as may be seen in the 9 th Chapter to the Romans from the 10 th Verse onward; in the 3 d Chap. v. 3 d, where he asketh whether God be unrighteous in taking vengeance, he Corrects himself in speaking after that manner like a Man.

From what hath been alledged, we have sufficiently proved what we proposed, namely that God fitted and suted his Re­velations according to the Capacity and Opinions of the Prophets; and that they might be and indeed were, ignorant of things meerly speculative, which did not pertain to Charity and a godly Life, that the Prophets were also of very different [Page 53] Opinions, and consequently in the Know­ledge of Natural and Spiritual things, we are not to rely and ground our selves upon them: We conclude then, that we are not bound to believe any thing more from the Prophets, then the end and substance of what they revealed; and that in other things, it is free for a Man to believe as he thinks best, (for example) Cains Revelation teacheth us, that God did admonish him to live well, which was the intent end, and substance of the Revelation; but it doth not declare to us the freedom of Mans Will, or any other Philosophical Matter; therefore tho' in the Words and Reasons of that Admonition, freedom of Will seem to be clearly asserted, yet 'tis lawful to be of a contrary Opinion, since those Words and Reasons, were only applyed and suited to the Capacity of Cain. The Pro­phet Michaiahs Revelation only declared, what should be the Event of the Battle between Ahaband Aram; and therefore we are only bound to believe that; but what­ever else was contain'd in that Revelation concerning the true and lying Spirit of God; or concerning the Host of Heaven standing on each side of God, with other Circumstances in that Revelation; they do not at all concern us, but every one may believe of them as he thinks most agree­able [Page 54] to Reason, the same may be said of the Reasons declared to Iob, for God's having absolute Power over all things, if it be true that they were a Revelation, and that he Writ as an Historian and not (as some be­lieve) like a Poet: they were revealed ac­cording to Iobs Capacity, for his parti­cular Conviction, but they were not in­tended as Universal Reasons to convince all Men; nor are we to determin other­wise of the Reasons used by Christ, to convince the Pharisees of their Ignorance and Obstinacy, and to perswade his Dis­ciples to live righteously; all those Rea­sons were accommodated to the Opinions and Principles of the Persons to whom they were urged (for example) when Christ said to the Pharisees, Mat. Chap. 12 v. 26. If Satan cast out Satan he is divided against himself, how then shall his Kingdom stand, here Christ convinceth the Pharisees, from their own Principles and Opinions, who said he cast out Devils by Belzebub the Prince of Devils; but we ought not to conclude, that Christs Words are an ab­solute proof, that there are Devils and a Kingdom of Devils. So also when he said to his Disciples, Matth. Chap. 18. v. 10. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little Ones, for I say unto you, that in Heaven their Angels do always behold the Face of my Fa­ther [Page 55] which is in Heaven, by these Words Christ taught nothing more, then that they ought not to be proud, or despise any one, whatever else was faid, was only the better to perswade his Disciples, the same may be said of the Signs and Dis­courses of the Apostles; nor need we say more of this Subject, because it would be extreamly tedious to Quote all those places of Scripture which are Writen only Ad ho­minem, or according to Mens Capacity; and with a great prejudice to Philosophy, are maintain'd to be Divine Doctrines. 'Tis sufficient to have mention'd these few general ones, the Curious Reader may himself examine the rest; but seeing all those things which I have spoken concern­ing Prophets and Prophesy, do directly con­cern the thing I aimed at, which was to divide Philosophy from Theology; yet because I have only touched upon the question generally, I will now in the fol­lowing Chapter, inquire whether the Gift of Prophesy were peculiar only to the Iews, or common to all Nations? And also what is to be understood by the calling of the Iews.

EVery Mans prosperity and true hap­piness consists only in the fruition of good, but not in the glory, that he a­lone and no other Person enjoys that good; for whoever thinks himself the more hap­py, because it is well with him when it is not so with other Men; or because he is more fortunate and prosperous then o­thers, is ignorant what is true felicity and beatitude; and the joy which ariseth from such a conceit is Childish, and savors of an envious Evil Mind (for ex­ample) Mans true beatitude and felicity, consists only in Wisdom and the know­ledge of Truth, but not in his being wiser then other Men, or that other Men want true knowledge; for that adds not at all [Page 57] to his Wisdom, which is his true happiness, he therefore that rejoyceth in being hap­pyer then other Men, takes Pleasure in their misfortune, and is an envious Evil Man; and he that is so, never knew true Wisdom or the Peace of a good Life; seeing therefore, that the Scripture for the better perswading the Iews to obey the Law, saith Deut. chap. 10 v. 19. that God chose them above all People, and was nigher to them then to all other Nations Deut. chap. 4. v. 7. that he gave them Sta­tutes and Laws more righteous and just, then he did to other Nations, as it is in the 8 th Verse of the same chap. and lastly, that God made himself more known to them then to o­ther People, as it is in the 32 th verse of the 4 th chap. All this was spoken according to the capacity and understanding, of those that did not know what was true blessed­ness, as we have shewn in the foregoing Chapter, and as Moses himself, testifies in Deut. chap. 9. v. 6, 7. for the Iews had not been less blessed, tho' God had equally called all Men to Salvation, nor had God been less gracious to them, tho' he had been as nigh to other Nations; their Laws had not been less righteous, nor they less wise, tho' the same had been prescribed to all other People, and the Miracles done among them had not less [Page 58] declared Gods Power, tho' the like had been wrought for other Nations; nor had the Iews been the less obliged to serve and Worship God, tho' God had equally given to all other Men the same Gifts which he bestow'd on them. God's saying to Solo­mon (in the 1 st Book of Kings chap. 3. v. 12.) that none after him should be ever like him for understanding, seems to be only a manner of speaking to declare the excellency of Solomons Wisdom; what ever the words mean, yet we ought not to believe, that to increase Solomons happiness, God promis'd never to make any Man so wise as he; for that would not at all have made Solomons Wisdom greater, neither would a wise King have given God the less thanks, tho' God had said, he would bestow as much Wisdom upon all other Men.

But tho' we say, that Moses in the fore­cited places of the Pentateuch, spake ac­cording to the Capacity of the Iews; yet we cannot deny but that God prescribed those Laws of the Pentateuch to the Iews only, that he spoke only to them, and that no other Nation ever saw such miracles as were wrought amongst them, all that I intend is, that Moses spake after such a manner, and made use of such arguments, the better to convince their Childish un­derstandings, [Page 59] and bind them the faster to the service and worship of God. Lastly, we will shew, that the Iews did not ex­cel other Nations in knowledge or Piety, but in some other thing; or (that I may with Scripture speak to their Capacity) God did not make choise of the Iews above other Nations, that their knowledge might be more sublime, or their Lives more righteous then other Peopl's, but for an­other end and purpose; and what that was, we will in order declare.

But before I begin, I will in few words explain, what I mean in that which fol­lows, by Gods disposing and direction, what by Gods external and internal as­sistance, what by Gods calling or Election. And Lastly, what I intend by fortune, I take Gods disposing or direction, to be the fixed order and immutable course of Nature, or the Concatenation of Natural things and causes; for we have already shewn, that the universal Laws of Nature, whereby all things are done and deter­min'd, are nothing else but Gods eternal decrees, which imply eternal verity and necessity: therefore whether we say, that all things are done and brought to pass, according to the Laws of Nature, or by the ordination and decree of God, we say but one and the same thing; because the [Page 60] Power of all Natural beings, is nothing else, but the Power of God by which all things were ordered and done, it therefore follows, that whatever Man, who is a part of Nature, doth for the preservation of his being, or whatever Nature without any indeavour of his, offers him for that end; it is offered by the divine Power, operating either by human Nature, or by things without it: so that whatever hu­man Nature can perform by its own Pow­er for self preservation, that may be truly called Gods internal assistance, and that benefit and advantage which Man re­ceives from the Power of external causes, may be justly termed Gods external help: which fully explains what is to be under­stood by Gods calling or Election; for since no Man can do any thing but by the predeterminate order of Nature, that is according to Gods eternal direction and decree, it is a necessary consequence, that no Man chuseth for himself any way or manner of living, or effecteth any thing, but by the particular Will and Calling of God, who chose him before others, so to live, and so to Act. Lastly by fortune nothing else is to be understood, but Gods disposing and directing human Affairs, by external and unexpected Causes. These things premised, we return to our first [Page 61] purpose, of inquiring what it was, for which the Iews are said to be chosen by God before other Nations, and to make it out, I proceed in this manner.

All those things which we can honestly and lawfully desire, may be referred to these three Heads. First, to know things by their first and immediate Causes. Secondly. to Master our Passion and affections, and acquire a constant habit of vertue, and Lastly, to live in Bodily health and safty. The means directly conducing to the two first of these heads, and which may be consider'd as prime and efficient causes; are contained in human Nature; so that the obtaining of them is within our Power, or cheifly depends upon the Laws only of human Nature: and therefore it must be concluded, that those gifts are not pe­culiar to any one Nation, but were always common to all Mankind, unless we can perswade our selves, that Nature first pro­created diverse kinds of Men; but the means which conduce to our living in health and safty, consist cheifly in things external, and are therefore called the gifts and goods of Fortune, because they depend upon the disposition of outward causes, of which we are altogether ignorant, so that in this particular, the Fool and the wise Man is alike happy or unhappy, yet [Page 62] as to secure living and to avoid the in­juries both of Men and Beasts, human wis­dom and diligence may contribute very much; reason and experience teach us, that to live in safty, there is no way so ready and certain, as to form Societies Subject to Laws, to chuse a convenient part of the Earth for habitation, and to unite every individual Person's strength, to pre­serve the whole Collective Body: but to the forming and preserving of Societies, no little wisdom and diligence is required; and therefore that Society shall be more secure, more lasting, and less Subject to Fortune and Accidents, which is founded and ordered by prudent and careful Men; and on the contrary, those Societies which are formed and govern'd by Men of gross and mean understandings, do for the most part depend upon Fortune, and are of no long continuance; but where such a So­ciety stands long, it owes its duration not to its own, but to some other conduct, and if it overcome great dangers, and the Affairs thereof prosper, it cannot but ad­mire and adore Gods disposing and order­ing things (by external and hidden causes, when he doth not Act by human Nature and Understanding) seeing what­ever happens to such a Society of Men be­yond their Expectation and Opinion, may be counted a Miracle.

[Page 63]Nations therefore are distinguisht one from another, in respect of Society and Laws, under which they live and are govern'd; so that the Iewish Nation was not chosen by God before others, in re­spect of their understanding and tranquility of mind, but in regard of their association and Fortune, by which they arriv'd to that government which lasted so many Years, it manifestly appears by Scripture, that the Iews excelled other Nations only in the prosperous management of those Af­fairs, which concern'd their Living Securely, and that they overcame great dangers only by Gods external Assistance; but in other things they were but equal to other Na­tions, and God was alike good to all, it is evident as we have proved in the pre­ceding Chapter, that the Iews as to their knowledge, had very vulgar Notions and thoughts of God; and therefore as they were not chosen above others, upon the account of their knowledge; so neither were they chosen in respect of their vertue and good Life, for in that they were but like other Nations, and but a very few of them were chosen; their calling and election, consisted in the temporal felicity and advantages of their govern­ment, neither can we perceive, that God promis'd any more to the Patriarchs and [...] [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [Page 64] their successors, yea by the Law, nothing else was promised for a reward to obedi­ence, but the continual prosperity of their Government and some other bene­fits of this Life: in case of disobedience and breach of Covenant, they were threatned with the ruin of the Govern­ment, temporal misery and destruction, and no wonder; for the end of all Society and Government, (as hath been already and shall hereafter be more fully declared) is to live in Happiness and Security. But Government cannot subsist without Laws which every Man must obey, for when the Members of a Society refuse to be go­vern'd by the Laws, in that very instant the Society is dissolved, and the Govern­ment destroyed, to the Commonwealth of the Iews, nothing else could be pro­mised for the constant Observation of their Law, but the safety, benefits and conve­niences of this Life, and for their Re­bellion no other punishment was prophe­sy'd, but the destruction of their Govern­ment, the Miseries which would thereupon ensue, and perhaps some other Evils which might peculiarly happen to them from the ruin of their Government, which was singular and different from others, but of these things we need say no more at this time, I only add, that the Laws of the [Page 65] Old Testament, were revealed and pre­scribed only to the Iews, for when God called and chose them to a particular kind of Society and Government, they were necessarily to have singular Laws; whether God prescribed peculiar Laws to other Na­tions, and revealed himself prophetically to their Law-givers, under those attributes which they in their imagination used to ascribe to God, I am not certain; however it appears by Scripture, that other Nati­ons had Governments and particular Laws by the external direction of God, to prove which I will only quote two places, Gen. chap. 14. v. 18, 19, 20. where it is said, that Melchisedech was King of Salem, and the priest of the most high God, and that he blessed Abraham, which (as we may see Numb. chap. 6. v. 23.) was the Priests Of­fice, and Abraham the beloved of God gave to the High Priest the tenth part of all his booty; which plainly proves, that before God founded the Iewish Nation, he con­stituted Kings and Priests in Ierusalem, and prescribed them Laws and Ceremonies: but whether he did it prophetically I cannot affirm, however I am perswaded, that A­braham while he continued there, liv'd re­ligiously according to those Laws; for A­braham received no particular Religious Rites from God, and yet it is said Gen. chap, [Page 66] 26. v. 5. that Abraham kept the Command­ments, Statutes, and Laws of God, which must necessarily be those of King Mel­chisedch. Malachy chap. 1 st. v. 10, 11. God there reproves the Iews saying, who is there even among you that would have shut the Doors for nought? (meaning of the Temple) neither do ye kindle fire on my Altar for nought, I have no Pleasure in you saith the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept an Offering at your hand, for from the Rising of the Sun to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name shall be great a­mong the heathen saith the Lord of Hosts, which words sufficiently testify unless we wrest their sense, that at that time, the Iews were not more beloved of God then other Nations, that God was made known more to other Nations by Miracles, then he was at that time to the Iews who then without Miracles, recovered again in part their Government, and that other Nati­ons had Religious Rites and Ceremonies, wherewith God was well pleased; but these things I pass by, it being sufficient for my purpose to have shewn, that the E­lection of the Iews concerned nothing else, but the temporal well fare of their Bodies, their Liberty, Government, or the ways and [Page 67] means by which it was erected; conse­quently their Laws as they were neces­sary to the Establishment of that par­ticular kind of Government, and Lastly, the manner how those Laws were revealed: but as to all other things, wherein the Hap­pyness of Man's Life consists, they were but equal to other Nations. Seeing then the Scripture Deut. chap. 4. v. 7. Saith, that no Nation had God so nigh unto them as the Iews. That must be understood only in Respect of the Government, and of that time only in which so many Miracles hap­pened; but in Respect of Knowledge and Vertue which is true Happyness, God (as we have already proved) was equally Gracious to all Men, which is evident in Scripture, for the Psalmist saith, Psal. 145. v. 18. The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all them that call upon him in Truth: also in the same Psal. v. 9. The Lord is good to all, and his tender Mercies are over all his Works. Psal. 33. v. 15. He fashioneth Mens Hearts alike. The meaning of which Expression is, that God gives to all Mankind the same Intellect; for among the Iews, as 'tis well known, the Heart was believed to be the Seat of the Soul and Understanding. It appears Iob chap. 28. v. 28. That the Law prescribed by God to all Mankind, was to fear the Lord, depart [Page 68] from evil and to do well, and therefore Iob, tho' a Gentile, was very acceptable to God, and excell'd in Religion and Piety: Lastly, it is plain by the 4 th. chap. of Ionah. v. 21. That God was not only to the Iews, but to all Men, Gracious, Merciful, slow to Anger, and of great Kindness, which are the Words of Moses, Exod. chap. 34. v. 6. So that Ionah said, he fled to Tarshish, because he knew God being Merciful and Gracious, would pardon the Ninevites, who were Gentiles. We then conclude, seeing God is equally good to all Mankind, and that the Iews were only chosen by God in respect of their Society and Government; that every particular Iew considered as a Person out of that Common-weath and Government, had no Gift of God above other Men, nor was there any difference be­tween a Iew and a Gentile. If God be equal­ly good and gracious to all Men, and that the Duty and Office of a Prophet, was not so much to instruct Men in the particu­lar Laws of their Country, as to teach them the Way to good and Vertuous liv­ing; there is no doubt but all Nations had their Prophets, and that the Gift of Pro­phesy was not peculiar to the Iews: which is proved by Profane, as well as by Sacred, Hi­stories. Tho' in the Sacred Histories of the Old Testament, it doth not plainly appear, [Page 69] that other Nations had so many Prophets as the Iews, or that any Gentile Prophet was expresly sent by God to other Nations; nothing is to be inferr'd from thence, be­cause the Iews only took care, to write the History of their own Affairs, and not of other Nations. It is enough that in the Old Testament, we find that Gentiles, and Men uncircumcised as Noah, Enoch, Abi­meleck, and Balaam did Prophesy; and that also the Iewish Prophets, were not only sent by God to their own People, but like­wise to other Nations. Ezekiel Prophesy'd to all the Nations known in his Time, and Obadiah, for ought we know, to none but the Edomites. Ionah was a Prophet chief­ly to the Ninevites, Isaiah did not only la­ment and foretel the Calamities, and Pro­phesy the Restauration of the Iews, but al­so of other Nations, for he saith chap. 16. v. 9. Therefore will I bewail with the weep­ing of Iazer. In chap. 19. He first fore­telleth the Calamities, and afterwards the Restauration of the Egyptians; in the 19, 20, 21, 25. Verses, he tells them God would send them a Saviour, and would deliver them, that God should be known to them, and that they should worship God by Sa­crifices and Oblations; and Lastly, he calls Egypt the Blessed People of God, all which is very worthy of our Observation. Last­ly, [Page 70] Ieremy was not only a Prophet to the Iews, but was in Express Terms called the Prophet of the Nations. Ierem. chap. 1 st. v. 5. Before thou camest out of the Womb, I sanctify'd thee, and ordained thee a Prophet to the Nations. He Prophetically be wayl'd and foretold, the Restauration of other Nations, he saith, chap. 48. v. 31. There­fore will I howl for Moab, I will cry out for all Moab, and v. 36. Therefore my Heart shall sound for Moab like Pipes. And afterward foretels the Restauration of the Egyptians, the Amonites and Elamites. Without que­stion other Nations had their Prophets as well as the Iews, tho' the Scripture mentions only Balaam, to whom was revealed what should befal other Nations, as well as the Iews; Yet we are not to believe, that Ba­laam never Prophesy'd till he was sent for by Balaack; it appears by the story, that he was Famous for Prophesy, and other Di­vine Endowments; for Balaack said to him Numb. chap. 22. v. 6. I know, he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed. So that he had the same Power and Vertue, which God Gen. chap. 12. v. 3. bestowed upon Abraham. Balaam also an­swers Balaack's Messengers, as one accusto­med to Prophesy; for he bid them stay all Night till the Word of God were reveal­ed to him; when he Prophesyed, (that [Page 71] is) made known what was truly the Mind and Will of God, he used to say these Words. He hath said, who heard the Words of God, and knew the. Knowledge of the most high, who saw the Vision of the Almighty salling into a Trance, but having his Eyes o­pen. Lastly, after he had by Gods Command blessed the Israelites, he began as he was wont to Prophesy of other Nations, fore­telling what should happen to them in time to come, all which fully proves, that he had been always a Prophet, or had often Prophesyed; and what is further to be ob­served, that he likewise had that which made the Prophets certain of the truth of their Prophesy, namely an honest and good Mind, for he did not as Balaack thought, curse and bless whom he would, but only those that were to be blessed or curst as God pleased; therefore he answered Ba­laack, if Balaack would give me his House full of Gold, I cannot go beyond the Command­ment of the Lord, to do either good or bad of mine own Mind, but what the Lord saith that will I speak; as for Gods being angry with him, it was no more then happen'd to Moses, when by Gods Command he went into Egypt, Exod. Chap. 4. v. 24. where it is said, the Lord met him and sought to kill him, his taking Mony to Prophesy was no more then was done by Samuel, 1 st [Page 72] Book of Sam. chap. 9. v. 7, 8. St. Peter in his 2 d Epistle Chap. 2. v. 15, 16. and Iude in the 11 th Verse of his Epistle tells us, in what Balaam sinned, but what saith the 20 th Verse of the 7 th Chap. of Ec­clesiastes, No Man so just upon Earth who al­ways doth good and never Sins: certainly the Prayers of Balaam were very prevalent, seeing 'tis so often recorded in Scripture, that for a Testimony of God's Mercy to the Israelites, he refused to hear Balaam, and turned his Curses into a Blessing, as we may see, Deut. Chap. 23. v. 5. Iosh. Chap. 24. v. 10. and Neh. Chap. 13. v. 2. So that without question he was a Person very ac­ceptable to God, who is never moved with the Prayers or Curses of wicked Men. See­ing therefore that Balaam was a true Pro­phet, and that notwithstanding, Ioshua Chap. 4. v. 22. calls him a Southsayer, yet that name was sometimes taken in a good Sense, and those that the Gentiles called Augurs or Diviners, were true Prophets, and those whom the Scripture Condemns for false Diviners, were they that deceived the Nations, as the false Prophets did the Iews, which clearly appears out of other places of Scripture. We therefore con­clude that the Gift of Prophesy, was not peculiar to the Iews, but common to all Nations; but the Pharisees zealously main­tain [Page 73] the contrary, and say that the Iews only had that Divine Gift, and that other Nations did foretel future Events (what will not Superstition invent) by I know not what Diabolical Power and Arts: the place of greatest Authority in the Old Testa­ment, which the Pharisees quote for the Confirmation of their Opinion, is Exod. Chap. 33. v. 16. where Moses saith to God, Wherein shall it be known here that I and thy People have found Grace in thy sight: is it not in that thou goest with us, so shall we be seperated I and thy People from all the People that are upon the face of the Earth. Hence the Pharisees infer that Moses Petitioned God, to be present with the Iews, that he would prophetically reveal himself to them, and that he would not grant that Favour to any other Nation, certainly it is very ridiculous to think, Moses envyed the presence of God to other Nations and People, or that he durst desire any such thing, but the truth of the Case was, that after Moses knew the obstinate disposition and Rebellious Mind of his Nation, he clearly saw that without very great Mi­racles, and the particular external Assistance of God, he should never perfect what he had begun; but that they must all neces­sarily perish without such Assistance; and therefore that it might appear God would [Page 74] preserve them, he prayed for that extraor­dinary external Aid from God, for he saith, Exod. Chap. 34. v. 9. If now I have found Grace in thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord I pray thee go among us for it is a stiffnecked People, the reason therefore why Moses de­sired that particular external help from God, was because the People were stub­born and disobedient, and that Moses de­sired no more then this external Assistance, appears evidently by Gods Answer, v. 10. of the same Chapter, Behold I make my Co­venant before all thy People, I will do Miracles such as have not been done in all the Earth nor in any Nation: So that Moses here treat­eth of the Election of the Iews only in that Sense I have explain'd it, and requested no other thing of God, but I find another Text in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Chap. 3. v. 12. which much more satisfies me, tho' he seem to be of a disserent O­pinion from mine; for he saith, what Ad­vantages hath the Jew or what profit is there in Circumcision? much every way, chiefly be­cause unto them were Committed the Oracles of God. But if we carefully consider the Doctrine which Paul chiefly design'd to maintain, we shall find it so far from con­tradicting mine, that it perfectly agrees with it; for he saith, v. 29 th. of the same Chap. Is he the God of the Jews only, is he not also of the Gentiles? And chap. 2. v. 25, 26. he [Page 75] saith, if the Circumcised break the Law, Cir­cumcision is made Vncircumcision, and if the Vncircumcised keep the Righteousness of the Law, shall not his Vncircumcision be counted for Circumcision? He further saith, v. 9. of the same Chapter, that both Iews and Gen­tiles were all under Sin, but there can be no Sin where there is no Commandment or Law. 'Tis evident that the Law was absolutely reveal'd to all Mankind (as I have already shewn by the 28 th. v. of the 28 th Chap. of Iob) under which all Men lived; namely that Universal Law which obligeth all Men to live a virtuous and good Life; and not that particular Law, which was ordain'd for the Constitution and Advantage of any single Government, and was suited to the disposition of only one particular People. Lastly, Paul concludes, because God is the God of all Nations, that is equally good to all Mankind; and because all were equally under the Law and Sin, therefore God sent Christ to all Nations, that he might free all from the Bondage of the Law, that for the future they might do well, not by the compulsi­on of Law, but by their own free will: So that Paul makes good my Doctrine to a tittle, by his saying that the Oracles of God were Committed to the Jews, we are to understand that the Laws which were given to other Nations, by Revelation and [Page 76] internal Communication to their Minds, were delivered to the Jews in Writing; or we must say, (that seeing Paul endeavour'd to confute that which only the Iews could Object) he answer'd according to the un­derstanding, and the then received Opini­on of the Jews, the better to insinuate those things which he had partly heard and seen, because with the Grecians he be­came a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew. No­thing now remains, but answering the Ob­jections of some Men, who perswade them­selves that the Election of the Jews, was not temporal only, and in respect to their Government, but eternal: they say that the Jews after the loss of their Government, tho' so many Years dispersed and divided among all Nations, still survive and are yet in being, which never happen'd to any other Nation; that the Scripture in many places seems to declare, that God chose them to be his People for ever, and that tho' they have lost their Government and Commonwealth, they are still Gods Elect: the places of Scripture which they think most clearly prove this eternal Election, are chiefly the 36. v. of the 31 Chapter of Jerem. where the Prophet testifies, that the Seed of Israel should continue Gods People for ever, by comparing them with the im­mutable and fixed order of Heaven and [Page 77] Nature. Thus saith the Lord [...] giveth the Sun for a Light by Day, and the Ordi­nances of the Moon and Stars for a Light by Night, who divideth the Sea when the Waves thereof Roar; if these Ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the Seed of Is­rael also shall cease from being a Nation be­fore me for ever. The second place of Scrip­ture is, Ezek. Chap. 20. from the 32. Verse onward, where God seemeth to declare, that tho' the Iews should willfully depart from his Worship, yet he would gather them again from all Countries where they should be scatter'd, and would lead them into the Wilderness of the People, as he did their Fathers into the Wilderness of Egypt, and after he had separated from them the Rebels and Transgressors, he would bring them into his Holy Mountain, where all the House of Israel should serve him, there are other places of Scripture cited by the Pharisees, but in answering these two, I think I shall clear all others, which will be easily done, after I have proved by Scripture, that Gods choice of the Iews was not eternal, but on the same Conditions that he before chose the Ca­naanites, who also, as we have shewn, had a High Priest, who Religiously Worshipt God, and yet were at last rejected by God for their Luxury, Sloth and Idolatry. Moses, [Page 78] Levit. chap. 18. v. 27, 28. warneth the Is­raelites, that they should not pollute them­selves with Incest and other Abominations, as did the Canaanites, least the Land spew­ed them out as it did the Nations before them, and Moses Deut. chap. 8. v. 19, 20. in express Words threatens their total De­struction; I testify against you this day, that ye shall surely perish as the Nations which the Lord destroyeth before your Face, so shall ye perish because ye would not be obedient unto the Voice of the Lord your God, and to this purpose, there are other places in the Law, which shew, that Gods Election of the Iews was not eternal, if therefore the Prophets foretold them, of a new everlasting Co­venant of the Knowledge, Love and Fa­vour of God, it is manifest that it was promised only to those, that were Pious, and feared God; for in the forecited 20 th. Chapter of Ezek. it is expresly said, that God would separate from them the Re­bellious and Transgressors, Zeph. chap. 3. v. 11, 12. God, saith he, would take away out of the midst of them those that were Proud, and he would leave an Afflicted and Poor People, and because this Electi­on was founded only upon Piety and real Vertue, it is not to be imagin'd, that it was promis'd to none but those that were Godly and Vertuous amongst the Iews ex­clusively [Page 79] to all other Nations; but we ought to believe, that the true Prophets among the Heathen (which we have shew'd all Nations had) did likewise promise the same to their own People, and still com­forted them with it, this eternal Covenant of the Knowledge and Love of God, is Universal as appears, Zeph. chap. 3. v. 10. from beyond the Rivers of AEthyopia my Sup­pliants even the Daughter of my dispersed shall bring my Offerings. So that in this particu­lar, no difference is to be made between Iews and Gentiles, and therefore no other Election was peculiar to the Iews, but what I have declared; the Prophets in their Prophesies of this Election, which only had respect to vertuous living, min­gled many things concerning the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Temple, and re­building the City, and under those Figures according to the Custom and Nature of Prophesy, expounded things Spiritual, that they might likewise declare to the Iews whose Prophets they were, that Restaura­tion of their Government and Temple, which they were to expect in the Reign of Cyrus. That the Iews should still remain without any Government after a dispersi­on of so many Years is no wonder, seeing they have separated themselves from all Nations, and incur'd their hatred not only [Page 80] by external Rites contrary to those of o­ther Nations, but also by the sign of Cir­cumcision, which they most religiously ob­serve, that their being hated by other Na­tions contributes very much to their con­tinuance, is proved by Experience. When the King of Spain heretofore compell'd the Iews to profess the Religion of that King­dom, or else to quit the Country, many Iews turn'd Papists, and because those that changed their Religion became thereby ca­pable of the same Priviledges and Honours which natural Spaniards enjoy'd, they were presently mixed with the Natives, and in a short time there remain'd none of the race: but the contrary happen'd in Por­tugal, where tho' the King forced them to profess the Religion of the Country, they still lived apart by themselves, because they were declared incapable of all Pre­ferments. I am of Opinion, that only the sign of Circumcision may be able to per­petuate the Nation, and unless the Princi­ples of their Religion Effeminate their Minds, they may one time or other when they see a fair opportunity, Re-establish their Government, and be again chosen by God. Of the like Case, the Chineses are a Famous Example, who Religiously pre­serve a particular lock of Hair upon their Heads, by which they distinguish them­selves [Page 81] from other People, and have there­by preserved themselves so many thousand Years, that their Antiquity exceeds all o­ther Nations, they have heretofore re­covered their lost Empire, and without doubt will do so again, when the Courage of the Tartars, hath lain a while longer buried in Wealth, Luxury and Sloth. Lastly, if any Man upon what ground so­ever will maintain, that Gods Election of the Iews was eternal, I will not contradict him, provided he grant that their Election whether Temporal or Eternal, and as it was peculiar to the Iews, did only respect their Government and bodily Con­veniences (which alone may distinguish one Nation from another) but that up­on the account of Knowledge and Vertue, there is no Nation distinguisht from, nor any chosen by, God before another.

THE word Law taken absolutely, sig­nifies, That, according to which e­very individual, or all, or some, of the in­dividuals of the same Species, do Act by one and the same determinate Rule, and that Rule depends either upon the necessi­ty of Nature, or the Will and Pleasure of Men: the Law which depends upon the necessity of Nature, is that which ne­cessarily follows from the very Nature or Definition of any thing; and the Law which depends upon the Pleasure of Men, and is more properly called Law, is that which Men for the greater safety and be­nefit of Life, or for other Causes do pre­scribe to themselves and others, (for Ex­ample) that all Bodies when they hit or dash against other less Bodies, do loose so [Page 83] much of their own Motion, as they im­part to those other less Bodies, is the Uni­versal Law of all Bodies, which follows from the necessity of Nature: so likewise when a Man remembers one thing, he is presently mindful of another like it, or as soon as he sees them together, is a Law which necessarily follows from Human Na­ture; but that Men voluntarily part with, or are compell'd to part with that Right, which every one hath by Nature, and ob­lige themselves to a certain Rule and Manner of living, depends upon the Will and Pleasure of Men; and tho' it be ab­solutely granted, that all things by the U­niversal Laws of Nature, are ordain'd to be, and Operate, according to a certain and determinate Rule; yet I say those Laws do depend upon the Pleasure of Men. First, because Man as he is a great part of Nature makes and constitutes a part of the Power of Nature, and therefore those things which follow from the ne­cessity of Human Nature (that is from Nature it self as we conceive it regulated by Human Nature) tho' they follow ne­cessarily, yet they follow from Human Power; wherefore the Sanction of those Laws may very well be said to depend up­on the Will of Men, because it so de­pends upon the Power of Mans Mind, that [Page 84] the Mind of Man as it apprehends things under the Notion of true or false, may ne­vertheless be clearly understood, without those Universal Laws; but not without the Law of necessity as I have defined it. Secondly, I have said those Universal Laws of nature, depend upon the Pleasure of Men, because we ought to define and ex­plain things by their next and immediate causes, and that Universal consideration of Fate and the chaining together of causes, can no way help us in the forming and or­dering our thoughts concerning particular things, (that is) we know not how things are ordered and tyed together, so that it is better, yea absolutely necessary, for the benefit of Life, to consider things as they are possible, and so much of Law consider'd absolutely.

But because the name of Law, by Tran­slation, is apply'd to natural things, and commonly by Law, nothing else is meant but a command, which Men may, or may not perform, so that it confines human Power to bounds and limits, beyond which it might go, and yet commands nothing which it is not able to do, therefore Law more particularly defined, is that rule and manner of living, which Men for some end prescribe to themselves or to o­thers: but because very few know the true [Page 85] end of Laws, and Men being for the most part incapable of Understanding it, do not live according to the dictates of reason, therefore Law-givers, that they might e­qually bind all, have wisely establisht an end very different, from that which ne­cessarily follows from the Nature of Laws (namely) by propounding to those who keep the Law, that which they most love, and by threatning the breakers of the Law, with that which they most fear; and so endeavor, as far as 'tis possible, to rule the multitude, as a Horse is govern'd with a Bridle; so that Law in its common ac­ceptation, is that rule of living, which by the Power of others is prescribed to Men, and consequently that they who obey Laws are said to live under Law, and may be called Servants or Subjects, he that giveth to every one his due because he is a­fraid of the gallows, is under the Power of another, and being compell'd by the fear of punishment to do what he doth, cannot be called just, but he that giveth to every one his due, because he knows the necessity and the true end and reason of Laws, what he doth is free and voluntary, and he may therefore be deservedly cal­led a just Man: which I suppose to be St. Pauls meaning, when he said, they that lived under the Law could not be justi­fy'd [Page 86] fy'd by the Law, for justice as it is com­monly defined, is a constant Voluntary resolution of rendring to every Man that which is his due, and therefore Solomon Prov. chap. 20. v. 15. saith, it is joy to the just to do judgment but the wicked fear. See­ing then Law is nothing else but a rule of living, which Men for some end prescribe to themselves or to others, the Law may therefore be distinguisht into human and divine, by Mans Law we understand that rule of living which secures life and the weal public, but the Divine Law hath re­spect only to our cheifest good, that is the true knowledge and love of God: the rea­son why I call this Law Divine, is in re­spect of the Nature of our cheifest good, which I will with all possible brevity and plainess declare.

Whereas our better part is our under­derstanding, it is certain if we seek our own good, we ought cheifly to endeavour as much as is possible, the perfecting our in­tellect; because in the perfection of that consists our cheifest happiness; and since all our knowledge and certainty which removes all doubt, depends only upon the knowledge of God, because nothing can be, or be known without God, and be­cause we may doubt of all things, while we have no clear and distinct Idea of God, [Page 87] it follows that our perfection, and cheifest happiness, depends only upon the know­ledge of God. Moreover, since nothing can either exist, or be known, without God, it is certain that all things in Nature, in re­spect of their essence and perfection, do imply and express the Notion of God, and consequently the more we know natural things, the greater and more perfect knowledge we acquire of God; because the knowledge of an effect by its Cause, is nothing else, but knowing the true Na­ture and Property of the cause; so that by how much the more we know natural things, so much the more perfectly do we know the being of God, who is the cause of all things; and all our knowledge (that is) our cheifest happiness, doth not only depend, upon, but wholly consists in, the knowledge of God: which consequence is made good, by a Mans becomming more or less perfect, according to the Nature and perfection of the thing he most loves, and so on the contrary. He therefore is most perfect, who pertakes most of the highest Beatitude, and who above all things, loves and is most delighted with the intellectual knowledge of God, who is the most perfect of all beings. Hitherto then our cheifest good and happiness, still returns into the knowledge of God, the [Page 88] end then of all human actions, so far as we have an Idea of him being God; the means which this end requires, may be called the commands of God, because they are as it were prescribed by God existing in our minds; and the rule of living which respecteth this end, may be called the divine Law; but what those means are, and what that manner of living is which this end re­quires, how the best Goverments and Men in living one with another should pursue this end, is a Subject for moral Philosophy to handle, my present business is only to speak in general of the Law divine.

If then the love of God be Man's chei­fest felicity and beatitude, and the ulti­mate end and scope of all Mens actions; it follows, that he only keeps Gods Law, whose care is to love God, not for fear of punishment, or for the love of any o­ther thing, as Pleasure, Wealth, Fame, &c. but only because he knows God; or be­cause he knows that the knowledge and love of God is the cheifest good the; summ then and cheif precept of the Divine Law, is to love God as our cheifest good, not as we have already said, for fear of some Evil or Punishment, nor for the love of any other thing in which we take delight. But tho' the Notion of a God dictate to us, that God is our cheifest good, and that [Page 89] the knowledge and love of God, is the end to which all our Actions ought to be directed; yet the carnal Man cannot understand these things, and they seem vanity to him, because he hath too low and narrow a knowledge of God, and be­cause also in this cheifest good which con­sists only in speculation and purity of the mind, he finds nothing that he can handle, eat, or wherewith to gratify the Flesh, with which he is most pleased: but they that know there is nothing more excellent then reason, and a clear understanding, will esteem them the most solid of all Plea­sures. We have now shewn in what cheifly the Divine Law consists, and what are human Laws, namely all those which are directed to another end, unless they were establisht by divine Revelation; for under this consideration, things also as we have already shewn, are attributed to God; and in this sense the Law of Moses, tho' it were not Universal but accomodated to the disposition and preservation of one particular People, may be called the Law of God or the Divine Law; seeing we believe it given by pro­phetical Revelation: So that now if we consider the natural Divine Law, as we have explain'd it, we shall find it to be Universal and common to all Mankind; [Page 90] since we have derived it from human Na­ture in general. Secondly, that it doth not require the belief of Histories whatever they be, since this Divine natural Law, is understood only in consideration of human Nature, and we may as well conceive it in any other Man as in Adam, and as well in a Man who lives a solitary, as in one that leads a social Life, nor can the belief of Histories tho' true, give us the know­ledge, or consequently the Love of God; for the Love of God proceeds from the knowledge of God, and the knowledge of God, must be derived from common notions in themselves certain and known, so that the belief of History, is far from being a means absolutely necessary to the attainment of our cheifest good; but tho' the belief of Histories cannot give us the knowledge and Love of God, yet we grant reading of them to be very useful in respect of civil Life, for the more we know and observe Mens manners and con­ditions, of which their Actions are the best evidence; with the greater caution may we live amongst them, and the better may we suite our Lives and Actions to their dispositions so far as is reasonable. Thirdly, this natural Divine Law requires no Cere­monies, (that is) Actions in themselves in­different, and are only good in respect [Page 91] of their institution, or because they represent some good necessary to our well being; or rather Actions whereof our under­standing doth not comprehend the reason; for natural light requires nothing but what that light can attain to, and only that which it discovers to us can be our good and the way to our happiness: those which are good only by precept and institution, or because they are representatives of some good, they cannot perfect our under­standing, they are but meer shadows, and and cannot be reckon'd amongst those Actions which are the Off-spring and Fruits of our knowledge and sound judgment; which to prove more at large, is not here necessary. Fourthly, the highest reward of the Divine Law, is the Law it self; namely to know God, and to love him freely and continually with the whole heart; and the penalty of the Law, is the loss of that knowledge and love, the Bondage of the Flesh, and an inconstant Fluctuating Mind. These things thus considered, we are now to inquire first, whether by natural light, we can conceive and know God as a Law-giver and Prince prescribing Laws to Men? Secondly, what the Scripture saith of this natural light and Law? Thirdly to what end Ceremonies were instituted? Fourthly, of what concern it is to know and believe [Page 92] the Sacred Histories. Of the two first par­ticulars, we will treat in this, and of the two last in the following Chapter. What we are to conclude concerning the first particular, may be easily deduced from the Nature of Gods will, which is distin­guisht from Gods knowledge, only in re­spect of our reason (that is) the will and knowledge of God, are in themselves one and the same thing, nor are they distin­guisht but in reference to the thoughts we form of Gods knowledge (for example) when we consider that the Nature of a Triangle is from all eternity contain'd in the Divine Nature, as an eternal Truth, then we say God hath the Idea of a Tri­angle, or understandeth the Nature of a Triangle; but when afterwards we con­sider that the Nature of a Triangle, is so contain'd in the Divine Nature not in re­spect of the necessity of the essence and Nature of a Triangle, but in respect only of the necessity of the divine nature, yea that the necessity of the essence and Pro­perties of a Triangle as they are conceived to be eternal Verities depend only upon the necessity of the divine nature and knowledge of God, and not upon the na­ture of the Triangle, then that which we have called Gods knowledge we call Gods Will and decree, therefore in relation to [Page 93] God, we say one and the same thing when we say that God knew, or that God willed and decreed that three Angles of a Tri­angle, should be equal to two right Ang­les. Whence it follows that Gods affirma­tions and negations, must always imply eternal necessity and verity, if then (for example) God said to Adam, that he would not have him eat of the Tree of Good and Evil, it would imply a contradiction that Adam should be able to eat of it, and it was impossible that Adam should eat of it, if that divine decree did imply eternal verity and necessity, but because the Scrip­ture saith, that God did command Adam, that he should not eat of that Tree, and yet notwithstanding he did eat of it, it must necessarily be said, that God only revealed to Adam the Evil that would follow upon it, but did not re­veal the necessity of the Evil's following, whence it came to pass, that Adam under­stood that Revelation, not as an eternal verity and necessary Truth, but as a Law or Or­dinance, upon which Gain or Loss was to follow, not in respect of the Necessity and Nature of the Action done, but only in respect of the Absolute Will and Command of a Prince. The Revelation therefore in respect of Adam only, and only for want of Knowledge in him, was a Law, and [Page 94] God a Law-giver and Prince. For the like defect of Knowledge, was the Decalogue a Law to the Iews, because they knew not the Being of God to be an Eternal Verity; therefore, that which was revealed to them in the Decalogue, namely that there was a God, and that he only was to be worship­ed, was received by them as a Law, but had God spoken to them immediately, and not by Corporeal means, they had taken it for an Eternal Verity and not for a Law, and what we say of Adam and the Israe­lites, may be said of all the Prophets, who writ Laws in the Name of God, that they did not rightly understand God's Decrees to be Eternal Verities. (For Example) Moses by Revelation or by Principles re­vealed to him, understood the means whereby the People of Israel might be best united, in a particular Place of the World, form a Common-wealth, and erect a Go­vernment, and also the best way to com­pel that People to obedience; but yet he did not know, nor was it revealed to him, that those means, or that Way was best, neither that from the common Obedience of the People, in such a Climate of the World, that end would necessarily follow, to which those means were directed; and therefore all those things were not under­stood by him as Eternal Verities, but as [Page 95] Precepts and Institutions, which he pre­scribed as the Laws of God, and this was the Reason, that he imagined God, was a Governour, a Lawgiver, a King merciful and Just, when all these are only the Atri­butes of Human Nature, and not any Part of the Divine Nature: but tho' we say this of the Prophets, who writ Laws in the Name of God, we ought not to say the same of Christ, for though he seemed to write Laws in the Name of God, we are to believe, that he understood things truly and perfectly, for Christ was not so much a Prophet, as he was the Mouth of God, for God by the Mind of Christ (as we have shewn in the first Chapter) did reveal some things to Mankind, as he did before by Angels, (that is a Created Voice.) And by Visions; wherefore it would be altoge­ther Irrational to think, that God accom­modated his revelations to the Opinions of Christ, as that God fitted heretofore his re­velations to the Opnions of the Visions, and of the Angels (that is created Voices) that he might communicate the things, which were to be revealed to the Prophets, then which nothing can be more absurd, espe­cially since Christ was not sent to the Iews only, but to all Mankind: so that it was not sufficient his Mind should be fitted to the Opinion of the Iews, but to the Opi­nions [Page 96] and Documents general to all Man­kind, that is those Notions which were com­mon and True; and from communicating himself immediately to Christ, or to his un­derstanding, and not as he did to the Pro­phets by words and Signs, nothing else can be concluded, but that Christ did truly perceive and understand those things which were revealed; for then a thing is clear­ly understood, when it is clearly and mental­ly perceived without the help of Words and Signs. Christ therefore understood things truly and plainly, and if ever he pre­scribed them as Laws, he did it because the People were ignorant and obstinate, and acting God's Part, applyed himself to the Nature and Dispofition of the People, and therefore tho' he spoke somewhat plainer then the rest of the Prophets, yet sometimes he spoke Obscurely and by Parables, es­pecially when he spoke to them, to whom it was not given to know the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. chap. 13. v. 11. But with­out doubt, all things which he taught those, to whom it was given to know the Miste­ries of the Kingdom of Heaven, he taught them as Eternal Verities, and did not pre­scribe them as Laws, and in this confidera­tion, he freed them from the Bondage of the Law, and yet nevertheless did the more confirm it, and deeply ingrave it on [Page 97] their Hearts, which Paul seems to declare in the 7 th. chap. of his Epist. to the Romans, v. 6 th. But now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in Newness of Spirit, and not in the Oldness of the Letter, and in chap. 3. v. 8. Therefore we conclude, that a Man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. But neither doth Paul speak very clearly, for he saith, Rom. chap. 3. v. 5. I speak as a Man, which he expresly saith, when he calls God just and righteous, and without doubt because of the Frailty of the Flesh, he supposeth Mercy, Grace and An­ger to be in God, applying his Discourses to the understanding of the Common People as may be seen in his first Epistle to the Co­rinthians chap. 3. v. 1, 2. Brethren, I could not speak unto you as Spiritual, but as unto Car­nal Men. Rom. chap. 8. v. 18. He declareth that the Mercy and Wrath of God doth not depend upon Mens Works, but on his own Will. Moreover no Man is justified by the Works of the Law, but only by Faith, Rom. chap. 3. v. 28. And by Faith nothing is meant, but a full consent of the Mind. Last­ly, Paul declares that no Body is Blessed who hath not in him the Mind of Christ, Rom. chap. 8. v. 9. Now if any Man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; by which Mind and Spirit, he may understand [Page 98] the Laws of God to be Eternal Verities. We conclude therefore, that God was de­scribed as a Prince and Law-giver, and sti­led Just and Merciful, only in regard to the Capacity of the Vulgar, and their want of Knowledge, but that God from the ne­cessity and perfection of his Nature, doth act and govern all things, and his Will and Decrees are Eternal Verities, and imply Eternal Necessity, which is the thing I pur­posed in the first Place to explain, and prove, passing now to the Second Particu­lar, let us run through the whole Scripture, and see what it saith of this Natural Light and Divine Law. The first thing we meet with, is, the History of the first Man, where we are told, God commanded Adam, he should not eat of the Fruit of the Tree of good and evil, which seems to signify, that God commanded Adam, to do and seek after God, under the Notion of good, and not as it is contrary to evil: that is, to seek after good for good's sake, and not for fear of evil; for he that doth-good as we have already said, upon the account of knowing and lov­ing what is good, doth it with a free and constant mind, but he that is compell'd by the fear of evil, is forced by punishment, acts like a Slave, and lives under the command of another; and therefore that one thing which God commanded Adam, compre­hends [Page 99] all the Divine Natural Law, and per­fectly agrees with the Dictates of Natu­ral Reason, now would it be a difficult matter from this very Principle, to unfold the whole History or Parable of the first Man; but I pass it by, because I am not certain whether my Explication will agree with the Writers meaning, and because many will have the History to be no Para­ble, but a plain and simple Narration: it will therefore be better to make use of o­ther Places of Scripture, those especially, of which he was Author, who in Strength of natural Knowledge exceeded the wis­est of his Age, and whose sayings, the Peo­ple counted as Sacred as they did those of the Prophets, I mean Solomon, whose Pro­phesy and Piety is not so much commended in Scripture, as his Wisdom and Prudence; he in his Proverbs calls Human Under­standing, the Fountain of Life, and pla­ceth misfortune only in Folly; for he saith, chap. 16. v. 22. Vnderstanding is a well-spring of Life to him that hath it, but the Pu­nishment of Fools is their folly. Where we are to note, that by the word Life, in the Hebrew is signified, happy Life, as appears Deut. chap. 30. v. 10. I have set before thee Life and Death, Blessing and Cursing, there­fore chuse Life. And he therefore deriveth the happiness of Life from Knowledge, and [Page 100] Punishment from the want of it, which ex­Presly agrees with what we observed in the fourth Place, concerning the Divine Na­tural Law: but that this Fountain of Life the Understanding, prescribeth Laws to the Wise, is proved by Prov. chap. 13. v. 14. The Law of the Wise is a Fountain of Life, that is as appears by the fore-cited Text, the Understanding and Knowledge. More­over, chap. 3. v. 13. 'Tis said in express Terms, that Uuderstanding and Wisdom make a man happy, and give him the true peace of mind. Happy is the Man tbat find­eth Wisdom, and the Man that getteth Vnder­standing. And v. 16, 17. Length of days is in her right Hand, and in her left Riches and Honour, her ways are ways of Righteous­ness, and all her Paths (which Wisdom points out) are Peace. In the Opinion of Solomon then, only Wise men live quietly and happily, not as the wicked, whose minds are disturbed and tost to and fro with contrary Passions and Affections: So that as Isaiah saith chap. 47. v. 20, 21. The wicked are like the troubled Sea, that cannot rest, there is no Peace to the wicked. Lastly, in the Proverbs that which clearly con­firms this Opinion, is what he saith, chap. 2. v. 3. If thou criest after Knowledge, and lift­est up thy Voice for Vnderstanding, then v. 5. Thou shalt understand the fear of the Lord, [Page 101] and find the Knowledge of God. (or rather the Love of God, for the Hebrew word Iadah signifies both,) for Verse the 6 th. (which observe well) The Lord giveth Wisdom, out of his Mouth cometh Knowledge and Wisdom. Which words clearly declare, First, that only Understanding and Wis­dom teach us to fear God Prudently, ( i e) to serve him truly, and to worship him rightly. Next, that Wisdom and Know­ledge flow from the Mouth of God, and are given by God; that is, our Under­standing and Wisdom depends upon, pro­ceeds from, and is only perfected by, the Idea or Knowledge of God: Solomon goes on, and in the 9 th Verse shews, that in, and from, this Knowledge, is continued and derived the Science of true Morality and Policy; Then shalt thou understand Righ­teousness, Iudgment and Equity, yea every good thing. And Verse the 10 th When Wisdom shall enter into thy Heart, and Knowledge is pleasant to thy Soul, Verse the 11 th. Dis­cretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee. All which Expressions plainly agree with natural Knowledge, which teach­eth us Morality and true Vertue; after we have gained the Knowledge of things, and tasted the Excellency of Understand­ing. The Happiness and Tranquility, there­fore of a Man, that improves his natural [Page 102] Reason and Knowledge, doth not in Solo­mon's Opinion chiefly depend upon For­tune; (that is God's external Assistance) but upon his own internal Vertue and Fa­culties (that is God's internal aid) be­cause by watching, working, and well con­sidering, he preserveth himself. Lastly, that place of St. Paul. Rom. chap. 1 st. v. 20. Is very worthy of our Notice, where (ac­cording to Tremelius's version of the Siriack Text) he saith, The invisible things of God, from the Creation of the World, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his external Power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. By which words he maketh it evident, that all men by the Light of natural Reason and Knowledge, may understand the Power of God, and his Eternal Divinity, by which they may be able to know and conjecture, what they are to seek and pursue, and what they are to avoid; and so concludes, that all are without excuse, and cannot pretend Igno­rance, which they might very vvell, if he spoke of Supernatural Knovvledge, and of the Bodily passion and resurrection of Christ; therefore he goes on in the 24 th Verse and says, God gave them up to uncleanness, through the Lust of their own Hearts, describing to the end of the Chapter, the Vices of Igno­rance; which Vices, he declares to be the [Page 103] punishment of Ignorance, agreeing with that Proverb of Solomon mentioned Chap. 16. v. 22. The punishment of Fools is their folly. So that it is no wonder, Paul says evil doers are inexcusable, for as every Man sows, so shall he reap. Evil unless Wisdom prevent, necessarily brings forth evil; the Scripture therefore expresly com­mends natural Knowledge, and the Divine Natural Law, so that I have done with what I intend to treat of in this Chapter.

IN the foregoing Chapter we have shewn, that the Divine Law, which makes Men happy, and teacheth the right way of Living, is Universal to all Mankind; and we have so derived it from Human Nature, [Page 104] that it appears to be born with, and as it were engraved upon, the Mind and Heart of Man; but because Ceremonies, those at least which we find in the Old Te­stament, were only instituted for the Iews; and so fitted to their Government, that for the most part, they might be observed in their Public Assemblies, tho' not by every Individual Person; it is manifest, that they did not belong to the Divine Law, nor contributed any thing to the making men happy or vertuous, but concerned on­ly the Election of the Iews (that is by what we have proved in the third Chapter) the temporal happiness of the Body, and peace of their Government, and consequently could be of no longer use, than while their Government lasted. If those Ceremonies in the Old Testament, had any relation to God's Law, it was only because they were instituted by revelation, or upon revealed Principles; but because the most solid rea­son prevails little with ordinary Church­men, I will make use of Scripture, to shew upon what account, and in what manner, Ceremonies were useful to the Establish­ment and Preservation of the Iewish Com­mon-wealth. The Prophet Isaiah very plain­ly declares, that by the Divine Law is meant, that Universal Law which consists in living uprightly, not in Ceremonies, Chap. 1 st. v. [Page 105] 10. He calleth upon the People to hear the Law of God, but tells them in the follow­ing Verses, that God hated their Sacrifices and Oblations, their New Moons, their Feasts, and their Sabbaths, and in the 16. and 17. Verses declares, the Law it self to be comprehended in a few Particulars; name­ly in cleansing the Heart, in constantly do­ing well, in relieving the Oppressed, and no less clear is that Place, in the 40 th Psal. v. 7, 8. Sacrifice and Offering, thou didst not desire, mine Ears hast thou opened, burnt Offering and Sin Offering hast thou not required, Idelight to do thy Will O God, for thy Law is within my Heart: here David calls that the Law of God, which is written in his Heart or inward Parts, separated from Ceremonies, which not being in their own Nature good, are not written in our minds: beside these two Places, others may be found in Scripture, which testify the same thing, but there is no need of more Quotations. That Cere­monies conduce not to our true Happiness, but respect only the temporary Prosperity of Government, appears likewise by the Scripture, which for the Observation of Ceremonies, promised only bodily Bene­fits; but for keeping the Universal Divine Law true Felicity: In the Books common­ly called the five Books of Moses, nothing is promised, but temporal Prosperity, namely, [Page 106] Honour, Fame, Victory, Riches, Plea­sures and Health; and altho' in those five Books, are contained beside Ceremonies, many things that are Moral, yet they are not there contained as Moral Doctrines, and Universal instructions common to all, but as Commands and Precepts, fitted to the particular Capacity, and Genius of the Iewish Nation, and such as concern'd the prosperous State of that Government: (for Example) Moses did not teach the Iews as a Doctor and Prophet, but com­manded them as a Lawgiver and Prince, that they should not kill or steal; nor doth he prove this as Doctrine by Reason, but to his Commands adds Punishment, which according to the disposition of every Na­tion, as we find by Experience, may and ought to vary, the Commandment of not committing Adultery, respected only the Prosperity of the Commonwealth and its Government, for had it been a Moral Do­ctrine, which concern'd the Peace of the mind, as well as of the Commonwealth, and every particular Man's true felicity, it would have as much condemn'd the in­ward concupiscence of the Heart, as the outward act of Lust, as Christ did Math. Chap. 5. v. 28. Whose Doctrines were Universal, and therefore the reward which Christ promised, were Spiritual and [Page 107] not Corporal; for Christ was sent not to ordain Laws, and Establish Government, but only to Preach and Teach the Univer­sal Divine Law: and hereby we under­stand Christ did not Abrogate the Law of Moses, seeing he introduced no new Laws into the Iewish Commonwealth, but Preached only Moral Doctrines, which he distinguisht from the Laws of the Common­wealth, because the Pharisees were so Ig­norant, that they thought every one lived Righteously who kept Moses Law, which (as we have already said) concern'd only that Commonwealth, and served rather to compel, then instruct the Iews. But let us now return to other places of Scrip­ture, which for the observing of Ceremonies, promise nothing but bodily benefits, and for the keeping of the Universal Divine Law, true beat tude. In this point, none of all the Prophets speaks so plainly as Isaiah, Chap. 58. for after Condemning Hy­pocrisy, and commending Liberty and Charity towards themselves and their Neighbours, which are Vertues dictated to us by the Universal Divine Law, he saith, Verse the 8 th. Then shall thy Light break out as the Morning, and thy Health shall spring forth speedily, thy Righteousness shall go be­fore thee, the Glory of the Lord shall be thy reward. Afterwards he commends to them [Page 108] the keeping of the Sabbath, and for their care in observing that, he promiseth, Verse the 24 th. Then shalt thou delight thy self in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the Earth, and feed thee with the Heritage of Jacob thy Father for the Mouth of the Lord hath spoken it: by which we plainly see, that the Prophet promised to the Practice of the Divine Na­tural Law, a spiritual Reward, a sound Mind in a healthful Body, and the Glory of God after Death; but to the Obser­vation of Ceremonies, nothing but the prosperous continuance of their Govern­ment, and bodily Happiness, in the 24 th. and 25 th. Psalms, no mention is made of Ceremonies, but only of moral Duties, be­cause those Psalms treat of nothing but true Happiness and Beatitude, tho' Para­bolically propounded; for 'tis certain that Gods Holy Hill, his Tabernacles, and dwelling in them, with other Blessings men­tioned in those Psalms, could not litterally signify the Mountain of Ierusalem, or the Tabernacle of Moses, for they were in­habited by none but the Tribe of Levi, who Ministred in the Tabernacle and Tem­ple. Moreover all those Sayings of Solo­mon, cited in the preceding Chapter, con­cerning the Excellency of Wisdom and Knowledge, promise true Felicity, because [Page 109] they teach us to know and fear God, that the Iews after the destruction of their Go­vernment, were not bound to the Obser­vation and Practice of Ceremonies, is evi­dent by the Prophet Ieremy, who foretel­ling the approaching destruction of the City of Ierusalem, Chap. 9. v. 23, 24. de­clares that none are acceptable to God, but they that know him, and understand that he exerciseth loving Kindness, Judg­ment and Righteousness in the Earth, and that he will delight in none but those that know these things; as if the Prophet had said, that after the destruction of the City, God would for the future require nothing else of the Iews, but the Observation of the Natural Law, Obligatory to all Man­kind. The New Testament likewise proves the same thing, for it teacheth only Moral Doctrines, and promiseth to the Practice of them the Kingdom of Heaven; the A­postles, after the Gospel began to be Preach­ed to Nations that were not obliged to the Laws of the Iewish Commonwealth, quite left off Ceremonies, and if the Pha­risees after the destruction of their Go­vernment, retained any, or the greatest part of them, it was more to oppose the Christians, then to please God; for after the sacking of the City, when the Iews were carried Captives into Babilon, and were [Page 110] not (for ought we know) divided into Sects, they presently neglected Ceremonies, bid farewel to the whole Law of Moses, forgot the Laws of their own Country, as superfluous, and mixed themselves with the rest of the Nations, as appears out of Esdras and Nehemiah: therefore without doubt, the Iews after their Government was dissolved, were no more bound by Moses's Law, then they were before they became a Commonwealth, for while they lived among other Nations before their going out of Egypt, they had no peculiar Law, nor were obliged to any but the Na­tural Law; observing also the Laws of the Country and the Nation where they lived, which were not repugnant to the Divine Natural Law; the Patriarchs in­deed offer'd Sacrifices to God, but that was because they were from their Infancy accustomed so to do, it being the Practice of all Men from the time of Enoch to offer Sacrifices, to incite and testify their De­votion: the Patriarchs therefore offered their Sacrifices, neither as Men Command­ed by any Divine Precept, or Instructed by the Universal Law of Nature, but only be­cause it was the Custom of that time, and if they did it by any Command, that Command was no other then that of the Commonwealth wherein they lived, and [Page 111] which (as I have shewn in the 3 d. Chapter where I spoke of Melchisedek) they were bound to obey.

Having justified my Opinion by Scrip­ture-Authority, I will next from general Principles very briefly shew, why Ceremo­nies were useful to Establish and Preserve the Iewish Commonwealth. Society is not on­ly convenient, but absolutely necessary to living securely from the danger of Ene­mies, and likewise for the quicker and more easy dispatch of human labour and business; for unless Men mutually assist one another, they must want both time and means (so far as 'tis possible) to preserve themselves; all Men are not equally fit for all things, nor is every one able to procure those things of which he singly stands in need; no individual Person hath time or strength enough to Plow, Sow, Reap, Grind, Bake, Boyl, Weave, Knit, and do very many other things necessary to sup­port Life, not mentioning Arts and Siences, which perfect and make human nature happy; we see that those People who live Barbarously without any Policy, lead miserable bruitish lives, and do not come by those necessaries and sorry Houshold-stuff which they have, without helping one another; if Men were so constituted by Nature, that they would desire nothing [Page 112] but what right reason dictates, Societies would need no Laws, and only to instruct Men in the precepts of Morality, would be sufficient to make them with a free and constant mind, do whatever should be for the public Good, but 'tis far otherwise with human Nature, all men indeed seek their own Good and Advantage, not accord­ing to the Dictates of right Reason, but according to their own peculiar Lusts, and hurryed with the violence of their own Affections, without regard to any thing else, believe that to be good, which they ardently desire. This is the reason why no Society of Men can subsist without Go­vernment, Force and Laws to moderate and restrain unbridled Passions and Affections: but down right compulsion is intollerable to human Nature, and therefore Seneca, the Tragedian says, Empires maintain'd by force last but a little while; mild Governments endure longest, what Men do out of fear they do against their Will, never consider­ing the utility or necessity of what they do, but only take care to avoid capital Pu­nishment; yea, they can hardly refrain from rejoycing at the losses and misfortunes of their Rulers, and tho' they themselves suf­fer by it, cannot forbear wishing and do­ing them all the mischief they are able; but above all things, Men are impatient of o­beying, [Page 113] and being govern'd by their equals; and lastly, nothing is more difficult than to deprive Men of that Liberty, which they once enjoy'd: From all which it follows, that all Societies, if it be possible, should be govern'd by their own general assem­blies, that so no Body may be Subjected to his equal; but where the reins of Go­vernment are in the hands of a few, or one single Person, there that single Person ought to have extraordinary qualifications above others, or at least, should endeavour to make the People think so, and in every government such Laws ought to be made, as are likely to incline Men to do their duty, not for fear of punishment but in hope of reward. Moreover, because o­bedience consists in executing the com­mands of those that rule, it follows, that in a Society where the ruling Power is in the Collective Body of the People, and Laws are made by general and common consent, there is no such thing as obedience, and tho' the Laws be increased or diminished, yet still the People remain free; because they are not Subject to the Authority of another, but Act by their own voluntary universal agreement and consent: but 'tis quite contrary, where a single Person governs; for there all are Subject to what­ever he commands, so that unless the Peo­ple [Page 114] have been always educated under such absolute government, it will be very dif­ficult for a Monarch, to make new Laws, or to take away any liberty from the Peo­ple, which they have formerly enjoy'd.

These things being thus generally con­sidered, we now come to the Common­wealth of the Iews, who when they went first out of Egypt, were not obliged to the Laws of any other Nation, so that they might then constitute and enact what Laws and Statutes they pleased, and fix them­selves and their government, in any part of the World they had a mind to possess; but being a stupid People, and by long servitude depraved in their understanding, they were unfit to make good and pru­dent Laws, or to govern themselves by their own democratical Authority with­out a Superior, the Power of governing was therefore to be put into the hands of a single Person, who was to command the rest, and compel them by force, who was likewise to prescribe and interpret Laws: This Power Moses easily obtain'd, because he excell'd all others in divine Vertue and Power, which Power he perswaded the People by many Testimonies Exod. chap. 14. v. 31. and chap. 19. v. 9. was given him by God, being thus qualify'd he made and prescribed Laws to the People, but took [Page 115] special care, that the People might do their duty, not so much out of fear, as of their own free will, which he did upon two considerations; First, because the Peoples obstinate and Rebellious Nature, would not endure continual compulsion. Secondly, because there was an approaching War, which was like to succeed better by encouraging, then by threatning the Sol­diers, every one endeavoring by his valor rather to get Reputation, then avoid Punishment: for this reason also, Moses by Gods command, introduced Religion into the Common-wealth, that Devotion, more then fear, might incline them to obedi­ence. Lastly, he obliged them by many benefits, which he promised they should receive from Heaven. The Laws which he establisht were not very severe, as will appear to any Man that considers, how many circumstances were required to the condemning of any offender; that the Peo­ple who could not govern themselves, might absolutely depend upon the verbal com­mands of the supream Magistrate, he did not permit them being accustomed to Bon­dage, to do any thing of their own accord; but whatever they did, was to be done according to the prescript of the Law; no Man could at his own Pleasure, Plow, Sow, or Reap; no Man could eat what he [Page 116] pleased, nor could he cloth himself, shave his Head and Beard, or make merry, but according to certain Rules set down in the Law; nor was this all, for they were to have upon the Posts of their Doors, upon their Hands and their Fore-heads, certain Signs which were to put them in conti­nual mind of their obedience: the end and design then of Ceremonies, was that the People might do nothing by their own will and determination, but only by the com­mand of another, and by continual Action and meditation confess, they were not Masters of themselves, but wholly Sub­jected to the will of another, by all which 'tis evident, that Ceremonies conduce no­thing to true felicity, and that those of the Old Testament, yea the whole Law of Moses, concerned only the government of the Iews, and consequently had respect to nothing more then Bodily conveniences; as for Christian Ceremonies, namely Bap­tism, the Lords Supper, Holy-days, pub­lic Forms of Prayer, or any others common to Christianity; if they were ever institu­ted by Christ, or his Apostles, (which doth not clearly appear) they were only ap­pointed as marks and signs of the Universal Church, but not as things that contain any Sanctity in themselves, or contribute any thing to eternal happiness, and therefore [Page 117] being ordain'd, not in reference to govern­ment, but only in respect to mutual Soci­ety, he that liveth alone, or he that liveth under a government where the Christian Religion is forbidden, is not oblig'd to the Observation of these Ceremonies, and yet may live happily; an example whereof we have in the Kingdom of Iapan, where the Hollanders by the command of their East-India Company, abstain from all outward Worship, and that their so doing is justi­fiable, I think is not difficult to prove from the Fundamental Principles of the New Testament. But I hasten to the Second par­ticular which I purposed to treat of in this Chapter, namely, why believing the Histories contained in Scripture is neces­sary, and to find out this by Natural rea­son, I thus proceed.

Whoever will perswade, or disswade Men to, or from, any thing, which is not in, or by it self known; must deduce that thing from Principles generally granted and allowed, and must convince those Men either by reason or experience, that is, by things which Men by their Sences know to have happen'd in Nature, or else by maxims which the understanding can nei­ther doubt or deny; but unless experience be such as is clearly and distinctly under­stood, tho' it may convince a Man, yet it [Page 118] cannot equally affect the understanding, and disperse the Clouds thereof, as will that which is proved by intellectual Prin­ciples (that is) orderly deduced from No­tions certain and intelligible, especially if the question be of any thing that is meerly Spiritual, and falls not under sense: but because to prove things only by intellectu­al Propositions, requires a long Chain of Notions, much Circumspection, Sharpness of Wit, and great Temper, all which are seldom found together; therefore Men had rather be taught by experience, then put themselves to the trouble of linking together all their perceptions deduced from a few maxims: so that he that would teach a whole Nation, I need not say all mankind any particular doctrine, and would be clearly understood in all things by all Men, he must confirm his Doctrine by experience, and must accomodate his reasons and the definitions of what he teacheth, to the ca­pacity of the vulgar, who make up the greatest part of Mankind, and must not think of giving such definitions as he thinks fittest, for tying his reasons together, be­cause he would then write only to the Learned, and would be understood but by a very few. Seeing then the Scripture was revealed first, for the use and instruction of a whole Nation, and afterwards of all [Page 119] Mankind; it was absolutely necessary, that the things therein contain'd, should be suited to the capacity of the common Peo­ple, and confirm'd only by experience: to make my meaning yet more clear, I say that all things taught in Scripture, which are only Speculative, are cheifly these. First, that there is a God, or a being which made all things, and by in­finite wisdom governeth and sustaineth all things, who taketh great care of Mankind, and particularly of those that live honestly and Religiously; but for those that live wickedly, he separates them from the good, and afflicts them with greivous Punish­ments. But all those things the Scripture confirms only by experience, namely by the Histories which it recites, nor doth it plainly define any of these things, but fit­eth all its reasonings and expressions, ac­cording to the capacity and understand­ing of the vulgar, and tho' experience can give a Man no true and plain know­ledge of things, nor teach a Man what God is, in what manner he orders and upholdeth all things, or how he takes care of Mankind, yet it gives Men so much light and knowledge, as is suffici­cient to Imprint in their Minds Piety and Obedience. So that now I think 'tis very plain, to what Persons and for what rea­sons, [Page 120] the belief of Scripture Histories is ne­cessary, that is to the common People, by whom things cannot be clearly and distinct­ly understood; and whoever denies these Histories, because he neither believes the being or Providence of God, is impious; but he that is ignorant of these Histories, and yet by natural reason concludes there is a God who made and preserveth all things, if he live a vertuous life, that Man is blest, yea more blessed then the vulgar, because beside the Truth of his Opinions, he hath a clear and distinct understanding. Lastly, he that is ignorant of Scripture Hi­story, and knows nothing of God by the light of natural reason, if he be not impi­ous and obstinate, yet he may well be ac­counted a Beast rather then a Man, and to have no Gift of God in him: but 'tis to be observed, that when we say the know­ledge of Scripture History is very necessary for the common People, I do not mean all the Histories contain'd in the Bible, but on­ly the cheif; and those that give the clear­est Evidence of the before mentioned Doctrins, and have the greatest influence upon the minds of Men; for if all the Hi­stories in the Scripture, were absolutely necessary to prove its Doctrine, and no conclusion could be made but from the consideration of all the Histories together [Page 121] contain'd in it, then the demonstration and proof of its Doctrine, would not only exceed the capacity of the vulgar, but the understanding of all Mankind; for who could possibly retain and comprehend so great a Number of Histories, and so many circumstances and parts of Doctrine, as might be collected from so many and different Histories; truly I cannot be per­swaded that those Men, who left us the Scripture as we now have it, abounded with so much Wit, as to be able to find out such a demonstration of its Doctrine; much less do I believe, that the Doctrine of the Scripture could not have been under­stood, unless we had been told of Isaacs strivings about the digging of Wells, of Achitophels, Council to Absalon, and the Civil Wars between the Children of Iudah and Israel, with other Chronicles of like kind; or that the Iews who lived in the time of Moses, were not so capable of un­derstanding the Doctrine of Scripture by Histories, as were the Iews who lived in the time of Esdras, of which more here­after, the common People are there­fore obliged to know only those Histories, which stir up their minds to Devotion, Piety and Obedience, but they are not competent Judges of those Histories, because they are more pleased with the narrations and the [Page 122] unexpected events of things, then with the Doctrine it self; and for this reason beside the reading of Histories, they need Pa­stors and Ministers in the Church, to in­struct their weak understanding. But not to digress from what we principally design'd to prove, we conclude that the belief of Histories whatever they be, doth not be­long to the Divine Law, nor doth of it self make Men happy or blessed, nor are Histories profitable, except it be in point of Doctrine, which is the only thing that makes some Histories therefore contain'd in the Old and New Testament, excel those that are profane and common, and Scrip­ture Histories mutually compared, are more excellent one then another, for sound and wholsom Doctrine. He then that reads Scripture Histories, and in all things gives intire credit to them, yet if he follow not their Doctrine and amend his Life, it is all one with him, as if he read the Alcho­ran, a Comedy, or any vulgar History; but as we have already said, he that never heard of Scripture, if his Opinions be true, and his Life righteous, he is truly blessed, and the Spirit of Christ is in him: but the Iews are of a contrary Opinion, for they say, let a Mans Opinions be never so Or­thodox, and his Life never so vertuous, yet if he be guided only by natural Light, and [Page 123] not by the Doctrins which are Prophetically revealed to Moses, he can never be blessed and happy, which Rabbi Maimonides bold­ly affirms in his Eighth Chapter and Second Law concerning Kings. He that receiveth the Seven Commandments and diligently performeth them, is one of the Pious a­mong the Nations, and Heir of the World to come (that is) if he receive and Practise them, because God in his Law commanded and revealed them by Moses, and because those precepts were also given to the Sons of Noah: but if he Practise them by the guidance and dictates of na­tural reason, he is none of us, nor is he to be thought one of the Pious and Learned of the Nations. It was an opinion among the Iews, that God gave to Noah seven Commandments, and that all Nations were obliged to observe only those seven; but that God gave many more Commandments to the Iews, that he might make them much happier then other Nations. Rabbi Ioseph the Son of Shem Tob in his Book cal­led Kbod Elohim, or the Glory of God, likewise saith, that tho' Aristotle (whose Book of Ethicks was in his opinion the best that ever was written) had omitted no­thing which belonged to that Subject, and he himself had diligently Practised all he Writ, yet he could not be saved, because [Page 124] he embraced those Doctrins he taught, as the dictates of reason, and not as divine and Prophetical Revelations. But these conceits are meer Fopperys, grounded nei­ther upon reason or Scripture, and need no more confutation, then doth the opini­on of some Men, who maintain that by natural light and reason, we cannot know any thing belonging to Salvation, a Tenet that cannot be rationally prov'd, by Men who do not allow themselves any reason but what is corrupted and depraved, and if they boast of any thing above reason, 'tis meer Folly and far beneath reason, as suf­ficiently appears by their manner of living: so that of this we need say no more, I will only add this, that no Man can be known but by his works, and therefore they that abound in the Fruits of Love, joy, peace, long suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance, &c. against whom saith Paul ( Galat. chap. 5. v. 22.) there is no Law, whether they be taught by rea­son or Scripture, they are certainly taught of God, and are truly blessed.

AS Men use to call that knowledge Divine, which exceeds human ca­pacity and understanding; so when any thing is done in nature, of which the common People know not the cause, that they call the Work of God: for the vulgar believe Gods Power and Providence do most plainly appear, when they see any thing strange and unusual happen in na­ture, contrary to the customary opinion they have of Nature; especially when that which happens, is for their benefit and ad­vantage; and they think the being of a God never more clearly proved, then when nature seems not to keep its constant course; and therefore conclude, that those Men deny the Being and Providence of God, who endeavour to explain and under­stand what they call Miracles by their na­tural causes. They indeed think, that [Page 126] while Nature goes on in her wonted course, God doth nothing, and on the contrary, when God Acts, the Power of Nature and Natural Causes are idle and at a stand: so that they imagin two nu­merical distinct Powers, namely the Power of God, and the Power of Nature ap­pointed and directed (or as most Men now believe) Created by God; but what they mean by either, or what they understand by God and Nature, they know not, but fancy Gods Power to be like that of a great King. And the Power of Nature nothing but blind force and violence, the Common People therefore, call the extraordinary Works of Nature, Miracles, or the Works of God, and partly out of Devotion, partly out of a desire to contradict those that love the Study of Natural Sciences, they affect, being ignorant of Natural Causes, desiring to hear of things they do not know, and those things, which they least know, they most admire: by taking away Natural Causes, and by imagining things out of the order of Nature, they think God is most adored when all things are immediately referr'd to his Power and Will; neither do they think the Power of God at any time so wonderful, as when according to their fancy, it conquers and subdues the Power of Nature. Which [Page 127] Opinion was first brought into the World by the Iews, who to convince the Hea­then, that then Worshipt the Sun, Moon, the Earth, Water, Air, &c. told them their Gods were weak, inconstant, mu­table, and subject to the Power of the in­visible God; whose Miracles they pro­claim'd, and by them endeavour'd to prove, that the whole frame of Nature was by the Power of that God whom they worshipt, created chiefly for their good and benefit: with which Opinion Men were so pleas'd, that ever since they have not ceased to fain Miracles, that they may be thought better beloved by God then others; and that the end and pur­pose of Gods making and preserving all things, was chiefly for their sakes. How arrogant is the foolish Vulgar who con­ceive nothing rightly of God or Nature, but confound the Ordinances of God, with the imaginations of Men, and think Nature so narrow, that they believe Man to be the principal part thereof. Having thus discovered the Opinions and Preju­dices of the Common People concerning God and Nature, I will proceed in order, and shew first, that nothing can happen contrary to Nature, whose order and course, is eternal, constant and immutable, explaining also what is a Miracle. Secondly, [Page 128] that we cannot know the essence, existence nor consequently the providence of God by Miracles, but they more manifestly ap­pear, in the constant and unchangeable order of Nature. Thirdly, I will prove by some Scripture Examples, that the Scripture it self, by the decrees, purposes and providence of God, means nothing else but that regular course of Nature, which necessarily follows from its eternal Laws. Lastly, I will shew, how Scripture Miracles are to be interpreted, and what we are principally to observe in the Re­lations we have of Miracles: all which particulars, are the subject of this present Chapter, and will be very useful to the de­sign of this whole Treatise. The first Particu­lar is proved, by what we have said in the 4 th Chapter Concerning the Divine Law, (namely) that whatsoever God willeth and decreeth, implyes eternal verity and necessity; for the Knowledge of God is not distinguisht from his Will, and we say the same thing, when we say God willeth, and God knoweth any thing; because by the same necessity, derived from the Na­ture and Perfection of God, whereby he knoweth any thing to be what it is, by the same necessity, must God will that thing to be what it is: but since nothing is ne­cessarily true, but what is so by the Will [Page 129] and Decree of God; it clearly follows, that the Universal Laws of Nature, are the very Ordinances of God, which flow from the necessity and perfection of his Divine Nature. Whatever therefore com­eth to pass in Nature, which is repugnant to its Universal Laws, that must necessari­ly be contrary to the Decree and Know­ledge of the Divine Nature; or if any one conclude that God doth any thing a­gainst the Laws of Nature, he likewise must grant, that God Acts contrary to his own Nature, which is the greatest of all Absurdities. As therefore nothing hap­pens in Nature, contrary to its Universal Laws, so neither doth any thing happen, which doth not agree with, and follow from them; for whatever is done, is done by the Will and eternal Decree of God (that is) according to Laws and Rules, which imply eternal Verity and Necessity: and therefore tho' the Laws in which are con­tained eternal Verity and Necessity, be not known to us, yet Nature always ob­serves them, and consequently keeps her constant and unchangeable course. No rational Man can believe the Power and Vertue of Nature to be limited, and its Laws confin'd to some particular Operati­ons and Effects, and not fitted Universally to all; for since the Power and Vertue of [Page 120] Nature, is the very Vertue and Power of God; we ought to believe the Power of Nature infinite, and the Laws of Nature so general, that they extend themselves to all things, which fall under the com­prehension of the Divine Knowledge: o­therwise it must be granted, that God Created Nature so weak and impotent, and its Laws and Rules so defective, that to preserve and maintain Nature, he must upon every new occasion assist and succour it, that things may fall out according to his Will; which is very irrational for any Man to suppose. If then nothing happens in Nature, which doth not follow from its Rules and Laws, that its Laws are ex­tended to all things within the compass of Divine Knowledge, and that Nature keeps a fixed immutable and regular Course; it is manifest that whatever Men call a Miracle, is only so in respect of their O­pinions, and signifies nothing else but some work or thing done, of which we cannot discover the natural Cause, by an example of any thing that ordinarily happens like it; at least the Person cannot, who relates or records the Miracle. I might call that a Miracle, whose cause cannot be made out from any natural Principles known by the Light of Nature; but because Mira­cles were wrought according to the Ca­pacity [Page 131] of the Vulgar, who knew not the principles of natural things, it is certain that the Antients counted that a Miracle, which they could not explain as the com­mon People use to do natural things, name­ly, by recurring to their Memory, for bring­ing to mind some other thing of the like kind, which they did not admire: for the common People think, they very well understand a thing, when they do not ad­mire it. By this Rule and no other, Men in old and later times, have judged of Miracles, and it is not to be doubted, but many things are related in Scripture for Miracles, whose causes might have been made manifest from the known principles of natural things, as we have hinted in our 2 d Chapter, where we spoke of the Suns standing still in the time of Ioshua, and its going backward in the time of Hezekiah on the Dyal of Ahaz, but of these things more at large, when I come to speak of the Interpretation of Miracles. I will now go on to prove the Second particular, namely that we cannot by miracles under­stand the Essence, Existence, or Providence of God, but that they are more clearly ap­prehended by us, in the fixed and immutable order of nature, which I thus prove. If the Existence of God be not of it self known to us, it must then be made out and con­cluded, [Page 132] from Notions whose verity is so firm and unshaken, that there cannot be a Power by which those Notions may be changed, at least, they ought to appear so to us at that time, when from them we conclude the existence of God, if we will have that existence to be indubitable: for if we could think those Notions mutable by any Power whatever it be; then might we doubt of the Truth of those Notions, and consequently of our conclusion, name­ly God's Existence; nor could we be cer­tain of any thing, and seeing we cannot know what is congruous or contrary to Nature, but that which we prove to be congruous, or contrary to those Prime No­tions; if we could conceive any thing in Nature to be done, by any other Power whatever contrary to Nature, that must also be contrary to those first Notions, and so be rejected as absurd and against Reason; or else we must doubt of our prime No­tions, and consequently of God, and all things else. Miracles therefore in what man­ner soever we apprehend them, as they are understood to be Works contrary to the Order of Nature; are far from proving God's existence, they rather bring it into Question, for without Miracles vve may be assur'd of it, namely, by knovving that all things observe the certain and immuta­ble [Page 133] Order of Nature; but granting that to be a miracle, vvhich cannot be explained and made knovvn by natural Causes, vve ought then either to conclude, that it hath natural Causes, but such as cannot be found out by Human Understanding, or that it hath no immediate Cause, but God or his Will; but if all things which are effected by Natural Causes, are done only by the Power and Will of God, we must necessari­ly at last come to this, that whether a Mi­racle have natural Causes or not, it is a Work which cannot be manifested by a Natural Cause (that is) 'tis a Work which exceeds Hnman Capacity, and from a Work that exceeds Human Understand­ing, we can understand and collect nothing: for whatever we clearly and distinctly un­derstand, we do it by the thing it self, or some other; and that which is clearly and distinctly understood by it self, ought to be perfectly known to us; therefore by a mi­racle, or any Work exceeding Human Ca­pacity, we cannot conceive God's Essence or Existence, nor can we absolutely under­stand any thing of God or Nature: but on the contrary, when we know all things to be ordained and establisht by God, and that the Operations of Nature ncessarily flow from the Essence of God, and that the Laws of Nature, are the Eternal De­crees [Page 134] and purposes of God; it must neces­sarily be concluded, that we so much the better know God and his Will, by how much the better we understand and know Natural Things, how they depend in their first Cause, and how they operate accor­ding to the Eternal Laws of Nature: So that in Respect of our Understanding, with much more Reason are those Works to be called the Works of God and his Will, which we clearly and distinctly understand, then those of which we are totally igno­rant, tho' they strangely effect our imagi­nation, and cause our wonder; because only those Works of Nature, which we clearly and distinctly know, render our Knowledge of God more sublime, and more evidently declare the Will and Decrees of God: So that those Men do but trifle, who, when they do not understand a thing, run presently to the Will of God, and ri­diculously betray their own Ignorance, moreover, whatever we conclude from miracles, yet the Existence of God cannot in any manner be concluded from them; for since a miracle is a limited Work, and expresseth only a certain and limited Pow­er, we cannot from such an Effect, con­clude the Existence of a Cause whose Pow­er is infinite; but only of a Cause whose Power at most, is greater then that Effect. [Page 135] I say at most, because from many concur­ing Causes, there may follow an effect, whose Vertue and Power may be less then all the Causes together, and yet much greater then the Power of any one of those Causes taken single; but because the Laws of Nature. As we have already shewn, extend themselves to things Infinite, being conceived by us under a kind of Eternity, and Nature by them proceeds in a certain and unchangeable course; so far do those Laws in some measure declare to us, the Eternity and Immutability of God; and therefore we conclude that neither God's Being or Providence, can be known by miracles; but may much better be conclud­ed from the fixed and unalterable Course of Nature: I speak now of a miracle, as it is taken for a Work that is above Human Ca­pacity, or believ'd to be so; for as it is supposed to be a Work, that interrupts or perverts the Order of Nature, or is repug­nant tc its Laws; it is so far from giving us any Knowledge of God, that it takes away, that which we naturally have, and makes us doubt of God and all other things. Nor do I know any difference between a thing done contrary to Nature, and that which is done above Nature (that is as some ex­plain themselves) a thing which is not done contrary to the Order of Nature, [Page 136] but yet is not effected and produced by Nature: for seeing a miracle is not wrought out of Nature, but within the Compass of it; tho' it be concluded to be above Nature; yet it must necessarily interrupt Natures Order, which, by the Decrees of God, we conceived to be fixed and immu­table; and therefore whatever is done in Nature, which doth not follow from the Rules of Nature, that must necessarily be repugnant to that Order, which God to all Eternity by Universal Laws establisht in Nature, and consequently, being against Nature, and its Laws, the believing it must bring all things into doubt, and lead us to Atheism, So that by what hath been said, I hope I have so proved the Second Particular, that we may again conclude a miracle, whether contrary to Nature or a­bove it, to be a meer absurdity, and that by a miracle nothing can be understood in Scripture, but a Work of Nature, which is indeed above Human Understanding, or at least believed to be so. Before I proceed to the Third Particular, I resolve to prove from Scripture; that we cannot know God by Miracles: indeed the Scripture doth no where Litterally say so, but we may conclude it from the 13. Chap. of Deut. Where Moses commands the People to put any Prophet to death, who went about to [Page 137] seduce them: And tho' the Sign, and the Wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, an yet thou shalt not hearken to the Words of the Prophet, for the Lord your God proveth you; that Prophet shall be put to death. From whence it clearly follows, that miracles might be done by false Prophets, and unless men were fortifyed with the true Knowledge and Love of God; they might be induced by mira­cles to worship false Gods, as well as the true: Moses adds, because the Lord your God proveth you to know, whether you love him with all your Heart, and with all your Soul. The Israelites notwithstanding all their mi­racles, had no right Notions of God, which appears by Experience; for in the Absence of Moses, they called upon Aron to make them visible Gods, who to their Eternal shame, made them after so many Miracles done, a Calf to represent God. Asaph, who had heard of so many miracles, yet doubt­ed of God's Providence; and had he not at last understood what was true Happiness, he had gone out of the right Way, Psalm. 73. Solomon also in whose time the Iews were in their highest Prosperity, believed that all things happened by chance, Eccles. Chap. 3. v. 19, 20, 21. and chap. 9. v. 2, 3. The very Prophets themselves, knew not how to reconcile the Course of Nature and Hu­man Eevents, with the Notions they had of [Page 138] God's Providence; but to Wisemen whose Knowledge is not built on miracles, but upon clear and distinct conceptions, the thing is very evident, especially to those who place true Happiness in Vertue and Tranquility of Mind; and study more to submit to Nature, then to make Nature obedient to them; knowing certainly, that God directeth Nature as its own Univer­sal Laws, and not as the particular Laws of Human Nature require; and that God hath a care not only of Mankind, but of the whole Frame of Nature in general; and it appears by Scripture, that miracles can­not teach us to know God or his Provi­dence, tho' we find in Scripture that God wrought miracles to be known to Men. Exod. Chap. 10. v. 2. The wonders which he did in Egypt, were to convince the Is­raelites, that there was a God; yet it doth not follow, that the miracles themselves taught them to know God, but only that the Iews were prepossest with such Opini­ons, that they would easily be perswaded by those Signs: for as I have already shew­ed in the Second Chapter, that the con­ceptions, which the Prophets had by Re­velation, were not drawn from Universal and common Notions; but from concessi­ons sometimes absurd, and from the Opi­nions of those, to whom the Revelations [Page 139] were made; and from theirs, whom the Holy Spirit would convince, as we have proved by many Examples, and the Testi­mony of Paul, who was to the Iews a Iew, and with the Grecians a Greek. But tho' those Miracles were sufficient to convince the Israelites, and the Egyptians, from their own Principles, that there was a God, yet they were not able to give them a right understanding and Idea of God; they under­stood nothing more by them, then that there was a Power greater, then all other known Beings, and that that Power took a parti­cular care of the Iews, whose Affairs were at that time, so prosperous above all other Nations; but did not teach them, that God hath an equal care of all Mankind, which we know only by Philosophy or true Wisdom; and therefore the Iews, and all that knew nothing of God's Providence, but from the different State of Human Af­fairs, and from the disparity of men's For­tunes, perswaded themselves, that the Iews were better beloved by God, then all o­ther Nations; tho' they did not excel any other People in Human perfection, as we have already declared in our Third Chap­ter. We now proceed to the Third Par­ticular, that is to prove by Scripture, that the Commands and Decrees of God, and consequently his Providence, are in­deed [Page 140] nothing else, but the regular Course of Nature (that is) when the Scripture saith, any thing was done by God, or the Will of God, nothing more is to be under­stood, then that it was done according to the Order and Rules of Nature, and not as the Vulgar imagine, that Nature was idle and ceased from Action, or that the Or­der of Nature, was for sometime inter­rupted. The Scripture doth not give us the true Knowledge of things, which do not concern its Doctrine, because, as we have al­ready declared, it needless, it meddles not with demonstrating things by their natu­ral Causes, nor with things that are meerly Speculative; and therefore to prove by con­sequence, what we intend; we will quote some Scripture Histories, whose Relations are fullest of Circumstances. In the first Book of Sam. Chap. 9. v. 15, 16. It is said, that God told Samuel in his Ear, that he would send Saul to him; and yet God did not send him, as Men use to send Messenger; one to another, but this mission of God, was nothing but the Order and Course of Nature; for Saul sought his Father's lost Asses, and thinking he should not find them; by Advice of his Father's Servant, he went to the Prophet Samuel, to know if he could tell him where they were; nor doth it ap­pear any where in the whole Relation, that [Page 141] Saul had any particular Command from God, beside this natural Course to go to Samuel. Psal. 105. v. 24. 'Tis said, that God turned the Heart of the Egyptians to hate the Israelites: which turning was Na­tural; as appears by the first Chap. of Ex­odus, where very good Reasons are given, for the Egyptians keeping the Israelites in subjection. In the 9 th. Chap. of Gen. v. 13. God saith to Noah, that he would set his Bow in the Cloud; which Action of God was nothing, but the Reflection and Refracti­on of the Sun-Beams, in the minute drops of Rain Water. Psal. 147. v. 18. The natu­ral Operation, and warmth of the Wind, by which, Frost and Snow are melted, is called the Word of God; and v. 15. the Wind is called the Commandment of God, Psal. 104. v. 4. The Wind and the Fire are called the Messengers and Ministers of God, and many other like places in Scripture clearly shew, that the Decree, the Com­mand, the Saying and Word of God, are nothing else but the Operation and Order of Nature; and without doubt many things which are related in Scripture, and attributed to God, naturally come to pass; because it was not the intent of Scripture, to give us an account of things by their na­tural Causes; but only to relate those things which strongly possess the imagi­nation, [Page 142] and in such manner and stile, as was most likely to cause admiration and fill Mens minds with Devotion. If then we find in Scripture some things, of whose natural causes we are ignorant, or that seem to have happen'd against the order of nature; we are not presently to doubt, but believe, that what did really happen, came to pass by the course of nature; which is confirm'd by the many Circumstances that accompany'd miracles, tho' the Cir­cumstances were not particularly related, or were at least poetically related: I say the Circumstances clearly prove, that the miracles required, and had natural causes. When the Egyptians were to be smitten with the Plague of boiles, Moses was to cast up and sprinkle Ashes into the Air, Exod. chap. 9. v. 10. The Locusts also by Gods natural command, namely by an East Wind blowing a whole Day and Night, covered the Land of Egypt, and left it again with a strong West Wind, Exod chap. 10. v. 13. 19. By the command of God, was a way made through the Sea for the Iews, by an East Wind that blew a whole Night Exod. chap. 14. v. 21. when the Prophet Elisha was to raise the Child, thought to be dead, he several times stretched himself upon the Body, till he grew warm and opened his Eyes, in the 2 d. Book of Kings [Page 143] chap. 4. v.34,35. so also in the 9 th.chap. of St. Iohns Gospel, some Circumstances are menti­oned which Christ used, when he Cured the blind Man; many other things are related in Scripture, which all declare that mira­cles require somewhat more then the abso­lute command of God; and therefore tho' all the Circumstances of miracles and their natural causes, be not always particularly exprest; yet we ought to believe, that miracles were not wrought without them. Which appears by the 14 th chap. of Exod. v. 27. where it is said, that only upon the stretching out of Moses's hand, the Sea re­turned again to its full strength, without making mention of any Wind; yet in the 15 chap. of Exod. called Moses's Song v. 10. it is said, thou didst blow with thy Wind (that is a strong Wind) and the Sea covered them. So that this Circumstance was omitted in the Story, to make the miracle appear the greater: but some will urge, that we find many things in Scripture, which cannot in appearance be explain'd by natural causes; as that the sins of Men may be the cause of the Earths Barrenness, and Mens Prayers the cause of its Fertility; that Faith may give sight to the Blind, with other things of the like kind, recorded in the Old and New Testament: but to this I have already given Answer, in shewing that the Scrip­ture, [Page 144] doth not give us the knowledge of things by their next immediate causes, but only relates things in that order, and ex­presseth them in such Words and Phrases, as are most likely to stir Men up, especially the multitude to Devotion; and for that reason speaks many times very improperly of God, and the things it treats of, not so much to convince our reason, as to affect and possess our minds, and our imaginati­ons; if the Scripture should relate the de­struction of any Empire, in the same man­ner that Historians and Politicians use to do, it would not at all affect the Common People, but when the overthrow of a Kingdom is poetically described, and de­clared to be the immediate Work of God's own hand, how strangely are Men moved with it? When the Scripture saith, that for the Sins of Men, the Earth is barren, or that blind Men are restored to sight by Faith; it signifies no more then do those other Sayings, that God is angry or grieved with our Sins, that he repents of the good he hath done, or intended, and that God by seeing a Sign called to mind his promise, all which Expressions are spoken poeti­cally, or according to the Opinions and Prejudices of the Writer; so that we ab­solutely conclude, that all things which the Scripture relates to have happen'd, did [Page 145] happen as all things do, according to the Laws of Nature; and if in Scripture there be any thing recorded which by plain and evident Demonstration, may be proved to be repugnant to the Laws of Nature, or impossible to follow from them; we ought to believe it was inserted by Sacrilegious Men; for whatever is a­gainst Nature, is against Reason, and whatever is against Reason, ought to be rejected as absurd. Nothing now remains, but only to say somewhat of interpreting Miracles, or rather to recollect what hath been already said, and illustrate it by some Example, which is the fourth Particular I promis'd to treat of. That no body by mistaking a Miracle, may think there is something in Scripture which is contrary to the Light of Nature. It seldom hap­pens that Men relate any thing that comes to pass so nakedly and truly, but that to their Relations they add somewhat of their own conceits; yea when they see or hear any thing, unless they beware of their own preconceived Opinions, they will be so far prepossest, that they will never rightly understand what they see or hear, especially if what hath happen'd be above the Capacity of the Spectator or Relator, and it be for his advantage that the thing should happen in that very man­ner: [Page 146] hence it is that Men in their Histories and Chronicles, rather vent their own O­pinions, then make faithful Relations, and one and the same Matter of Fact, related by two Men of different Opinions, shall be so diversly represented, that it shall seem two different Cases: so that oft times it is not very difficult, by the very Histo­ries to discover what were the Opinions of the Historians: to Evidence this, I might cite many Philosophers, who have Written Histories of Nature, as well as Chronologeis, but I will make use of only one mention'd in Scripture, and leave the Reader to judge of the rest. In the time of Ioshua, when the Iews believed that the Sun was carryed about the Earth by a Dyurnal Motion, and that the Earth did not move at all, they fitted the Miracle which happen'd when they fought against the five Kings, according to this their pre­conceiv'd Opinion, and did not say simply, that the day was longer then ordinary, but that the Sun and Moon stood still, or ceased from motion; which at that time served as a very good Argument to con­vince the Heathen, who Worshipped the Sun, that their God the Sun, was under the Power of another Deity, who could at his pleasure make him change his Course; and therefore partly out of Religion, and [Page 147] partly from the Opinion wherewith they were prepossest, they apprehended and related the thing much otherwise then in­deed it was; therefore to explain Miracles and to understand by their relations, how things did truly and really happen, it is necessary to know the Opinions of those, who first reported the Miracles, or left them in Writing, and to distinguish their Opinions, from that which was represent­ed to them by their Sences, else we may confound their Judgments and Opinions, with the Miracle it self: It is likewise neces­sary to know their Opinions, that we may not confound the things which really hap­pen'd, with the things which were only ima­ginary, and but Prophetical Revelations; for many things in Scripture are related and believed as things real, which were but representations and meer imaginati­ons; as that God the first and highest of all Beings, descended from Heaven, Exod. chap. 19. v. 18. Deut. chap. 5. v. 23. upon Mount Sinai, and that the Mountain smoaked because God came down upon it in the midst of Fire: we are likewise told of Eliahs going to Heaven in a Fiery Cha­riot, with Horses of Fire; all which were but representations suted to the Opinions of them, who delivered to us those things for realities; when in truth they were [Page 148] but meer representations; whoever is but little wiser then the Multitude, knows that God hath neither Right or Left Hand, that he neither resteth nor moveth, that he is comprehensively in no place, but is infinite, and in him are contain'd all per­fections. These things I say are known to Men, who judge of things by the per­ceptions of a pure understanding and not as their Fancy is affected by their out­ward Sences; as is usual with the Vulgar, who believe God to be Corporeal, and i­magining he Exerciseth Kingly Dominion, fancy his Throne to be in Heaven above the Stars, at no great distance from the Earth; to which and the like Opinions many Cases in Scripture are Accommoda­ted; but yet ought not to be thought real by Wise Men. Truly to understand how Miracles happen'd, it concerns us to know the Phrases and Figures of the Hebrew Language; for he that is not well ac­quainted with them, will take many things in Scripture for Miracles, which were never thought so by the Penmen of it; so that he will not only be mistaken in the Things and Miracles that happen'd, but will be likewise ignorant what was the meaning of those by whom the Scripture was Ori­ginally Written (for Example.) The Pro­phet Zachary chap. 14. v. 7. speaking of a [Page 149] future War saith, but it shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, nor Day nor Night, but it shall come to pass that at the Evening time, it shall be Light, in which words he seems to predict a great Miracle; but they signify no more, then that a doubtful Battle should be fought, whereof the Success should be known only to God, but towards Evening the Iews should be Victorious. In the like Phrases and Expres­sions, the Prophets were wont to foretel and write the Victories and overthrows of the Nations, Isaiah. chap. 13. v. 10. de­clareth the destruction of Babylon in these words, the Stars of Heaven and the Constel­lations thereof shall not give their Light, the Sun shall be darkned in his going forth, and the Moon shall not cause her Light to shine, which no body believes did happen in the destruction of that Empire, nor that which the Prophet adds. v. 13. therefore will I shake the Heavens and the Earth shall re­move out of her place. In like manner, Isaiah chap. 48. v. 21. they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts, he caused the Wa­ters to flow out of the Rock, for them he clave the Rock also and the Waters gushed out; by which words nothing more is meant, then that the Iews found Fountains in the deserts, by which they quenched their thirst; for no such Miracles hap­pen'd [Page 150] when by the consent of Cyrus they returned to Ierusalem, many expres­sions of like Nature, occur in the Scrip­ture, and are only fashions of speaking amongst the Iewish Nation; I need in­stance in no more, but let it be observed, that the Iews made use of such Phrases, not only for Ornament to their Language, but also to express their Devotion; and therefore attributed all things to God; so that the Scripture seems to relate no­thing but Miracles, even when it speaks of things meerly natural. We are therefore to believe, that when the Scripture saith God hardened the Heart of Pharaoh, no­thing more was signified, then that Pha­roah was very obstinate and disobedient; and when it is said, God opened the Win­dows of Heaven, nothing more is to be understood, then that there fell abundance of Rain: whoever then will but consider, that many things in Scripture are related very briefly, imperfectly, and without Circumstances, shall find nothing repug­nant to natural Reason, but many things which seem very obscure, may with a little Meditation be explain'd and easily understood: so that I think I have suffi­ciently proved, what I intended: but be­fore I put an end to this Chapter, I have thought fit to intimate, that in speaking [Page 151] of Miracles, I have taken a course diffe­rent from that I made use of in treating of Prophesy; for I declared nothing posi­tively concerning Prophesy, but what I could conclude from fundamental Princi­ciples revealed in the Scripture; but what I have said concerning Miracles, I have drawn from Principles known by the Light of Nature, which I did designedly, be­cause I could not know wherein Prophesy consisted, nor could I aver any thing of it (it being a meer Theological question exceeding human Capacity) but what I could derive from revealed Principles; so that I was forced to make a short Histori­cal Collection of Prophesy, and from thence to form some Maxims which might instruct me, as far as 'twas possible, in its Nature and Properties: but because that which we inquire concerning Miracles, namely, whether any thing in Nature can happen which is either contrary to its Laws, or doth not follow from them, is a Philosophical Subject, I thought it much better to clear the Question, by making use of Principles known by the Light of Nature, as those that are most obvious. I say I did it purposely, because I can also prove it from fundamental Principles of Scripture, which declareth that the course and order of nature in general, is constant [Page 152] and immutable, Ps. 148. v.6. he also establisht them for ever and ever, he hath made a decree which shall not pass, and Ierem. chap. 31. v.35, 36. thus saith the Lord who giveth the Sun for a Light by Day, and the Ordinances of the Moon and the Stars for a Light by Night, which divideth the Sea when the Waves there­of roar; if these Ordinances depart from before me saith the Lord, then the Seed of Israel shall cease also from being a Nation be­fore me for ever: the Philosopher in his Book of Ecclesiastes chap. 1. v. 10. saith, is there any thing whereof it may be said, see this is new, it hath been already of old time, which was before us, v. 11. he saith, there is no remembrance of former things, neither shall there be any remembrance of things to come with those that come after: by which words he means, that nothing happens which hath not happen'd before, tho' it be for­gotten; in the 3 d Chapter v. 11. he saith that God hath made every thing beautiful in its time, and v. 14. he saith whatever God doth, it shall be for ever, nothing can be put to it nor any thing taken from it, v. 15. that which hath been is now, and that which is to be, hath already been, which clearly de­clares, that Nature keeps a constant fixed and unchangeable course, that God in all Ages known and unknown, it still the same, that the Laws of Nature are so large [Page 153] and perfect, nothing can be added to, or taken from them, and lastly that there is nothing new in Miracles, but what seems so to Mans ignorance, these things are ex­presly declared in Scripture, but 'tis no where said, that any thing happens in Na­ture, either contrary to its Laws, or not proceeding from them; so that Miracles require Causes and Circumstances, and are not immediately wrought by I know not what Kingly and absolute Empire, which the Vulgar attribute to God; but by his divine Power and Decree, mani­fested in the Laws and Order of Nature, and that Miracles may be wrought by se­ducing Impostures; as appears, Deut. chap. 13. and Matth. chap. 24. v. 24. from whence it manifestly follows, that Miracles were things natural, and therefore (to use Solomons expression) are not to be thought new or contrary to Nature, but have as neer an Alliance as is possible, to natural things, which may be easily made out by the Rules I have laid down, drawn from the Scripture: but tho' I say we are taught these things by Scripture, yet I do not mean, that the Scripture delivers them to us as Doctrines necessary to Salvation, but only that the Prophets received them as we do, and therefore 'tis left to every Mans Liberty, to have such an Opinion of [Page 154] them, as is most likely to incline him most religiously and heartily to serve God, and of this mind was Iosephus, for he concludes his Second Book of Antiquities with these words; Neither ought any Man to marvel, at this so wonderful discourse, that thorow the Red Sea a passage should be found, to save so many Persons in times past, and they rude and simple; whether it were done by the Will of God, or that it chanced of it self; since not long time ago God so think­ing it good, the Sea of Pamphilia divided it self, to give way to Alexander King of Macedons Souldiers, having no other passage, to destroy the Empire of the Per­sians, and this all acknowledge, who have Written the Acts of Alexander, and there­fore of these things let every one think as he pleaseth.

MOst Men acknowledge the Holy Scripture to be the Word of God, which teacheth Mankind the way to true Happiness and Salvation; but this Opini­on hath so little influence upon Mens Lives, that the common People take no care, to regulate theirs according to the Doctrines of Scripture; and every Man believing himself divinely inspired, would under pretence of Religion, compel all others to be of his Opinion. We often see those whom we call Divines, very soli­citous to father their own Fancies upon Scripture, and the Divine Authority there­of, making no scruple with great boldness to interpret it, and tell us what is the mind of the Holy Ghost. When they meet with any difficulties, they do not [Page 156] so much fear mistaking the Holy Spirits meaning, and the right way to Salvation; as to be found guilty of Error, and by loo­sing their Authority to fall into contempt; but if Men did heartily believe that which they profess concerning the Scrip­tures, they would lead other kind of Lives, there would not be half so much contention and hatred in the World as now there is; nor would Men with so much Blind Zeal and boldness, venture upon expounding Scripture, and intro­duce so many novelties into Religion; but on the contrary, would be very cau­tious of maintaining any thing for Scrip­ture Doctrine, which is not manifestly contained in it, and the Men who have not been affraid to adulterate Scripture in so many places, would never have com­mited such impious Sacriledge. But am­bition and wickedness have so far pre­vailed, that Religion doth now consist, not so much in obeying the dictates of the Holy Spirit, as in defending Mens own fantastical opinions; Charity is now no part of Religion, but discord and impla­cable hatred pass under the masque of Godly Zeal. To these evils superstition hath joyned it self, teaching Men to despise reason and nature, and to admire and re­verence [Page 157] that only which is repugnant to both; 'tis no wonder that Men to be thought the greater admirers of Scripture, should Study so to expound it, that it may seem contradictory both to nature and reason, and therefore dream of profound misteries hidden in it, which misteries (that is their own obsurdities) they labour and weary themselves to find out; and neg­lecting things which are of most use, as­cribe to the Holy Spirit, all the Dotages of their own imagination, and with much heat and passion, endeavor to defend their own idle conceits. Whatever is the result of Mens understanding, that Men endeavor to maintain by clear and pure reason, but all opinions derived from their passions and affections, must be defended by them to avoid these troubles, and to free our minds from all Theological prejudices, that we may not rashly receive the Foolish inven­tions of Men, for the Doctrins of God; I will now treat of a right method of inter­preting Scripture, of which method who­ever is ignorant, he can never certainly know the true Sense and meaning, either of the Scripture or the Holy Ghost. I say in few Words, that the method of inter­preting Scripture, doth not differ from the method of interpreting nature; for as the [Page 158] method of explaining nature, cheifly con­sists in framing a History thereof, from whence, as from undeniable concessions, shall follow the definitions of natural things; so likewise to expound Scripture, it is absolutely necessary to compose a true History thereof, that thence, as from sure Principles, we may by rational consequences collect the meaning of those who were Authors of the Scripture, that every one (who admits of no other Principles or con­cessions in expounding Scripture, or in reasoning of the things therein contain'd, but such as are fetcht from the Scripture it self, or the History of it) may proceed without danger of Erring, and be able to discourse and reason as securely of things which exceed human capacity, as of any thing we know by natural light. Now that it may evidently appear, that this is the on­ly sure way, and agrees with the method of explaining nature, we are to observe, that the Scripture very often treats of things, that cannot be deduced from Principles known to us by natural light; because Revelations make up the greatest part of Scripture History, which Principaly con­tains Miracles; that is (as we have already shew'd in the foregoing Chapter) narra­tions of things not common or usual in nature, suted and fitted to the judgment [Page 159] and opinions of the Historians that wrote them: Revelations also as we have shew'd in the Second Chapter, were accomoda­ted to the opinions of the Prophets, and exceed human capacity, wherefore the knowledge of all these things (that is) of almost every thing contained in Scripture, ought to be derived only from Scripture, as the knowledge of natural things ought to be from nature: as for moral Doctrins contained in the Bible, tho' they may be demonstrated from common and general Notions, yet it doth not ap­pear by those Notions, that the Scripture teacheth those Doctrins; nothing but the Scripture it self makes out that, and to give a clear demonstration of the Scripture's Divinity, we must from the Scripture it self, prove the Truth of the Moral Doctrins which it teacheth, because in that Truth only, the Divine Authority of Scripture ap­pears; for as we have already shewn, the certainty of the Prophets, consisted in their being just and vertuous, which to make us believe them, ought likewise appear to us. We have already shewn that Miracles cannot prove the Divine Nature of God, and that they might be wrought by false Prophets, the Divine Authority of Scrip­ture appears then, in its teaching us what is true and real Vertue, and that can be [Page 160] proved only by Scripture it self, if not, we could not without a great deal of preju­dice believe the Scriptures, and think them to be of divine inspiration: the Scrip­ture indeed, doth not give us any definiti­on of the things whereof it treats, so neither doth Nature; and therefore as from several Actions of Nature, we make definitions of natural things; in the same manner, from several narrations of all things contained in Scripture, are conclusions to be drawn. The general rule then of inter­preting Scripture is, that we conclude no­thing to be Doctrine, which doth not manifestly and clearly appear, from the History of Scripture; what kind of Hi­story it ought to be, and what are the Prin­cipal things it ought to contain, comes now to be declared.

First, it ought to contain the Nature and Proprieties of that Language in which the Books of Scripture were Originally Written, and which the Authors of those Books were wont to speak; that so all the Senses which every Speech, according to the ordinary use of speaking will bear and admit, may be found out; and because the Pen-Men both of the Old and New Testament were Iews, the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, is above all things ne­cessary, [Page 161] to understand not only the Books of the Old Testament, which were Writ­ten in Hebrew, but also of the new; for tho' some of the Books of the New Testament, were Published in other Lan­guages, yet they are full of Hebrew­isms.

Secondly, The Sentences of every Book, ought to be Collected and reduced to Heads; that so all that concern one and the same Subject, may be easily found, and all those which seem doubtful and obscure, or repugnant to one another, ought to be noted: I call those Speeches clear or obscure, whose Sense is easily or difficultly made out by the context, and not in re­spect of the Truth of those Speeches, easily or difficultly perceived by reason; for only the Sense of what the Scripture saith, and not the verity is our business; we are therefore to take special heed, that in sear­ching out the Sense of Scripture, we do not suffer our reason, as it is founded upon the Principles of natural knowledge, to be prepossest with prejudice; and likewise that we do not confound the true Sense of the words, with the verity of the mat­ter; for the true Sense is to be found out, only by the use of the Language, or by such a way of reasoning, as is grounded only upon Scripture. That all these things [Page 162] may be perfectly understood. Take this example for illustration; These sayings of Moses God is Fire, and God is jealous how plain and clear are they, so long as we re­gard only the signification of the words, but in respect of reason and truth, how dark and obscure, yea tho' the litteral Sense of the words be contrary to natural rea­son, yet unless it contradict any funda­mental Principles derived from Scripture, their litteral Sense is still to be retained, so on the contrary, if these sayings in their litteral construction, should be found re­pugnant to Principles deduced from Scrip­ture, tho' they should be most agreeable to reason, yet they ought to be Metapho­rically not litteraly understood. To know then whether Moses did, or did not believe God to be Fire, we ought not to conclude the one or the other, because the Opinion is either contrary or consonant to reason, but it must be gathered from some other of Moses own sayings (for example) because Moses in very many places hath plainly de­clared, that God is not like any visible thing, either in Heaven, Earth, or the Waters, we must conclude that either this saying, God is Fire, or else all his other sayings are to be Metaphorically interpre­ted, but because we ought as seldom as 'tis possible, to depart from the litteral [Page 163] Sense, we must therefore inquire whether this saying God is Fire will admit of any other Sense beside the litteral, (that is) whether the word Fire signify any other thing beside natural Fire, and if in the Hebrew Tongue, it can never be found to signify any thing else, then this saying of Moses is no other way to be interpreted, tho' it be repugnant to reason: but on the other side all those other sayings of Moses, tho' consentaneous to reason, are to be conformable and accomodate to this; but if the common use of the Language will not suffer this to be done, then those several sayings are Irreconcileable, and we are to suspend our judgment of them. But now because the Word Fire, is also taken for anger and jealousy, Iob. chap. 31. v. 12. these sayings of Moses are easily recon­cileable, and we may lawfully conclude, that these two Sentences God is Fire, and God is jealous signify both the same thing.

Moreover, because Moses plainly saith, God is jealous, and doth no where declare that God is free from all manner of pas­sion and affections of the mind, we may conclude that Moses did think, or at least taught other Men to think, God was jea­lous, tho' we believe the opinion contrary to reason: for as we have already shewn, it is not lawful for us, to wrest the Sense [Page 164] and meaning of Scripture, according to the dictates of our reason or preconceived Opinions, because all our knowledge both of the Old and New Testament, must be derived only from themselves.

Thirdly, This History of Scripture, ought to give such an account of the Books of the Prophets remaining with us, as may inform us, of the Lives, Manners and Studies of the Authors of every Book; who the Person was, upon what occasion he wrote, in what time, to whom; and in what Language, and Lastly, it ought to tell us, what was the Fortune of every Book, how it was first received, into whose hands it fell, how many various readings it had, how it came to be received for sacred and Canonical. And Lastly, how all the several Books came together into one Vo­lume; I say all these things this History of Scripture ought to contain. To know what Sentences of Scripture are to be taken for Laws and precepts, and what only for moral Doctrins, it is very expedient to know the Life, Manners, and Study of the Author; beside we can with more ease know, the meaning of any Mans Words, when we know his genius, disposition and ingenuity. Moreover, that we may not confound Doctrins whose morality and Obligation is perpetual, with those that [Page 165] were but temporary, and of use only to some particular People; it behoveth us to know, upon what occasion, at what time, to what Nation, in what Age, all these instructions were Written. Lastly, it is fit we should know, beside the Authority of every Book, whether the Books have been adulterated, or at least whether any Errors have crept into them, and whether they have been corrected by Learned and Faithful Men, all which things are abso­lutely necessary to be known, that we may not with Blind Zeal receive every thing obtruded upon us, but believe that on­ly, which is certain, plain, and past all doubt.

After we have such a History of Scrip­ture, and have firmly resolved to con­clude nothing to be the Doctrine of the Prophets, which doth not naturally fol­low, or may be clearly drawn from this History; then it will be time to prepare our selves, to search out the meaning of the Prophets, and of the Holy Ghost; which to do, the like method and order is required, that is to be used in interpreting nature by its own History; for as in searching out natural things, we first en­deavour to inquire concerning that which is Universal, and common to all nature, as Motion and Rest; and the Laws and [Page 166] Rules of both, which nature always ob­serves, and by which it continually Acts, and from these we afterwards by degrees pro­ceed to other things less general; so like­wise from this History of Scripture, we are first to inquire after that which is most general, and is the Basis and Foundation of all Scripture, and is commended by all the Prophets, for the most profitable and perpetual Doctrine to Mankind (for ex­ample) that there is only one omnipo­tent God, who only is to be worshipt, who provideth for all, and loveth those best, who serve him and love their Neigh­bours as themselves, is a Doctrine every where so express and plain in Scripture, that no Body ever doubted the Sense and meaning thereof; but what God is, why and in what manner he beholdeth and pro­videth for all things, the Scripture doth no where expresly and positively declare, nor teach it as an eternal Doctrine, but on the contrary, the Prophets as we have already shewn, did not agree amongst themselves concerning these things, and therefore in matters of like nature, we are not posi [...]ively to determin what is the Doctrine and meaning of the Holy Spirit, tho' it may be very well made out by na­tural knowledge. This general Doctrine of the Scripture, being rightly known, we [Page 167] are then to pass on to things less Univer­sal, which concern the common use of Life, and which are derived like rivulets from this general Doctrine. Such are all the particular external Actions of real Vertue, which cannot be Practiced but as occasion is offer'd, and whatsoever in Scrip­ture relating to them seems doubtful or obscure, must be explain'd and determin'd by the Universal Doctrine; and for those things which seem contradictory one to another, we are to examin. Upon what occasion, at what time, and to whom they were written (for example) when Christ said, Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted. We know not who are the Mourners meant in this Text; but be­cause Christ afterwards, bids us take no thought for any thing, but seek the King­dom of God and the righteousness there­of, which he commends to us as our cheifest good, Math. chap. 6. v. 33. there­fore it follows, that the Mourners meant by Christ, must be those who lamented to see the Kingdom of God and its righteous­ness, so much neglected by Men; for which no others could Mourn, but those whose affections were Heavenly, and contemned all things here below. So also when Christ said Math. chap. 5. v. 39. Whatsoever shall smite thee on the right Cheek, turn to him the [Page 168] other also, if he had spoken this as a Law-giver, by this command he had abrogated the Law of Moses, which he declareth in the 17 th verse, he came not to destroy, but fulfil: We are therefore to inquire, who said this, to whom, and when he said it. First, it was Christ that said it, not as a Law-giver who ordained Laws; but as a teacher, who gave moral instructions, not so much to reprove their deeds, as to cor­rect their thoughts: next he spoke it to Men opprest, who lived in a Common-wealth extreamly corrupted, where justice was neglected, and whose ruine and destructi­on was near at hand: this Doctrin of Christ, was likewise Preached by the Prophet Ieremy, before the first de­struction of the City of Jerusalem, Lament. Chap. 3. v. 30. He giveth his Cheek to him that smiteth him. Wherefore seeing the Prophets did not teach this Doctrine, but in the time of oppression, nor was any where commanded by them as a Law; and on the contrary Moses (who did not write in times of oppression, but took care to establish a good Common-wealth) tho' he condemned revenge, and the hating of our Neighbour, yet he commanded, that an Eye should be given for an Eye: hence it appears by the fundamental Principles of Scripture, that this Doctrine of Christ and [Page 169] Jeremy, for suffering Injuries and submit­ting to Wicked Men, ought to be practis­ed only in times of oppression, and in Pla­ces where Justice is not so easily to be had; but not in a good Common-Wealth, be­cause in good Governments, where Justice is maintain'd, every Man is obliged if he will be Just, to require Satisfaction for In­juries before a Judge, Levit. Chap. 5. v. 1. Not upon the score of Hatred and Revenge, which are forbidden, Levit. Chap. 19. v. 17, 18. But to preserve and maintain the Justice and Laws of a Man's Country, and that wicked Men may not get advantage, and thrive by their wickedness, all which is agreeable to Natural Reason: to this purpose, I could bring many more Ex­amples, but these are sufficient to explain my meaning, and shew the usefulness of that method, which is the Subject of my present Discourse. But hitherto I have only shewn, the Way to find out the Sense of those Scripture Sentences, which concern the Use of Life; and are there­fore more easily understood; because a­mong the Penmen of the Bible, there never was any controversy about them; but other passages in Scripture which con­cern Matters meerly Speculative, are not so plain and obvious, because the Way to them is very narrow; for tho' in things [Page 170] meerly Speculative, the Prophets as we have already shewn, differ'd amongst themselves, and the narrations of things, were suited to the prejudice of every Age, yet it is not at all Lawful for us to deter­mine, what was the meaning of one Pro­phet, by the clear Places of another; un­less it be evident to us, that they were both of one Opinion: how then the mean­ing of the Prophets, in such Cases is to be known by the History of Scripture, I will in few words declare; we must in the first Place, begin with what is most general, and from those Sentences of Scripture, which are most plain and clear, inquire what is Pro­phesy or Revelation, and in what it chiefly consists. Next we ought to inquire, what a Miracle is, and after that of things usual and common; this being done, we ought to consider the Opinions of every Prophet, and from them guess at the meaning of e­very Prophesy, History and Miracle: but what caution we are to use, that in these things we do not confound the Sense of the Prophets and Historians, with the mean­ing of the Holy Spirit, and the Truth of the Matter, I have already shewn in their pro­per Places. But this is to be noted con­cerning the meaning of Revelations, that this my method teacheth us, to find out only those things, which the Prophets heard [Page 171] or saw, and not what they signified and re­presented to us by Figures an Hierogli­phicks; of these things we can only make Conjectures, but cannot certainly derive them from the fundamental Principles of Scripture. Now though I have shewn the manner of interpreting Scripture, and prov­ed it to be the sure way of finding out the Sense thereof; yet indeed I confess those Men may have a more certain Knowledge of the true meaning of it (if any such Men there be) who have received a Tradi­tional Explication thereof, made by the Pro­phets themselves (which the Pharisees af­firm they have) or such as have a high Priest, who cannot err in expounding Scripture, and that the Roman Catholics boast of their Popes: but seeing we cannot be sure of such a Tradition, or the Authority of such a Priest or Pope, we cannot build upon either, because the Primitive Christians deny the one, and the most Antient Sects of the Iews the other. And if we consider the Series and Succession of Years, which the Pharisees re­ceived from their Rabbies, by which they carry their Tradition as high as Moses him­self, we shall find it false, as I have proved in another place: such a Tradition there­fore, ought to be much suspected, and tho' in our method, we are forced to suppose some kind of Iewish Tradition to be sincere [Page 172] and uncorrupt, namely, the Signification of words in the Hebrew Tongue, which we have received from the Iews, yet we need not much doubt this, tho' we very well may the other; for it can be of no Advan­tage or Use to any Man, to change the Signification of any Word, tho' it often may be, to alter the Sense of a Speech. It is also very difficult to be done, for he that should endeavor to change the Sense of any Word, must necessarily construe all those Authors, who have written in that Tongue, and used that Word in its com­mon acceptation, according to the Genu­ine Sense of every Author; or else must falsify them with a great deal of Caution. The ignorant multitude as well as Learned Men, are the keepers of a Language, but the Learned only preserve the Sense of Speeches and Books, and consequently, tho' Learned men may change or corrupt the Sense of some scarce Book; yet they cannot the Signification of Words: beside if any man had a mind to alter the Signi­fication of a Word, to which he is accu­stomed, he cannot without a great deal of difficulty do it, either in speaking or writ­ing. For these and other Reasons I am perswaded, it never yet came into any man's head to corrupt a Language, tho' many have perverted the Sense of a writer, [Page 173] either by changing or misinterpreting his sayings. If our method (which layeth this for a ground, that the knowledge of Scrip­ture, is to be drawn only from the Scrip­ture) be plain and true; then where it is not able to give us the true Sense and Knowledge of Scripture, we may well despair of it: what difficulty there is of arriving by this method to the true Mean­ing and Knowledge of the Sacred Vo­lumes, or what is further to be desired in it, I will now declare. The chiefest dif­ficulty in this method is, that is requireth a perfect Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, but how is that to be had? the Antient and most skilful Masters in the Hebrew Language, have left little to posterity of the Elements and Learning of it; we have from them neither Dictionary, Grammar, or Rhetoric. The Iewish Nation hath lost all its Ornaments and Beauty (which is no wonder having suffer'd so many Calamities and Persecutions) and retains nothing but a few Fragments of their Language, and of a few Books, for all the names of Fruits Birds, Fishes, and many other things, by the Injury of time are lost. So that the Sig­nification of many Names and Words, in the Old and New Testament, is unknown or very disputable. Seeing then all these things, and likewise a Dictionary of the [Page 174] Hebrew Phrases, and manners of speaking in the Hebrew Language, are very neces­sary to be had, because all the Forms of Speech peculiar to the Iewish Nation are forgotten and lost; we cannot as we would find out all the Senses of every Sentence in Scripture, which according to the custo­mary use of the Language it comprehends, and there are many Sayings in Scripture, tho' exprest in known words, whose Sense nevertheless is obscure and inscrutable, and as we have no perfect History of the He­brew Tongue, so the Nature and Consti­tution of the Language is such, and so ma­ny Ambiguities spring from it; that 'tis impossible to frame such a method, as shall direct a Man to find out the true Sense of all that is said in Scripture: for beside the Causes of Doubt common to all other Languages, there are some others in this, from whence proceed many uncertainties, which causes here to specify, I think worth a Man's pains.

First, Obscurity and ambiguity in Scrip­ture, is caused sometimes by using the Let­ters of the same Organ one for another. The Iews divided all, the Letters of their Al­phabet into five Classes or Forms, because there are five particular Parts or Instru­ments of the Mouth used in pronunciati­on: the Lips, the Tongue, the Teeth, the [Page 175] Palate, and the Throat; for Example Al­pha, Ghet, Hgain, He, are called Guttu­ral Letters, and are without any difference known to us, taken one for another. El which signifies To, is often taken for Hgal, which signifies upon, and so interchange­bly; whence it cometh to pass, that all the Parts of a Speech are rendred doubtful, or are like words which have no Significa­tion. The Second cause of ambiguity, is the divers and manifold Signification of conjunctions and Adverbs; for example, Vau promiscuously serves to joyn and dis­joyn, signifying And, but, because, indeed, otherwise, then, Ki hath seven or eight Significations, because, although, if, when, even, as, that, burning, and so almost all Particles.

The Third cause of many Ambiguities is, because Verbs in the Indicative Mood, want the Present, the Preterimperfect, the Preterpluperfect and the Future tense, and others much used in other Languages. In the Imparative and Infinitive Mood, they want all the Tenses except the Pre­sent, and in the Subjunctive have none at all; and tho' all these defects of Moods and Tenses, may with great Elegancy be supplyed, by Rules and Principles dedu­ced from the Language; yet they have been wholly neglected by the Antient [Page 176] Writers, who promiscuously used the Pre­sent and Preterperfect tenses for the Future; and sometimes the Indicative Mood for the Imperative and Subjunctive; which caused great Ambiguity in their Writings: beside these three great Causes of uncer­tainty in the Hebrew Language, there re­main two other very observable, and both of very great moment. The first is, that the Iews made no use those Letters we call Vowels. The Second, that they ne­ver used in their Writings to distinguish their Words, or express their quantity, by any Marks or Signs; and tho' both Vowels and Marks use to be supplyed by Points and Accents, yet we cannot trust to them, see­ing they were invented, and brought into use by modern Men; whose Authority is of no great Value. The Antients wrote without Points, that is without Vowels or Accents, as appears by many Testimonies, but some of later times brought in both, to interpret the Bible as they thought fit; so that the Points and Accents, which we now have, are only Expositions of Men of the present Age, whom we ought not to reverence and believe above other Exposi­tors: they that are Ignorant of this, know not the Reason, why the Author of the E­pistle to the Hebrews is to be excused, that in the 21 th. Verse of the 11 th. Chap. of that [Page 177] Epistle, he explains the Text in the 31 th. Verse of the 47 th. Chap. of Genesis quite o­therwise, then it is in the pointed Hebrew Text; as if the Apostle had been to learn the Sense of Scripture from the Punctists, in my Opinion the Punctists are mistaken; that it may appear they are, and that the difference of the two interpretations, ari­seth from the want of Vowels, I will give you both: The Punctists by their Points render the Text in Genesis thus, and Israel bowed himself Vppon (or by changing hgain into Aleph, a Letter of the same Or­gan) towards the Beds Head; but the Au­thor of the Epistle saith, Israel bowed him­self leaning Vppon the top of his Staff, by reading Mateh, instead of the Word Mitah, which difference cometh only from the Vowels. Now seeing the forecited Chap­ter of Genesis, speaketh only of Iacob's Age, and not of his Sickness as doth the follow­ing Chapter, it is much more probable the Historian meant, that Iacob leaned Vppon the top of his Staff (wherewith Men of very great Age use to support themselves) and not that he did bow himself uppon or towards his Beds Head; because in so ren­dring the Text, there is no need to suppose any interchange of Letters. By this Ex­ample, I have not only reconciled that Place in the Epistle to the Hebrews, with [Page 178] the Text in Genesis, but have also shewn how little credit is to be given to our new Points and Accents; so that he who will interpret Scripture without prejudice, must with a great deal of doubting narrowly ex­amin them.

To return to our purpose, every one may easily conjecture, that from such a Nature and Constitution of the Hebrew Tongue, must proceed so many Ambiguities, that 'tis impossible for any method to resolve them all; and there is little hope it can be done, by the mutual comparing of one saying with another (which we have de­clared to be a singular way of finding out the true, of many Senses, which every Sentence according to the common use of the Language, will bear and admit.) See­ing this comparing of Places, cannot ex­plain one another but by meer chance; be­cause no Prophet wrote with express Inten­tion, to explain the Words of another Prophet or his own; and also because we cannot know one Prophet's or Apostle's meaning by anothers, unless it be in things that concern the use of Life; but not when they speak of things Speculative, and when they relate Miracles or Histories: more­over, I can give you many Instances of Speeches in Scripture, that are inexplica­ble, but at present I pass them by, and [Page 179] proceed to observe, what other difficulties yet remain, in this method of interpreting Scripture, and what is further to be wisht for in it. Another difficulty attends this method, because we have not such a Hi­story of all the Books of Scripture as is ne­cessary; for we know not the Authors, or ra­ther the Pen-men of many of the Books; at least we doubt of them, as I shall at large shew in the following Chapter; nei­ther do we know, upon what Occasion, or when those Books of whose Pen-men we doubt, were written, we are ignorant into what Hands all the Books fell, nor know we in whose Copies so many various Read­ings are found, and whether there be not some, which have more various Readings: what advantage it is to know all these things, I have briefly declared in its proper place; but I have there purposely omitted some things, which come now to be considered, if we read any Book, that contains things incredible, unintelligible, or written in very obscure Terms, and know not who was its Author, or at what time or upon what occasion it was written; in vain do we la­bour to find out the true Sense thereof, for none of these things being known, 'tis im­possible to understand, what the Author did or could mean: but when we are once satisfyed in these things, our Thoughts de­mine [Page 180] without prejudice, and give to the Author, or to him in whose Favour the Author writ, neither more or less then is his due; nor do we think of any other things, then were or might be in the Au­thor's mind, and such as the time and oc­casion requir'd: and this is apparent, for it often happens, when in divers Books, we read stories one like another, we pass different Judgments on them, according to the different Opinions we have of the Writers. I remember I have read in a cer­tain Book, of a Man called Orlando furioso, who rid upon a winged Monster through the Air, into what Countries he pleas'd, and slew a great Number of Men and Gi­ants, with abundance of other Fancies beyond all Reason and Sense. A story like this I have read in Ovid of Perse­us, and another in the Book of Iudges and Kings of Sampson, who single and unarmed slew Thousands of Men, and of Eliah who with a Chariot and Horses of Fire, mounted up to Heaven; these stories I say are like one another, yet we make different judgments of every one of them. The first Author wrote nothing but Fables, the Second matters Political, and the Third Sacred, and this for no o­ther reason, but the different opinions we have of the writers. It is therefore evi­dent, [Page 181] that the knowledge of those Au­thors, who have written things obscure and very difficult to be understood, is ab­solutely necessary to interpret their wri­tings, and among several readings of ob­scure Histories, that we may chuse the true, 'tis necessary to know in whose Co­pies those diverse readings are found, and whether many other readings have not been met with, amongst Men of greater Authority.

Lastly, we meet with another difficulty in expounding some Books of Scripture, by not having those Books in the same Language wherein they were first written; for 'tis the common opinion, that the Gos­pel according to St. Mathew, and the E­pistle to the Hebrews, were written in the Hebrew Tongue, which Copies are no where extant. In what Language the Book of Iob was written is a doubt, Abenezra in his Commentaries, affirms it was Trans­lated out of some other Language into Hebrew, which is the cause of its obscuri­ty: Of the Apocryphal Books I say no­thing, because they are of little or no Authority. These are all the difficulties in this method of interpreting Scripture by such a History as might be had of it, of which I promised to give an account, and I think them so great, that I may boldly [Page 182] say, we cannot know the true sense of Scripture in many places, or at most, we can without any certainty but guess at it; however this is to be observed, that all those difficulties can only hinder us, from knowing the mind of the Prophets in things imperceptible, which we can only imagin, but not in things intelligible, of which we may form clear conceptions: for things which in their own nature are easily conceived, can never be spoken so obscurely, but that they may be quickly understood, according to that usual say­ing a Word to the Wise. Euclyd who writ of nothing but what is very plain and obvious, is easily understood by every Body in any Language, and therefore to be sure of his Sense and meaning, there is no need of a perfect, but only a super­ficial knowledge of the Tongue where­in he wrote, nor of knowing his Life, Study, Manners, in what Language, when, or to whom he wrote, neither knowing the Fate of his Book, its various readings, or how it came to be generally received; what I say of Euclyd, may be said of all Men, who have written of things in their own nature easy to be understood; so that we conclude, the meaning of the Scripture, and the true Sense thereof, con­cerning moral Doctrins, may be easily at­tained, [Page 183] by such a History as might be com­posed of it: For all Lessons of true Piety, are given us in words of common and fre­quent use, and are therefore plain and easy to be understood; and because our happiness and the peace of our Lives, consists in Tranquillity of Mind, which we find only in things which we clearly understand; it evidently follows, that we may certainly find out the meaning of Scripture, in things necessary to happi­ness and Salvation; and therefore we need not be so Sollicitous about other matters, which when they seem so difficult to our reason and understanding, have more curiosity in them then profit. I have now shewn what is the true method of explaining Scripture, and sully declared my opinion concerning it, I doubt not but every one sees, this method requires nothing more then natural reason, whose Nature and Vertue cheifly consists in de­ducing by right consequences, things ob­scure from known and indisputable con­cessions; and tho' we grant, that this na­tural light is not sufficient to find out all things in Scripture, it is not from any defect in this natural light, but because the right way which it shews us, was never observed and troden by Men: So that in tract of time, it is become painful, and almost [Page 184] impossible to pass, as in my opinion ma­nifestly appears by the difficulties I have mentioned. It now remains that I ex­amin those Mens opinions, who are not of mine: the first to be considered is theirs, who positively affirm, that natural light is not sufficient to interpret Scripture, and that only Supernatural light can do it; but what they mean by Supernatural light, I leave them to explain: I suppose they do but in obscure terms confess, that they are very doubtful of the true Sense of Scripture, for if we diligently consider their expositions, we shall find they con­tain nothing Supernatural; yea they will appear to be meer conjectures, if they be compared with their explanations, who pretend to nothing more then what is na­tural; they will be found like them to be human, long Studied and Elaborate. In maintaining that natural light is not able to explain Scripture they are mistaken, what we have said makes it clear, that the dif­ficulty of expounding Scripture doth not arise from any defect of strength in na­tural light; but only from Mens sloth (I will not say malice) who have neglected to Compose such a History of Scripture, as might have been framed of it; and al­so because all Men (if I be not deceived) confess, that Supernatural light is a divine [Page 185] gift bestowed only upon believers; but the Prophets and Apostles Preached not only to believers but to wicked unbelievers, who were notwithstanding their impiety and unbelief, capable of understanding the meaning of the Prophets; otherwise they had Preached but to Children and Infants, and not to Men endued with rea­son: and Moses had in vain prescribed Laws, if his Laws were intelligible only to believers who needed no Law. Where­fore they that seek after supernatural light to understand the mind of the Prophets and Apostles, seem void even of natu­ral light, and such I think are far from having that Heavenly Gift of light super­natural. Maimonides was not of these Mens Opinion, for he thought most places of Scripture would bear several, yea con­trary Senses, and thought likewise, that we cannot be certain of the true Sense of any place, unless we know the place as we interpret it, to contain nothing but what is agreeable to reason, or not contrary to it; for if in its litteral Sense it appear re­pugnant to reason, tho' the Sense appear clear, yet he thinks the place ought to be otherwise interpreted; and this he plain­ly declares in the 25 th Chapter of his Book called More Nebuchin, where he saith know that I do not refuse to say the [Page 186] World is eternal because there are Texts in Scripture which say the World was created, for the Texts which declare the World was created, are not more then those that tell us God is Corporeal, neither are the ways of ex­pounding those Texts, concerning the Creation of the World, Shut up or barred against us; but we could as well explain them, as I did the other when I proved God to be incorpo­real; perhaps I could better and with more ease expound the Texts of the Worlds Crea­tion, and maintain the World to be eternal, then I did those of Gods corporiety, when I proved God to be incorporeal; but for two reasons I will not do it, or believe that the World is eternal: First because it is evident by a clear Demonstration, that God is not Corporeal, for all places of Scripture whose lit­teral Sense is repugnant to a Demonstration, require explication, because it is certain they ought not to be taken litterally, but the eter­nity of the World is not proved by any Demonstration, and therefore it is not neces­sary to offer violence to the Scripture, and wrest it by expositions, to maintain an opinion that is but probable, when we may with any reason maintain the contrary opinion. The se­cond reason is, because believing God to be incor­poreal, is not contrary to the Fundamentals of the Law, but to believe the eternity of the World, as Aristotle did, destroyeth the very Foundation [Page 187] of the Law. These are the Words of Maimo­nides, from which that manifestly follows which I said before: for if he were convin­ced by reason, that the World was eternal, he would not scruple to wrest the Scrip­ture and make such expositions of it, as might support that opiuion; and he would be presently certain, that the Scripture tho' it every where plainly say the contrary, did declare the World to be eternal, and consequently, could never be certain of the true Sense of Scripture, tho' never so plain; so long as he doubted the Truth of the thing; or that the Truth were not evi­dent to him, for so long as the Truth of a thing is not apparent, we are so long ignorant whether the thing be agreeable or contrary to reason, and consequently, we know not whether the litteral Sense be true or false; which opinion if it were true, I would absolutely grant, that some other light, beside what is natural, is ne­cessary for us to interpret Scripture: for most of the things we meet with in it, can­not be deduced from Principles known by natural reason (as we have already shewn) and therefore the Truth of them cannot be made manifest, by the strength of natural reason; and consequently the true Sense and meaning of the Scripture, cannot appear to us without some other [Page 188] light. Moreover, if this opinon were true, the common People who are igno­rant of, or at least do not mind Demon­strations, would entertain no Scripture but what they received from the Authori­ty or Testimony of Philosophers; and con­sequently ought to suppose, Philosophers cannot Err in the interpretation of Scrip­ture; which truly would be a new Eccle­siastical Authority, and a kind of Priest­hood which the vulgar would rather scorn then reverence. And tho' our method require the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, which the vulgar have no time to Study; nothing can upon that Score be objected, for the common People of the Iews and Gentiles, to whom the Pro­phets and Apostles Preached, understood the Language of the Prophets and Apostles, and by it understood the meaning of the Pro­phets, tho' not the reasons of the things they Preached, which according to the opinion of Maimonides, they ought to have known, to make themselves capable of un­derstanding the Prophets meaning. It doth not follow from the rule of our method, that the common People must necessarily rely upon the Testimony of interpreters, for I have given an instance of a Peo­ple, that knew the Language of the Pro­phets and Apostles: but Maimonides can [Page 189] never shew me a common People, that knew the causes of things, which he says was the knowledge whereby the mind of the Prophets was to be understood, and as for the common People of these days, we have already shewn, that all things ne­cessary to Salvation, tho' the reasons of them be not known, may be easily under­stood in any Language, because they are so common and ordinary, and for this knowledge the vulgar do not depend up­on the Testimony of interpreters; in o­ther things they follow the Fortune of the Learned. But to return to a stricter ex­amination of Maimonides opinion, first he supposeth that the Prophets did in all things agree one with another, and that they were most excellent Philosophers, be­cause as he will have it, their conclusions were drawn from the Truth of things, but this I have proved in my Second Chapter to be false. Next he supposeth, that the Sense of Scripture cannot be made out by Scripture, for as much as it doth not Demonstrate any thing, nor doth it prove the things of which it Treats by definition and Primary Causes, wherefore according to the opinion of Maimonides, the true Sense of Scripture can neither appear or be deduced from Scripture: But I have likewise proved this to be false, in the pre­sent [Page 190] Chapter; For I have made it ap­pear, both from reason and examples, that the Sense of Scripture is found out only by Scripture, and to be derived thence, even when it speaks of things unknown to us by natural light. Lastly, Maimonides sup­poseth that it is Lawful for us, according to our preconceived opinions, to ex­pound and wrest the Words of Scripture, and to deny or change the litteral Sense thereof be it never so express and plain; which Liberty is Diametrically opposite, to what I have Demonstrated in this and o­ther Chapters, and Savors of too much boldness: but should I grant him this Liberty, what advantage will he get by it? none at all, for those things which cannot be Demonstrated, make up the greatest part of Scripture, we cannot by this way make out, nor by this rule ex­pound or interpret them, when on the contrary by following our method, we may explain many things of this kind, and as we have already shewn, safely dispute of them, but those things which are in their own nature perceptible, their Sense is ea­sily drawn from the context, and as Mai­monides method is unprofitable, so it takes from the common People all certainty, which they, and all that follow any other me­thod, can by diligent reading have of the Sense of Scripture; and therefore we re­ject [Page 191] it as dangerous, useless, and absurd, as for the forementioned Tradition of the Pharisees, we know not that there is any such, and as for the Popes Authority, I for no other reason deny it, but because it wants clear Proof, for had they as much Scripture to shew for it, as heretofore the Iewish High Priests had for theirs, I should be as little concerned that some of the Popes of Rome, have been Hereticks and wicked Men, as that the High-Priests of the Iews were sometimes as bad, and yet by the command of Scripture, had still the Power of interpreting the Law; as ap­pears by the 17 chap. of Deut. v. 11, 12. chap. 33. v. 10. and Mal. chap. 2. v. 7, 8. But because the Popes can shew us no such Testimony, their Authority is very much to be doubted, and that no Man may de­ceive himself, and think that according to the example of the Iewish High-Priests, the Catholic Religion also wants a High Priest, it is to be observed, that the Laws of Moses were the public Laws of the Country, and needed a public Authority to maintain them; for if every Man have a Liberty of interpreting the public Laws as he pleaseth, no Common-wealth can stand, but present­ly dissolves, and public Laws become pri­vate: but in Religion the Case is quite different; for seeing Religion doth not so much consist in external Actions, as in [Page 192] Truth and Singleness of Heart, it is of no Public Power or Authority; for Truth and Sincerity of mind is not infused by the command of Laws, or by public Au­thority, and no Man can be compell'd by force or by Laws, to be made holy, no­thing but good brotherly Council, edu­cation, and a mans own free judgment can do that. Seeing then every Man hath right to think of Religion as he pleaseth, and it cannot be imagin'd any Man can part with this right; it is in every Mans Power to judge of Religion, and conse­quently to expound and interpret it to himself; for as the cheif Power of inter­preting Laws, and judging of Public Mat­ters, resides in the Magistrate upon no o­ther account, but because they are pub­lic; so likewise for the same reason, the Supream Authority of explaining and judg­ing of Religion, is in every particular Person, because it is every private Mans right. The Authority then of the Iewish High-Priest to interpret Laws, is far from proving the Popes Authority to interpret Religion but rather the contrary that every particular Man hath right to do it; So that it is evident our method of inter­preting Scripture i. the best, for seeing the supream Power of interpreting it, ought to be that natural reason which is common to [Page 193] all Men, and not any Supernatural light or external Authority; this method ought not be so difficult and abstruse, that none but acute Philosophers can make use of or Compose it, but it must be fitted and pro­portion'd, to Mens understanding and ca­pacity, as I have proved mine to be, the difficulties that are in it, have proceeded from Mens sloth and negligence, not from the nature of the Method.

IN the former Chapter, we have spoken of the Foundations and Principles of the Knowledge of the Scriptures; and we have shewn them to be nothing else, but a true History of the Scripture, which Hi­story, tho' very necessary, the Antients neglected to compose, or at least if they [Page 195] Writ or left any by Tradition, it perish­ed by the injury of time; and conse­quently a great part of the Fundamentals and Principles of Scripture-knowledge was lost; which loss however had been more tollerable, if Men of succeeding Ages had kept themselves within their true bounds, and had faithfully delivered to their Suc­cessors, those few Principles which they received or found out, and had not out of their own Brains forged new, whereby the History of Scripture is not only im­perfect, but remains full of Errors, and the Foundations of Scripture Knowledge, are not only so few that a perfect History cannot be built on them, but they are also very faulty and defective. To rectify this, and remove the common prejudices in Divinity, is my purpose, but I fear I go about it too late, for things are now al­most come to that heigth, Men in this point will endure no correction, but ob­stinately defend whatever they have em­braced under the form of Religion; Rea­son prevailing with very few, so univer­sally have these prejudices spread them­selves in the Minds of Men. I will never­theless endeavour and try what I can do, because the business is not absolutely des­perate: that I may in order shew what these prejudices are, I will begin with [Page 196] those which concern the Penmen of those Books that are accounted sacred, and first concerning the Writer of the five Books of Moses, commonly called the Pentateuk. Men have generally believed, that they were Written by Moses himself, and the Pharisees so stifly defended this Opinion, that they counted him a Heretic that thought otherwise: and for this Reason Aben Ezra a Person of an ingenuous dis­position, and no mean Learning, being the first I read of who took notice of this mi­stake, durst not plainly declare his thoughts, but only hinted his Opinion in obscure Words, which I will not scruple to ex­plain, and give you their naked meaning. Aben Ezra's Words in his comment upon Deutronomy are these. Beyond Iordan— Now thou mayest understand the Mistery of twelve and Moses also wrote the Law and the Cananite was then in the Land, in the Mount of the Lord shall it be seen, behold his Bed­sted was a Bedsted of Iron then shalt thou know the Truth, by these few Words he shews and plainly declares, that it was not Moses, but some other Person that lived long after him, who wrote the Pen­tateuk; and that Moses wrote some other Book, to make this appear his first Obser­vation is, that the Preface of Deutronomy which begins thus, These be the words of [Page 197] Moses which he spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan, could not be Written by Moses who never passed Iordan. His second Observation is, that the Book which Moses wrote was fairly Copyed out in the com­pass of one Altar, as appears Deut. chap. 27. v. 5, 8. Iosh. chap. 8. v. 31, 32. which Altar the Rabbins declare, was made only of twelve Stones; from whence it follows, that the Book which Moses Writ, was a Volume much less then the Pentateuk; and this I think Aben Ezra meant by the mi­stery of twelve, unless perhaps he under­stood those twelve Curses which are in the forementioned 27 th Chapter of Deutronomy, which he might believe were not Written in the Book of the Law, and therefore beside the Writing of the Law, command­ed the Levites to repeat those Curses, that they might by Oath bind the People to observe the Written Laws, or else perhaps he meant the last Chapter of Deutronomy, that speaks of Moses's Death; which Chap­ter consists only of twelve Verses: but these and other things which are spoken only by guess, need not a more curious Examination. The third Observation is, that 'tis said Deut. chap. 31. v. 9. Moses wrote this Law and delivered it, &c. which could not be the words of Moses, but of some other Person declaring what Moses [Page 198] did, and what he wrote. His fourth Ob­servation is that place Gen. chap. 12. v. 6. where it is said, speaking of Abraham pas­sing through Canaan, that the Cananite was then in the Land, which words must be Written after Moses's Death, when the Ca­nanites were driven out, and did not possess the Land; and this must likewise be the meaning of Aben Ezra's comment­ing upon this place in these words; And the Cananite was then in the Land, it seems that Canaan Nephew to Noah, took that Land from some others who possessed it, if not, then there is a great mistery in the thing, whosoever understands it, let him be silent (that is) if Canaan invaded those Countries, then the meaning of those Words the Cananite was then in the Land, must be that there was a time past when the Land was inhabited by another Nation, but if Canaan were the first who lived in that Country (as appears by the 10 th. Chap. of Gen. he was) then the words must imply, that in the time of the Person, who wrote the Book of Genesis, the Cananites were not in the Land; so that Moses could not be the Writer of it, because in his time the Ca­nanites were still in the Possession of that Country; and this is that Mistery, he would not have made public. His Fifth Obser­vation is that which is in the 22 th chap. [Page 199] Gen. v. 14 where speaking of Mount Moriah, the Text saith, it is said to this day in the Mountain of the Lord shall it be seen: now it was not called the Mountain of the Lord, till after it was dedicated to the Building of the Temple, and this choice of the Mountain was not made in the time of Moses, who did not speak of any place chosen by God, but only foretels that God would in time to come, chuse a place which should bear Gods Name. His sixth Observation is what is said, Deut. chap. 3. speaking of Og King of Basan, these words are interposed, v. 11 th. for only Og King of Basan remained of the remnant of the Gyants behold his Bedsted was a Bedsted of Iron is it not in Rabbah of the Children of Ammon? Nine Cubits was the length there­of, which Parenthesis clearly shews, that the Writer of these Books lived long after Moses, for this manner of speaking argues, that the Person related what past long ago, and to obtain credit, shewed some Antient Reliques. Without question this Bedsted, was first found in the time of David, who Conquered this City, as is declared in the 30 th Verse of the 12 Chap. of the second Book of Samuel and not on­ly here, but a little after, the Historian, to Moses words adds these in the 14 th Verse, Jair the Son of Manasseh took all the Coun­try [...] [Page 198] [...] [Page 199] [Page 200] of Argob unto the coasts of Jeshuri and Maachathi, and called them after his own name Bashan, Haveth, Jair, unto this day; these Words I say were added by the Hi­storian, to explain Moses's Words in the 13 th Verse, and the rest of Gilead and all Bashan being the Kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half Tribe of Manasseh, all the Re­gion of Argob, with all Bashan which is cal­led the Land of the Gyants, and therefore the Historian was forced to explain what those places were, which were antiently so called, and also to give a reason why in his time they were called by the name of Iair, who was of the Tribe of Iudah and not of Manasseh, as appears by the 2 d Chap. of the 1 st Book of the Chron. v. 21, 22. We have now explained Aben Ezra's meaning, and also those places in the Pen­tateuk quoted by him, to make good his Opinion; but indeed he hath not taken notice of all, nor of the principal places, for there are more of greater moment which I will now mention: First, the Writer of these Books doth not only speak of Moses in the third Person, but also testi­fies many things of him, namely God spake with Moses, God spake with him face to face, Moses was the meekest of all Men, Numb. chap. 12. v. 3. Now the Man Moses was very Meek above all Men upon the Face [Page 201] of the Earth, Moses was wroth with the Offi­cers of the Host, Numb. chap. 31. v. 14. Moses the Man of God, Deut. chap. 33. v. 1. Moses the Servant of the Lord dyed, Deut. chap. 34. v. 5. And there arose not a Pro­phet since in Israel like unto Moses. v. 10. but in Deutronomy where the Law which Moses wrote and declared to the People is set down, Moses speaketh and tells them what he did in the first Person, Deut. chap. 2. v. 1, 17. The Lord spake unto me and I prayed unto the Lord, but then again after the Historian had repeated Moses's words, he goes on and again speaks in the third Per­son, declaring how Moses delivered to the People in Writing that Law which he had published. Lastly, the Historian relates, how Moses warned and admonished the People and ended his Life; all which, namely the manner of speaking, the Testi­mony and Character given of Moses, with the context of the whole History, fully satisfy that the Books were not Written by Moses, but by some other Person. Secondly, it is to be observed, that this Hi­story doth not only relate, how Moses dyed, was buryed, and that the Iews Mourned thirty Days for him; but ma­king likewise a Comparison between him and all the other Prophets that lived after him, saith, he excelled them all, Deut. [Page 202] chap. 24. v. 10. and there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face. Which as it is a Testi­mony that Moses could not give of him­self, so could no other Man who imme­diately followed him, but it must neces­sarily be one, who lived many Ages after him; because he speaketh of the time past, saying there arose not a Prophet since, and of his Burial he saith, no Man knoweth of his Sepulchre unto this day. Thirdly, it is to be Noted, that the History calls some places by Names, which they had not in Moses's time, but by others given them long after, Gen. chap. 14. v. 14. it is said Abra­ham pursued his Enemies unto Dan, which name was never given to that City till long after the Death of Ioshua, as appears by Iudg. chap. 18. v. 29. and they called the Name of the City Dan, after the Name of Dan their Father who was Born unto Israel, how be it the Name of the City was Laish at the first. Fifthly,, it is to be observed, that the Hi­stories are continued for a longer time then Moses lived; for Exod. chap. 16. v. 35. it is said the Children of Israel did eat Manna forty Years until they came to the Borders of the Land of Canaan, namely till the time mentioned, Iosh. chap. 5. v. 12. In the Book of Gen. 36. v. 31. These are the Kings that Reigned in the Land of Edom before [Page 203] there reigned any King over the Children of Israel: the Historian without doubt there declareth, what Kings the Edomites had before David Conquer'd them, and set Governours over them; as appears in the 2 d Book of Sam. chap. 6. v. 11, 14. by all this it is as clear as day, that the Penta­teuk was not Written by Moses, but by some other who lived many Ages after him. But let us consider the Books which Moses wrote, and are mention'd in the Pentateuk: First, it appears, Exod. chap. 17. v. 14. God commanded Moses to write the War against Amalek, but in what Book it doth not appear, Numb. chap. 21. v. 10. there is a Book mentioned called the Wars of the Lord, wherein without question Moses gave a full Relation of the War against Amalek, and also of all those En­campings or pitching their Tents, which the Author of the Pentateuk saith, Numb. chap. 33. v. 2. were described by Moses; it likewise appears, Exod. 24. v. 4, 7. that Moses wrote another Book, called the Book of the Covenant, which he read to the People when they first made a Covenant with the Lord, but this Book or Epistle contained very few things, the Laws only or Commands of God recited in Exod. from the 22 Verse of the 20. chap. to chap. 24. which no body will deny, who with­out [Page 204] partiality and with any sound Judg­ment reads that Chapter; it is there de­clared, that as soon as Moses understood the Peoples readiness to enter into a Cove­nant with the Lord, he wrote the Oracles and Laws of God in a Book, and early in the Morning, certain Ceremonies being performed, he read to all the Congregati­on the Condition of the Covenant, which being read and understood by all the Peo­ple, they with a general Consent obliged themselves to all that God Commanded; so that considering the shortness of the time in which it was Written, and the manner of making the Covenant, the Book could contain no more then the few things I have mentioned. Lastly, it ap­pears, that Moses in the fortieth Year after their going out of Egypt, explained all those Laws which he had prescribed, as may be seen, Deut. chap. 1. v. 5. and again obliged the People to the observance of them, Deut. chap. 29. v. 14. and then wrote a Book which contained those Laws so ex­plain'd, and the New Covenant, Chap. 31. v. 9. which was called the Book of the Law of God, to which Ioshua made an Addition, by registring that agreement, whereby the People in his time, obliged themselves and entered a third time into Covenant with the Lord, Iosh. chap. 24. v. 25, 26. but because we have no Book ex­tant [Page 205] either of the Covenant of Moses or Ioshua, it must necessarily be granted, that the Book perished, unless we will be as mad as the Chaldee Paraphrast Ionatan, and wrest the Scripture as we please; for he being prest with this diffi­culty, chose rather to corrupt the Scrip­ture then confess his Ignorance; for those words in the 26. v. of the 24. chap. of Iosh. Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the the Law of God, &c. he render'd thus in his Chaldee Translation. And Ioshua wrote these words, and kept them with the Book of the Law of God, there is no medling with Men, who will see nothing but what they list, is not this denying what is Scrip­ture, and forging new at our pleasure! We then conclude, that this Book of the Law of God, was not the Pentateuk, but quite another; which the Author of the Pentateuk hath orderly interwoven with his work; as appears by what hath been and shall be further said: where the forecited place in Deutronomy saith, that Moses wrote a Book of the Law, the Historian adds, that he delivered it to the Priests, and command­ed them at certain set times to read it be­fore all the People: which implyes that the Book must be much less then the Pen­tateuk, seeing at one meeting it might be read all over and understood by the Peo­ple: nor can we here forbear to observe, [Page 206] that of all the Books Written by Moses, this only of the second Covenant and his Song (which he afterwards Writ for all the People to Learn) he commanded to be Religiously kept; because the first Co­venant obliged only those that were pre­sent, and the second not only all present but their posterity also, Deut. chap. 29. v. 14, 15. He therefore commanded this Book of the second Covenant, to be care­fully and Religiously preserved to future Ages, and also his Song; because future Ages were chiefly concern'd in it. Seeing then it is not evident, that Moses ever writ any Books beside the Book of the Law and his Song, which he commanded to be kept, and that many things in the Penta­teuk could not be Written by him; I con­clude that no Man can upon any good ground, but must altogether against rea­son, make Moses the Author of the Pen­tateuk but some body may perhaps here ask, whether Moses besides these Books did not write the Laws when they were first revealed to him (that is) whether in the space of forty Years, he did not set down in Writing any of those Laws which he prescribed, beside those few contain'd in the Book of the first Covenant: to this I answer, that tho' I should grant it to be very agreeable to reason, that Moses should commit to Writing, those Laws which [Page 207] he Communicated to the People, at the same time and place, when and where they were publisht; yet I deny that it is lawful upon this Ground to affirm he did; for I have already shewn, we ought in like Cases to determin nothing, but what is manifestly proved, either by Scripture it self, or by consequences drawn from the Principles of it, and not because a thing seems Consonant to Reason; for Reason it self doth not oblige us to be possi­tive: It may be the Senate of Seventy Elders communicated to the People Mo­ses's Edicts in writing, which were after­wards collected, by him that writ the Pen­tateuk, and were orderly inserted into the History of Moses's Life; and so much for the five Books of Moses. It is now time to examin the rest, the Book of Ioshuah for like Reasons could not be written by Io­shua, it must be some other Person, that gives so good a Character of him in several places of that Book; Iosh. Chap. 6. v. 27. The Lord was with Ioshua, and his Fame was nois­ed throughout all the Country, that he omit­ted nothing, but did all that Moses command­ed, Chap. 8. v. 35. Chap. 11. v. 15. That he waxed Old, called all the People together, and at last dyed. Moreover some things are re­lated which happen'd after his Death; namely, that the People continued to wor­ship God as long as the Old men lived, who [Page 208] knew Ioshua. In the 16. Chap. v. 10. It is said, that Ephraim and Manasseh did not drive out the Cananites, that dwelt in Gezur, but the Cananites dwell among the Ephramites to this day, and serve under Tribute. Which is the same Expression we find in the first chap. of Iudges. v. 21. But the Iebuzites dwell with the Children of Benjamin in Ieru­salem unto this day. Which manner of speaking implies, the Writer relates what was long ago past, as appears Iosh. Chap. 15. Verse the last, the Iebuzites dwell with the Children of Iudah unto this day. The same Expression is likewise used in the Hi­story of Kaleb, beginning at the 13 th. Verse of the said Chapter. The building of an Altar beyond Iordan, by the two Tribes and a half mention'd in the 22. Iosh. v. 10. In all Probability happen'd after Ioshuah's Death; because in all that story, there is not so much as one word said of him; but the People only deliberated to make War, sent Embassadors, received and approved the Answer which was returned. Lastly, it appears by the 14 th. Verse of the 10 th. Chap. That the Book of Ioshua was written many Ages after his Death, for the Text saith, and there was no day like that before or after it, that the Lord hearkened to the Voice of a Man: If then Ioshua writ any Book, it must be that of Iasher, mentioned in the [Page 209] same story v. the 13 th. As for the Book of Iudges, I believe no Man in his right Wits will think it written by the Iudges themselves, for the end of the History in the 2 d. Chap. clearly shews, it was all writ­ten by one single Person, who tells us in many places, that in those days there was no King in Israel; which is an argument it was written in a Time when the People had Kings. Concerning the Books of Sa­muel there needs no deliberation, seeing the History is carried on so far beyond his death; but however let this be observed, that this Book must be written many Ages after him, for the Hestorian in the 1 st. Book of Sam. Chap. 9. v. 9. saith, in a paren­thesis. Before time in Israel, when a Man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, come let us go to the Seer, for he that is now called a Prophet, was before time called a Seer. The two Books of the Kings, as appears by the Books themselves, were collected out of what was written of the Reign of Solomon, see the 1 st. Book of Kings chap. 11. v. 5. And out of the Chronicles both of the Kings of Iudah and Israel, chap. 14. v. 19, 29. The rest of the Acts of Ieroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned; behold they are written in the Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah. We therefore con­clude, that all the Books which we have [Page 210] named, were written long after the Mat­ters of Fact happen'd which they relate: If we consider the Connexion and Subject of these Books, we shall quickly find, that they were all written by one and the same Historian, who designed to write the An­tiquities of the Iews, from their first Ori­ginal to the first destruction of Ierusalem; for the Books are by connexion so linked to­gether, that they seem to be but the single Narration of one Historian; for as soon as he hath done with the Life of Moses, he begins the next Book with these words. Now after the Death of Moses the Servant of the Lord, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Ioshuah. And ending the story of Io­shuah with his Death, he doth with the very same Transition and Conjunction, begin the Book of Iudges in these words. Now after the Death of Ioshuah, it came to pass that the Children of Israel asked the Lord: And to this Book of Iudges as an Appendix, he joyneth the Book of Ruth in these words. Now it came to pass in the days when the Iud­ges ruled, that there was a Famin in the Land. To which Book of Ruth, he doth in the same manner joyn the first Book of Samuel: that ended, with his wonted Transition, he goes on to the Second Book, and to this (the History of David not being fully end­ded) he joyns the first Book of Kings: [Page 211] then going on with David's History, addeth with his usual Connexion the Second Book. The context and Order of the Histories, likewise declare the Historian to be but one Person, who propounded to himself one certain end; for he begins with the Ori­ginal of the Iewish Nation, then in order shews upon what occasion and at what time Moses prescribed Laws, and Prophe­syed many things to them; afterward he relates how they invaded the Land of Pro­mise, according to Moses's predictions, Deut. Chap. 7. And when they had pos­sest it, how they would forsake God's Laws, Deut. Chap. 31. v. 16. And what evils should thereupon follow, verse. 17. Next he declares how they would chuse Kings, Deut. Chap. 17. v. 14. Whose Affairs should succeed well or ill, accord­ing to the care they took in observing the Laws, Deut. Chap. 28. v. 36, 68. And Lastly concludes with the ruin of their Go­vernment as Moses foretold: Of things which served litle to the Establishment of the Law, he said nothing, or else refers the Reader to other Authors; so that all these Books conspire in this one thing, namely, the publishing the Prophesies and Edicts of Moses, and making them good by what af­ter happen'd. The simplicity and plainness of the Subject of all the Books, the con­nexion [Page 212] of them, and their being written many Ages after the things done, is argu­ment enough to perswade any Man, that they were all written by one Historian; but who he was, I cannot evidently prove, I have some Reasons, and those of some weight, to think it was Esdras, seeing the Historian (whom we now know to be one Person) carries on the History as far as Ie­hoiachim's deliverance out of Prison; and moreover adds, that he sate at the King's Table all his Life, which must be either the Table of King Iehoiachim, or of the Son of Nebuchadnezzar (for the Sense is very dubious.) It follows that it could not be a­ny one before Esdras, the Scripture saith of Esdras, without mentioning any other Person, Ezra. Chap. 7. v. 10. That he had prepared his Heart to seek the Law of the Lord, to do it; and Verse 6 th. That he was a rea­dy Scribe in the Law of Moses. So that I cannot conjecture any body but Esdras should write those Books: in the Testimo­ny given of him, we find that he did not only seek the Law of God, but that he like­wise explain'd it, Nehem. Chap. 8. v. 8. Where it is said, that they read in the Book of the Law of God distinctly, and gave the Sense thereof, and caused them to understand the Reading. Now because in the Book of Deu­tronomy, not only the Book of the Law of [Page 213] Moses (at least a great part of it) is con­tained, but also many things are inserted for the better explication thereof; I conjecture, The Book of Deutronomy to be that Book of the Law of God, written, set forth, and expounded by Esdras, which they then read, and that many things are put in by Way of Parenthesis, more clearly to ex­plain it. We gave you several instances, when I unfolded Aben-Ezras meaning, there are more of the like kind as appears, Deut. Chap. 2. v. 12. The Horites also dwelt in Seir before time, but the Children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from be­fore them, and dwelt in their stead, as Israel did unto the Land of his Possession, which the Lord gave unto them. This explains the 3 d. and 4 th. Verses of the same Chapter namely, that Mount Seir, which was the Inheritance of the Sons of Esau, was not found by them uninhabited; but that they invaded the Horites, who first dwelt there; and having subdued, destroyed them, as the Children of Israel did the Cananites after the Death of Moses: likewise in the 10 th. Chapter it is evident, that the 6, 7, 8, and 9. verses are interposed by Way of Paren­thesis with the Words of Moses; for the 8 th. Verse which begins in these words, at that time the Lord separated the Tribe of Le­vi—must necessarily have reference to [Page 214] the 5 th. Verse, which speaks of Moses com­ing down from the Mount, and putting the Tables into the Ark; and not to the death of Aron (mentioned in the 6 th. Verse.) Of which Esdras spake here for no other Reason, but because Moses in the story of the Golden Calf, which the People worshipt, said, in the 9 th. Chap. v. 20. That he pray­ed for Aron. The Historian goes on and declares, that God at that time, of which Moses speaks, chose for himself the Tribe of Levi, that he might shew the Cause of their Election, and also why the Levites had no Part or Inheritance with their Bre­thren: this done in the words of Moses, he follows the thred of the History. If we consider the Preface of the Book, and all the Places which speak of Moses in the Third Person, and many other things, which cannot now be known, which he added or exprest in other words, that they might be the better understood by those that lived in his time; without doubt had we the very Book of the Law which Moses wrote, we should find that all the Com­mandments very much differ not only in words, but in Order, Matter and Sense. Compare the Decalogue of this Book with that in Exodus, where it is expresly set down, we shall find this to vary from that; for the Fourth Commandment in Deutronomy [Page 215] is not only commanded in another Form; but is enlarged, and the Reason of it like­wise differs much from that in Exodus; so that this as in other Places was done by Es­dras, because he explained the Law of God to those that lived in his days; and there­fore 'tis likely this was the Book of the Law of God, which he set forth and ex­pounded, and I likewise believe it, the first of all those Books he wrote, because it con­tains the Laws of his Country, which the People extreamly wanted, and also because this Book is with no Antecedent Connexi­on joyned to another, but without any kind of reference begins thus. These be the Words of Moses. And after he finished this Book, and taught the People the Laws, I believe he applyed himself to compose the whole History of the Iewish Nation, from the Creation of the World to the first Destruction of the City Ierusalem; insert­ing this Book of Deutronomy in its proper Place, and perhaps to the first five Books gave the Name of Moses, because his Life is the Principal Subject of them; for the same reason, he called the Sixth Book by the Name of Ioshuah, the Seventh Iudges, the Eighth Ruth, the Ninth and perhaps the Tenth Sa­muel, the Eleventh and Twelfth Kings, but whether Esdras perfected them, as he de­sired with his own Hand, inquire in the next Chapter?

HOW much the inquiry made in the former Chapter, concerning the Pen-Man of the Books therein mentioned, may conduce to the perfect understanding of them; will be easily guess'd by those Places only, which we have quoted to make good our Opinion in this Point; which places would otherwise have seemed very obscure: but beside the Writer, there are other things observable in the Books them­selves, which Common Superstition will not suffer the vulgar to discern. The cheifest of them is, that Esdras (whom I will suppose to be the Writer of the foresaid Books, till some body shew me another more likely to pen them) did not with his own Hand perfect [Page 217] the Relations which the Books contain; but did only collect the Histories out of se­veral writers, and sometimes only copying them out, left them to Posterity neither ex­amin'd nor put into any Order; but what should hinder him from compleatly finish­ing his Work (unless it were untimely death) I cannot conjecture: we have in­deed no Antient intire Iewish Histories; but out of a few fragments left us it is evident, that Esdras as I have already said, gather'd his stories from several Writers, and left them very confused and imperfect. The History of Ezekiah, as it is found written from the Relation of Isaiah the Prophet, in the Second Book of Kings chap. 18. v. 17. is recorded in the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah; and the story in the Chronicles, see Book the 2 d. Chap. 32. v. 32. We find related almost in the same words (very few excepted) as it is in the forenamed Chapter of the Book of Kings: from whence nothing else can be concluded, but that there were divers readings of Isaiah's Rela­tion, unless some will also here dream of Misteries: Moreover, the last Chapter of this Book of the Kings, is contained in the last Chapter of the Prophet Ieremy, and we find likewise the 7 th. Chap. of the Second Book of Samuel, in the 17 th. Chap. of the first Book of Chronicles; but the words in divers [Page 218] places so much changed, that it may be easily known, the two Chapters were taken out of two different Copies, of the Histo­ry written by the Prophet Nathan. Lastly, The Genealogy of the Kings of Edom, which we have, Gen. Chap. 36. from v. 31 th. Is set down in the same words, in the 1 st. Chap. of the 1 st. Book of Chron. Beginning at the 43 th. Verse: Now tho' it be evident, that the Author of the Book of Chronicles, took the things which he related out of o­ther Historians; yet he had them not out of the Twelve Books, which we believe were written by Esdras; and without doubt had we the Original Histories it would so appear: but because we have them not, let us examin the Histories as they now are, observing their Order and Connexion, their various Repetitions, and their disagreement in Calculation of Time, that we may judge of other things. Consider first, the Histo­ry of Iudah and Thamar, Gen. Chap. 38. The Historian begins his Narration in these words. And it came to pass at that time, that Iudah went down from his Brethren: Which time, must necessarily have reference to some other time, of which he had imme­diately spoken before; but to that time spoken of in the preceding Chapter of Ge­nesis, it could have no Relation; for from the time that Ioseph was carried into Egypt, [Page 219] until Iacob the Patriarch went down thi­ther with all his Family, there passed but twenty two Years; for Ioseph, when he was Sold by his Brethren, was but Seven­teen Years Old, and when he was sent for out of Prison by Pharaoh but Thirty, to which, if the Seven Years of Plenty, and Two of Famin be added, they make up in all no more than Two and Twenty; in which space of time, no Man can conceive so many things should happen; namely, that Iudah should successively have three Sons, of which the Eldest should at a fit Age marry Thamar, and he dying the Second Brother should take her to Wife, who also dyed, and that sometime after this happen'd, Iudah him­self should ignorantly lye with his own Daughter in-Law Thamar, and have two Children by her at one Birth; whereof one likewise, should within the aforesaid time of two and twenty Years become a Father. Seeing then all these things cannot be re­ferr'd to the time spoken of in Genesis, but must necessarily relate to some o­ther time spoken of in some other Book, Esdras must therefore only Copy out this Story, and unexamin'd add it to others: but not only this Chapter, but likewise the whole Story of Ioseph and Ia­cob, must necessarily be taken out of se­veral Historians, so little congruity is there [Page 220] in it, for the 48 th Chap. of Gen. tells us that when Ioseph brought his Father Iacob to Pharaoh, Iacob was an hundred and thirty Years Old, from which deduct twenty two which he passed in Mourning for the loss of Ioseph, and seventeen which was Ioseph's Age when he was Sold, with seven which he served for Rachel; it will appear that he was fourscour and four Years Old when he Marryed Leah, and that on the other side, Dinah was scarce seven Years Old when she was Ravisht by Sechem; and Simeon and Levi not fully eleven and twelve Years of Age, when they Assaulted the City of Sechem and put all the People of it to the Sword. There is no need of particularizing all things of this kind in the Pentateuk, if this only be consider'd, that in the five Books all the Precepts and Historical Relations are promiscuously set down, without any order, without any regard had to time, and that one and the same History is often, and sometimes di­versly repeated; it must be granted that all these things were confusedly gathered and laid together, that they might after­wards be examin'd and put into order, and not only those things which we find in the first five Books, but the rest of the Histories contain'd in the other seven, were also Collected in the same manner. [Page 221] Who doth not plainly see that in the 2 d Chapter of Iudges from the sixth Verse, a new Historian brought in, who had Writ­ten the Acts of Ioshua and his very Words used? For after our Historian in the last Chap­ter of Ioshua, had spoken of his Death and Burial, and promis'd in the beginning of the Book of Iudges, to declare what hap­pen'd after Ioshua's Death; if he intended regularly to prosecute his own History, why doth he again in the 2 d Chapter of Iudges tell us what Joshua did, and speak again of his Death and Burial as he had before, the 17 and 18 chap. of the 1 st Book of Sam. are in all probability taken out of another Historian, who made the cause of David's frequenting Saul's Court, to be quite different from that spoken of in the 16. chap. of the same Book, for he did not understand that David by the Ad­vice of Saul's Servants, was called to Court, as is declared in the said 16 th chap. but that his Father sending him to visit his Brethren in Saul's Camp, David by his Victory over Goliah became known to Saul, and afterward lived in his Court. I suspect the same thing of the 26 th chap. of the 1 st Book of Sam. and that the History of that Chapter and what is related in the 24 th chap. are one and the same; but taken out of several Writers: but of this enough, [Page 222] I come now to examine the Computation of time. It is said in the 6 th chap. of the 1 st Book of Kings, that Solomon four hun­dred and fourscore Years after the Chil­dren of Israel came out of the Land of Egypt, and in the fourth Year of his own Reign, began to Build the House of the Lord, but from the Histories themselves we can make it appear it was a much longer time till the Temple was Built.

Years

For first Moses govern'd the People in the desert.

40

Joshua who lived a hundred and twenty by the Opinion of Josephus and others govern'd not a­bove.

26

Kusan Risgataim kept the People in Bon­dage.

08

Othonyel the Son of Kenaz Judged.

40

Eglon the King of Moab kept the People in Bondage.

18

Ehud and Samger Judged.

80

Jachin King of Canaan kept the People un­der.

20

The People afterward had rest.

40

Were again in Subjection to Midian.

07

Were again at Liberty under Gideon.

40

Were under the Power of Abimelech.

03

Tola the Son of Puah Judged.

23

[Page 223] Jair Judged.

22

The People were again in Bondage to the Philistines and Ammonites.

18

Iephtah Judged.

06

Absan the Bethlemite Judged.

07

Elon the Zebulonite.

10

Abdon the Pirathonite.

08

The People again in Bondage to the Phi­listins.

40

Samson Judged.

20

Ely Judged.

40

The People in Bondage again to the Phi­listines till delivered by Samuel.

20

David Reigned.

40

Solomon before he began to Build Reign­ed.

04

All these Years added together make up the Number of 580.

To which number are to be added, the Years of that Age wherein the Common­wealth of the Iews flourished after the Death of Ioshua, until it was subdued by Kusan Risgataim; which I believe were many; for I cannot be perswaded, that all the People who had seen the wonders of Joshua's time, should presently after his Death perish altogether; neither that they who succeeded them, should at once bid farewel to all their Laws, and from a great deal of Vertue, fall in an instant into the [Page 224] depth of Wickedness and Folly: neither that Kusan Risgataim Conquer'd them at a blow; but seeing all these things require almost an Age to bring them to pass, it is not to be doubted but the Scripture in the 2 d. 7 th. 9 th. and 10 th Chapters of the Book of Judges, doth comprize the Histories of many Years which it hath passed over in silence. We are moreover to add the Years which Samuel Judged, whose num­ber we find not in Scripture, and the Years also of Saul's Reign, which are left out in the former Computation, because by his History 'tis not evident how many he Reigned, indeed it is said in the 1 st Verse of the 13 th Chap. of the 1 st Book of Sam. that Saul Reigned two Years, but that Text is maimed, and we may from the History it self conclude his Reign was longer; that the Text is defective, no Man who hath but the least Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue can doubt, for it begins thus in the Latin Translation. Annum natus erat Saul cum regnavit & duos annos regnavit supra Israelem. Which in our English Bible is thus render'd. Saul Reigned one Year, and when he had Reigned two Years, &c. but who sees not, that the number of Years of Saul's Age when he began to Reign was omitted, and that the time of his Reign was more then two Years, any [Page 225] Man may gather from the History it self; for in the 27 th Chap. of the same Book, Verse the 7 th. it is said that the time David dwelt in the Country of the Phili­stines, was a full Year and four Months; so that by this Calculation all things else which passed in Sauls Reign, must happen in the space of eight Months, which no Man can believe: Iosephus in the end of his 6 th Book of Antiquities, hath thus cor­rected the Text. Saul while Samuel lived Reigned eighteen Years, and after Samuels Death two, but the Story in the 13 th chap. doth in no wise agree with what went be­fore, for towards the end of the 7 th chap. v. 13. we are told, that the Philistines were so subdued by the Israelites, that they came no more into the Coasts of Israel and the Hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel; and yet in the foresaid 13 th Chapter 'tis said, that in Samuels Life time, the Philistins invaded the Israelites and re­duced them to so great Misery and Po­verty, that they wanted not only Arms to defend themselves, but also Smiths to make so much as a Sword or a Spear, that Man must take pains enough, who made it his business so to reconcile all the Hi­stories of the first Book of Samuel, that they should not appear to be Written and put in order by one Historian: but I [Page 226] return to what I proposed, the Years of Sauls Reign ought to be added to the fore­going Computation; now how many were the Years of the Israelites Anarchy, the Scripture doth not mention; my mean­ing is, that the space of time is not cer­tain, wherein those things happened, which are related from the 17 th Chapter of Iudges to the end of that Book; so that no exact calculation can be made from the Histories themselves; neither do they agree in any, but differ very much; so that it must be granted they were collected from divers Writers, and were never examin'd or put into any order. There is no less disa­greement in computation of time, between the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Ju­dah, and the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, for in the 2 d Book of Kings chap. 1 st v. 17. it is said, Jehoram the Son of Ahab King of Israel, began to Reign in the Second Year of the Reign of Jehoram the Son of Iehosaphat King of Judah, but in the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, see the 2 d Book of Kings chap. 8. v. 16. it is said that Jehoram the Son of Iehosaphat King of Judah, began to Reign in the fifth Year of Jehoram the Son of Ahab King of Israel: he that will compare the Histories of the Books of Chronicles, with those in the Book of Kings, shall find many of the like dif­ferences, [Page 227] which I will not here particularly mention, nor trouble you with the shifts some Authors have used to reconcile them; the Rabbines perfectly doat, and some Commenta­tors that I have read, imposing upon us their own dreams and inventions, plainly corrupt the very Language it self (for example) in the 2 d Book of the Chronicles c. 22. v. 2. it is said Ahaziah wa [...] Forty and two Years Old when he began to Reign. Some would have these Years to commence not from Ahaziah's Nati­vity, but from the Reign of Omri, if they can prove this to be the meaning of the Au­thor of the Book of Chronicles, I may in plain Terms say of him, that he knew not how to speak Sense. Commentators are full of the like conceits, wherein were there any Truth, a Man might pofitively aver, that the Ancient Hebrews did not under­stand their own Language, but were ig­norant of all order in History, and that there is no rule or any reason to be ob­served in expounding Scripture; but every Man may phancy and forge what he plea­ses. If any think I speak too generally and without ground, I intreat that Man to shew me any such certain order in these Histories, as Chronologers may without any gross mistakes follow, and that while he is endeavoring to explain and reconcile the Histories, he will so strictly observe the [Page 228] Pharses and Manners of speaking, the dis­posing and contexture of the Narrations, that another according to his explications, may in Writing imitate them, which if he can do, I will throw away my Pen and take him for an Oracle. I have been en­deavoring but could never do any thing like it, I have Written nothing which I did not often and long meditate, and tho' from my Childhood, I have been Seasoned with the common and general opinions concerning Scripture, yet I could not pos­sibly avoid confessing the things I have men­tioned, but I will no longer detain the Reader concerning this particular, nor will I further provoke him to undertake, that which I think is not feasible; I only made the proposal the better to explain my own meaning, and I now proceed to consider those things which concern the Fate or Fortune of the Books; for we are to observe, that they have not been so carefully kept by posterity, as that no faults have crept into them: the Ancient Scribes have taken notice of many dubious readings, and many maimed Texts, and yet not of all; but whether the faults which have crept into those Books, be of so great importance as to give the Reader much trouble, I will not dispute; I believe they are not considerable to those that Read the Scripture with any Freedom of judg­ment, [Page 229] and I can positively affirm, that I never observed any Error or variety of Readings concerning mere precepts or in­structions, which could render them doubt­ful or obscure; but many will not allow of any faults at all in any thing through­out the whole Scripture, but peremptorily maintain, that God by a singular and special Providence, hath kept the Bible free from all corruptions or adulteration, and that the various Readings of it, com­prehend profound misteries, and will have great Secrets lye hid, even in Asterisms, Spaces, Points and Accents: but whether this opinion proceed from folly, and the dotage of Devotion, or from their ar­rogance and malice, allowing none but themselves to know Gods Secrets I cannot tell; of this I am sure, I never read any thing which came from such Men, that seem'd mysterious, but rather savor'd of Schoool-boy conceits. I have met with some trifling Cabbalists, whose Freaks and Folly a Man cannot chuse but admire. That faults have crept into the Scripture, no ingenuous Person can deny, who reads that Text I have already mention'd con­cerning Saul, in the 13 th chap. v. 1 st. of the 1 st Book of Samuel, and also that in the 2 d verse of the 6 th chap. of the 2 d Book of Sam. where it is said that David arose and [Page 230] went with all the People that were with him from Judah, to bring from thence the Ark of God. Who doth not see that the name of the place to which they went to fetch the Ark is lest our, viz. Kiriathjearim nor can any Man deny but that the Text in the 37 th verse of the 13 th chap. of the 2 d Book of Sam. is defective. But Absolon fled and went to Talmai the Son of Ammihud and mourn'd for his Son every day. It should have been, and David mourned for his Son every day, and therefore in our English Translation the Word David is put in, but is not in the Latin. There are other such faults which do not at present occur to my memory. That the margi­nal Notes found every where in the Hebrew Copies were dubious readings, no Man will doubt, who considers that many of them proceeded from the great likness, which some of the Hebrew Letters have one to ano­ther, namely, from the similitude which is be­tween the Letter Kaf and Bet, the Letter Iod and Van, the Letter Dalet and Res (for exam­ple) in the 2 d Book of Sam. chap. 5. v. 24. it is said in the Latin Translation, in co tempore quo audies, the margent hath it Cum audies, and Iudges chap. 21. v. 22. the Latin Text is, & quando earum patres vel fratres in multitudine (hoc est saepe) ad nos venerint, into the margent is put ad litigandum: ma­ny different readings likewise come from [Page 231] the use of those Letters, whose sound or pronunciation is in reading scarcely per­ceived, and one is sometimes taken for another (for example) Levit. chap. 25. v. 29. it is Written in the Text, that if a House were sold which was in a City that had a Wall, the margent says that had not a Wall. But tho' these things are evident yet we will make answer to some argu­ments of the Pharises, who endeavor to perswade the World, that marginal Notes were by those that Copied out the Books of Scripture, purposely placed there to sig­nify some great mystery: they ground their first argument which I think very slight, upon the common use of reading the Scrip­ture, for say they, if these marginal Notes were used purposely to shew various rea­dings, and such as could not be decided; why then hath custom prevailed, still to retain the marginal Sense as always the best, and that it was fit the most genuine and approved Sense, should be exprest in the Text rather then in the margent. Their Second Argument which carries some countenance is this, errors and mistakes in Books say they, are not purposely put in, but happen by chance, now how comes it to pass that in all the first five Books, the Hebrew Word [...] Nagnad which signifies in Latin Puella and in English a [Page 232] Girl or Young Maid, should contrary to the Rules of Grammar be Written in all places but one as a defective Word, without the Letter He, and yet in the margent be Written always right, did this hap­pen by mistake, and was the Writer always so much in haste, that when he came to this word he constantly left out that Letter? this defect might without any scruple have been easily mended and sup­plyed? if then these various Readings did not happen by chance, and yet those evi­dent Errors were left uncorrected, the first Writers must designedly do it, thereby to signify somewhat. But these Arguments are easily answer'd, that which is urged concerning Use and Custom, is not much to be minded. I know not how far Super­stition might prevail, but sometimes both Readings or Senses might seem equally good and tollerable, and therefore that neither might be neglected or undervalued, they would have one written, and the other read; they were afraid in a Matter of such con­sequence, to pass any positive Determina­tion, least they might through uncertainty mistake, and take the wrong Reading for the true; and therefore resolved not to pre­fer one before the other, which they must have done, if they had commanded that one only should be written and read: the [Page 233] Reason why the Marginal Notes are not written in the Text, is because some things, tho' they be rightly written, yet they would have them read as they were noted in the Margent; and therefore they ap­pointed the Bible to be generally read ac­cording to the Marginal Notes. Old Ob­solete words out of use, which the good Manners of the present time would not per­mit to be publickly read, caused the Scribes to put things into the Margent, which they would have publickly read, Marginal Notes not being always dubious Readings, but contain'd sometimes Words and Expres­sions not in Use: the Antient Scribes being Men free from evil Meaning, exprest things in plain downright words without Court­ly Epithites; but after Naughtiness and Luxury began to Reign, those words which the Antients thought had no immodesty in them, began to be accounted Obscene; yet there was no necessity upon this ac­count to change the Text and Scripture it self, but for Decency's sake, they ordained that those words, which signify'd Coition and the Excrements, should be publickly read to the People with greater Modesty, as they were noted in the Margent. Lastly, whatever the reason be, why they read and interpreted the Text according to the Marginal Notes, yet it is not because those [Page 234] Marginal readings are always the truest in­terpretation; for the Rabbines do not on­ly differ in the Talmud from the Masorites, and have other Readings which they ap­prove; but some Notes are found in the Margent, which the common Use of the Language will not allow (for example) in the 2 d. Book of Sam. Chap. 14. v. 22. The Text saith, in that the King hath fulfil­led the request of his Servant. Which the Latin Translation renders, quia effecit Rex secundum Sententiam servi sui, which con­struction is very regular, and agrees with that in the 16 th Verse of the same Chapter; but the reading in the Margent, which is servi tui of thy servant, doth not agree with the Person of the Verb. So also in the last Verse of the 16 th Chapter of that Book, the written Text in the Latin Translation is, ut cum consultat (id est consultatur) ver­bum Dei. But in the Margent is added the Pronoun quis, for the Nomnative case to the Verb, which was not learnedly done; for the common Custom of that Language was to use Verbs Impersonals, for the Third Person singular of Verbs Active, as is well known to Grammarians. In like manner we meet with many Marginal Notes, which ought to be preferr'd before the written reading of the Text. Now for the Pha­risees Second Argument, it is easily answer'd [Page 235] by what hath been said, namely, that the Scribes, beside dubious Readings, noted ob­solete words; for without doubt as in o­ther Languages, so in the Hebrew, later times antiquated and made useless many words, which were found in the Bible by later Writers, who as we have said, noted them in the Margent, that they might be read before the People in the Sense and Sig­nification that was then in use: for this Reason the word Naghar is every where found noted in the Margent, because anti­ently it was of the common Gender, and signifyed the same that did the word Iuve­nis amongst the Latins, so also the Metropo­lis of the Jews was wont to be called Jeru­salem, and not Jerusalaim. I think the same of the Pronoun ipse and ipsa, he and she, because the later Writers have changed Vau into Iod (which change in the Hebrew Tongue is frequent) when they would sig­nify the Feminine Gender; but the antients never used to distinguish the Feminine from the Masculine Gender of this Pronoun but only by the Vowels. Moreover, the Anomaly or Irregularity of Verbs in former and later times was not the same; and Last­ly, The Antients made use of Paragogical (that is) additional Letters, as an Elegan­cy particular to their times; all which I can prove by many examples, with which [Page 236] I will not at this time trouble the Reader, If any Man ask how I came to the Knowledge of these things, I answer, because I have found them in very Antient Copies of the Bible, tho' later Writers would not follow those Copies, which is the only cause that in other Languages almost lost, Obsolete words are still understood: but perhaps some will still object, and since I have de­clared, that the greatest Part of those Notes are not doubtful readings, will ask me first why of one Place, there are never found more then two readings; why not some­times three or more? Secondly, seeing there are somethings in the written Text, so ma­nifestly repugnant to the Rules of Grammar, which yet are rightly noted in the margent, it may be asked, how it is possible to be­lieve that the Writers could make any doubt, which was the true Reading? To this I answer, First, that there were more Readings then we find noted in our Copies; for in the Talmud there are many noted, which are neglected by the Masorites, and in many places so much misliked by them; that the Superstitious Corrector of the Bom­bergian Bibles, was forced to confess in his Preface, that he knew not how to recon­cile them: he saith, here we know not what to answer more then we did, name­ly, that it was the Custom of the Talmu­dists [Page 237] to contradict the Masorites, and there­fore we have not sufficient Ground to con­clude, that of one Place there were never more then two readings, yet I easily grant, yea I believe, that there are not now to be found more then two Readings of one place and that for two Reasons. First, because that, from whence the variety of Readings proceeded, could not occasion more then two; for we have shew'd, that the diffe­rence of Readings, arose from the Simili­tude, which was between some Letters, and still the doubt was no more but this, which of two Letters was to be written? whether Bet or Kaf, Jod or Vau, Dalet or Res. Of which there was frequent use; and therefore it often happen'd, that the Sense was tollerable with either: beside it was doubtful sometimes, whether a Sylla­ble was long or short, whose quantity was to be determin'd by those Letters whose pronunciation was scarcely to be perceiv­ed: and Lastly, all marginal Notes were not dubious Readings, for as we have already said, many of them were put in for decen­cy and modesty's sake; and sometimes to explain Obsolete and Antiquated words. The Second Reason why I perswade my self that more then two Readings cannot be found of one Place, is, because I believe the Antient Scribes met with very few [Page 238] Originals; perhaps not above two or three; In the Treatise of the Scribes, chap. 6 th. There is mention made but of three, which they pretend were found in the Time of Esdras, and boast that the Notes were put in by him; however it were, tho' they had three Original Copies, we may with reason imagine, that two of them might still agree in the same Place together: but every body may justly wonder, that only in three copies there should be found three divers Readings of one Place. How it came to pass, that after Esdras there should be so great a scarcity of copies, can be no great wonder to any Man, who will but read the first chapter of the first Book of Machabees; or the Seventh Chapter of the Twelveth Book of Iosephus's Antiquities: yea 'tis a Miracle, that after so great and con­tinual a Persecution, they should be able, if we consider the story, to keep those few they had. We see then the Reasons why we no where meet with more then two dubious Readings, so that it can be no ar­gument at all to conclude, that because there are no where more then two, there­fore the Bible in those noted places was not written right, purposely to signify some Mistery. The Second Objection which saith, some things are so manifestly false [Page 239] written, that no body can deny it, and therefore those Errors ought to have been corrected rather in the Text, then noted in the margent is of no great weight; nor am I obliged to know, what was the Reason they did not do it: perhaps it was beeause they were so honest, as to leave the Bible to posterity just as they found it, in the few Originals they met with; and thought fit to note the disagree­ment between the Original Copies, rather as divers, then dubious Readings; nor have I called them dubious, upon any other account, but because I cannot tell which of the two ought to be pre­ferr'd. Lastly, The Scribes beside these dubious readings, (by leaving a void space in the middle of Paragraphs) have noted many defective places, the precise number of which spaces, the Masorites have observed to be twenty eight, I know not whether they believe there is like­wise some mistery in that number, the Pha­risees are very religious observers of this space; there is an Example of one of them Gen. Chap. 4. v. 8. In the Latin Transla­tion, 'tis thus written, & dixit Cain Habeli Fratri suo,—& contigit dum erant in Campo ut Cain. So that where we expected to hear what it was Cain [Page 240] said to his Brother, there is only a void Space, of which spaces the Scribes have left Twenty eight, in many of which nothing would seem to be wanting, if there had not been such a void space left.

OF the two Books of Chronicles, there is not much to be said worth a man's knowing, nor any thing that is certain; more than that they were written long after Esdras; and perhaps, after Iudas Maccabeus rebuilt the Temple: for in the 9 th. chap. of the first Book of Chron. the Historian tells us, what Families (in the time of Esdras) first inhabited Ierusalem, and in the 17 th. verse of that Chapter speaks of the Porters, whereof two are likewise named in the 19 th verse of the 11 th chapter of Nehemiah, which is a plain proof, that these Books were written after the City was rebuilt. Concerning the Writer, the Authority. Do­ctrine, and usefulness of the Books, I can say nothing; but I very much wonder they should be esteem'd Sacred and Canonical, by those men who think the Book of Wisdom, Tobit, and others Apocriphal: It is not my purpose to magnify their Authority, seeing they are generally receiv'd for Canonical; as they are I leave them. The Psalms were [Page 242] collected and divided into five Books, in the time of the Second Temple; for the 88 th Psalm was by the testimony of Philo Iudaeus, published when King Iehoiachim was kept a Prisoner at Babylon; and the 89 th Psalm, when he was set at liberty. I believe Philo would not have said it, had it not been the received Opinion of his time; or had he not heard it from very credible persons. I believe the Proverbs of Solomon were collect­ed much about the same time, or at least, in the days of King Iosiah; because it is said, Prov. chap. 25. v. 1. These are the Pooverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out. But I cannot here for­bear to take notice of the great boldness of the Rabbins, who would have excluded this Book and that of Ecclesiastes, out of the Sa­cred Canon, which had been certainly done, had they not met with some places which commend Moses Law; 'tis pity such things, so sacred and excellent, should lie at the mercy of such men; we thank them for communicating them to us, but 'tis a great doubt whether they have been faithfully de­liver'd to posterity, which I will not here strictly examin, but proceed to the Books of the Prophets: Having seriously consider'd them, I plainly perceive, That the Prophe­sies contain'd in them, were collected out of other Books; they are not set down in the [Page 243] order wherein they were deliver'd, nor written by the Prophets themselves; nei­ther are all recorded, but such as here and there could be found out: so that these Books are but meer fragments of the Pro­phets. Isaiah began to prophesy in the time of Vzziah King of Iudah as the Wri­ter of the Book of Isaiah himself testifies in the 1 st. chap. and 1 st. verse; and Isaiah did not Prophesy only in that King's Reign, but also wrote a History of all that King did; as appears in the 2 d Book of Chron. chap. 26. v. 22. The rest of the Acts of Uzziah first and last, did Isaiah the Prophet the Son of Amos write; which Book 'tis pity we have not, those things which we have, as hath been already said, were copied out of the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah and Israel: The Rabbins likewise declare, That Isaiah also prophesy'd in the time of Manasseh, by whom he was put to death; and tho' in that they seem fabulous, yet they did not believe all his Prophesies were extant. The Prophesies of Ieremy which are Historically related, were pick'd up, and collected out of divers Chronologers; for they are not only confusedly put together, without any re­gard had to time; but the same History is also repeated in divers manners; for the 21 th chap. contains the Prophesy, wherein Iere­my foretold King Zedekiah, who sent to [Page 244] consult him, That the City of Ierusalem should be destroy'd; and for which Pro­phesy he was apprehended. Then after an abrupt breaking off from this History; the 22 th chap. sets forth Ieremy's Declamation and Prophesy against King Iehoiachim, who reigned before Zedekiah, declaring Iehoia­chim's Captivity. After this, the 25 th chap. declares those things which were before re­veal'd to the Prophet, in the fourth year of King Iehoiachim, and without observing a­ny order of time, goes on to heap together many Prophesies, till at length the 38 th chapter (as if the fifteen intermediate chapters had been but a Parenthesis) re­turns again to that spoken of in the 21 th chap. for the conjunction Then, wherewith the 38 th chapter begins, relates to the 8,9, and 10 verses of the 21 th chap. and the re­lation given in this 38 th chap. of Ieremy's last apprehension, and being long kept in a Dungeon, is very different from that we have of it in the 37 th chap. So that it clearly ap­pears, all these things were taken out of di­vers Historians, and no other excuse can be made for them. The rest of Ieremy's Pro­phesies contain'd in other Chapters, where he speaks in his own person, seem to be co­pied out of the Book which Baruch writ from Ieremy's own Mouth; which Book (as appears by the 2 d. verse of the 36 th chap. [Page 245] contain'd only those things which were re­veal'd to the Prophet, from the time of Io­siah unto the fourth year of Iehoiachim, from which year the Book begins; out of which Book also all those things seem to be copy'd, which are related from the 2 d verse of the 45 th chap. to the 49 th verse of the 51 th chap. That the Book of Ezekiel is like­wise but a fragment, is manisest by the first verses thereof; for who doth not take no­tice, that the Conjunction Now wherewith the Book begins, relates to somewhat that had been already said, and joins that, to what he had further to say; not only the Conjunction, but the whole Contexture of what he spoke, implies and supposeth other things which had been before written; for the Writer himself saith by way of Paren­thesis, in the 3 d verse of the 1 st. chap. The word of the Lord came often to Ezekiel the Priest, the Son of Buzi in the land of the Chaldeans: as if he should say, That the words of Ezekiel which hitherto he had copied out, related to other things which were revealed to him before the present thirtieth year. Iosephus in his 10 th Book of Antiquities, chap. 9. declares, Ezekiel prophesy'd that Zedechiah would not see Babylon, which Prophesy doth not appear in the Book we have of Ezekiel; but the 17 th. chap. foretels the contrary, that he was to [Page 246] be carry'd Captive thither. Whether Ho­seah wrote any thing more than is in the Book which bears his name, I am not cer­tain; but I much wonder that we should have nothing more of his; seeing by the persons testimony who wrote the Book cal­led Hosea, that Prophet Prophesy'd no less than eighty four years, as appears by the 1 st verse of the 1 st chap. where the several Kings are named, in whose times he lived: in general, we know that the writers of the Books which we call the Prophets, did neither collect the Prophesies of all that were Prophets, nor all the Prophesies of those Prophets whose names we have; for we have not any of the Prophesies of those Prophets who prophesy'd in the time of Manasseh, (of which Prophets mention is made, tho' not by name, in the 2 d Book of Chron. chap. 33. v. 10, 18, 19.) nor have we all the Prophesies of the twelve Prophets: We have none of Ionah's Prophesies, but those that concerned the Ninevites, tho' he also prophesy'd to Israel, as appears by the 25 th. verse of the 14 th chap. of the 2 d. Book of Kings.

Of the Book of Iob, and of Iob himself, there hath been among Writers much dis­pute; some think Moses wrote the Book of Iob, and that the whole story is nothing but a Parable, which is likewise a Tradition [Page 247] of the Rabbins in their Talmud, and favour'd by Maimonides in his Book still'd More Ne­buchim: Others believe the History to be real and true, and that Iob lived in the time of Iacob, and married his Daughter Dinah; but Aben Ezra, as I have already said, in his Commentaries on the Book of Iob saith, It was translated out of some other Language into the Hebrew; which I could wish he had more clearly prov'd; for then we might conclude, the Gentiles also had Books which were Sacred. I leave the thing still doubtful, and conjecture that Iob was some Gentile of great constancy of Mind, who at first was very prosperous, afterward very unfortunate, and in the end very hap­py: for in Ezechiel, chap. 14 v. 14. he is named with Noah and Daniel for a righte­ous man. The various Fortune, and con­stant Mind of Iob, gave many an occasion of disputing God's Providence, and to the Author of the Book, of composing a Dia­logue, whereof the Subject and Stile seem to be a Man's rather at ease, meditating in his Study, than sick on a Dunghill; and I might with Aben Ezra believe, the Book to be translated out of another Language, because it seems to affect the Heathen Poesy; the Father of the Gods being in the first Chapter brought in twice, calling a Council, [Page 248] and Momus, who is called Satan, answering God with great liberty; but these are meer frivolous conjectures. The Book of Daniel without doubt from the 8 th Chapter there­of, contains the Writings of Daniel; but from whence the first seven Chapters were copy'd, I know not; we may suspect, that seeing all of them, but the first, were writ­ten in the Chaldee Language, they were ta­ken out of that Nation's Chronologies, of which could we be certain, it were a clear proof, that the Scripture is to be accounted Sacred, only in respect of the things con­tain'd in it, and not in respect of the Lan­guage, Words, or Stile wherein they are ex­press'd; and that all Books which declare and teach what is excellently good, in what Tongue, or by what Nation soever written, are equally Sacred: Let this, at least, be observ'd, that the Chapters which are writ­ten in Chaldee, are no less Sacred than any of the rest in the whole Bible. To this Book of Daniel, the first Book of Ezra is so annex'd, that it appears they were both written by one person, who relates what successively past amongst the Iews, from the first Captivity: And to this Book of Es­dras, without doubt is joyn'd the Book of Hester, for the Conjunction wherewith the Book begins, can relate to no other Book, nor can it be thought the same Book which [Page 249] Mordecai wrote; for he that writ the Book of Hester, saith in the 9 th chap. v. 20. that Mordecai wrote Letters, and declares what were their Contents: Moreover, the 31 th of the same Chapter tells us, That Queen Hester confirm'd by a Decree, all things concerning the Feast of Purim, or Lots; and in the 32 th. verse 'tis said, it was written in the Book; that is, according to the Hebrew manner of speaking, in a Book which eve­ry one at that time knew; which Book, with others, Aben Ezra says, was lost; what else concerned Mordecai, the Historian in the 10 th chap. v. 2. saith, was written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia; and therefore, without questi­on this Book of Daniel, was written by the same person who wrote the Affairs of Daniel and Ezra; and so also was the Book of Nehemiah called the Second Book of Ez­ra: so that we conclude, these four Books, namely, Daniel, Ezra, Hester, and Nehemi­ah, to be written by one Historian; but who he was, I cannot so much as guess; but that we may know whoever he were, from whence he had the knowledge of the things he relates, and from whence he co­py'd them out; we are to take notice, that the Governours and Princes of the Iews in the time of the Second Temple, as did their Kings in the time of the First, kept Scribes [Page 250] or Historiographers, who writ Annals, and recorded what past; which Annals, or Chronologies, are every where cited in the Book of Kings; but those of the Princes and Priests of the Second Temple, are quoted first in Nehemiah, chap. 12. v. 23. and also in the first Book of Machabes, chap. 16. v. 24. and no question this Book of Annals was that Book mention'd (in the 32 th verse of the 9 th chap. of Hester) in which the Decree of Queen Hester, and those things that concern'd Mordecai were written; which Book we agree with Aben Ezra was lost; and out of this Book of An­nals, all things contain'd in the four Books we have last mention'd, were in all probabi­lity taken and copy'd; for there is no other Book quoted by the writer of these four, nor do we know any other of publick Autho­rity. That these four Books were not writ­ten either by Ezra or Nehemiah, appears by what is said in the 9 th and 10 th verses of the 12 th chap. of Nehem. where the Genea­logy of the High-Priest Iesuah, is deriv'd down to Iaduah the sixth High-priest, who went to meet Alexander the Great, when he had almost conquer'd the Kingdom of Persia; as appears in the 2 d. Book and 8 th chap. of Io­sephus's Antiquities; or as Philo Iudaeus saith in Libro temporum, the sixth and last High-priest under the Persian Monarchy; which [Page 251] is likewise plainly declar'd in the 22 th verse of the aforesaid 12 th chap. of Nehem. where the Historian saith, The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Ioiada, Iohanan, and Ia­duah, were recorded Priests to the Reign of Darius the Persian; that is, in the Annals of that Government. And sure, no Man will believe, that Hezra or Nehemiah were so long liv'd, to survive fourteen Persian Kings; for Cyrus the first King of Persia, was he that gave the Iews liberty to rebuild their Temple, and from him to Darius the fourteenth and last King of the Persians, are reckoned 230 years: therefore without all doubt, these four Books I have mention'd, were written long after Iudas Maccabeus re­stor'd the worship of the Temple; and also, because at that time were spurious counter­feit Books of Daniel, Hesdras and Hester pub­lish'd by some malicious persons, who were of the Sect of the Zadduces; for the Phari­sees would never own them: and tho' in the Book which we call the 4 th of Esdras there are some fabulous stories, which we also find in the Talmud; yet they ought not to be fathered on the Pharisees; for there is no Man of sense but believes those Tales were added by some trifling fellow, perhaps to render the Pharisaical Traditions ridiculous, or to make the people of that time believe, that the Prophesies of Daniel were fulfill'd, [Page 252] thereby to confirm them in their Religion, and in the midst of so many and great Ca­lamities, to keep them from despair: But tho' these Books be of no great Antiquity, yet many faults (I suppose, through haste in those who copy'd them out) have crept in­to them; for in these, as in the rest, are many Marginal Notes, (of which we spake in the former Chapter) and also some pla­ces for which no excuse can be made; but if it be granted, that the Marginal Readings of these Books, be as the Pharisees would have it, as ancient as the Writers them­selves, then it must necessarily follow, that the Scribes (if they were more than one) put these Notes into the Margent, because they did not find the Annals, from whence they copy'd out the Books perfectly writ­ten; and tho' some faults be very plain and obvious, yet the Scribes would not be so bold to alter or mend the Writings of their Ancestors. Of this particular I have said enough, and I now pass on to shew those errors whereof no notice is taken in the Margent. I cannot tell how many I meet with in the 2 d chap of Ezra, for in the 64 th verse it is said, that the whole Congregati­on together, of those that went up out of Captivity to Ierusalem, was forty two thou­sand three hundred and threescore; and yet if the particular numbers throughout the [Page 253] whole Chapter, be exactly summ'd up and added together, they make the total to be no more than twenty nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen; so that there is an error in the total, or particular numbers. Now 'tis most likely the total number was not mistaken, but set down right, because every one might keep that in memory, tho' he could not remember the particular num­bers; had there been any error or mistake in the total, every body would have known it, and it might have been easily mended, which is confirm'd by the 7 th chap. of Ne­hemiah, which tells us, that the whole num­ber of them that came up from the Capti­vity, was the very same mention'd in the 2 d chap of Ezra; but the particular num­bers very much differ; for some are more, and others less in Nehemiah, than they are in Ezra, and amount in all to thirty one thousand eighty nine; so that there is no doubt, but that the errors as well in the Book of Ezra, as of Nehemiah, were in the particular numbers: Commentators rack their Wits and Inventions, to reconcile these apparent contradictions; and while they adore the very Words and Letters of Scrip­ture, do nothing, as we have already said, but expose the Writers of the Bible to Con­tempt; as if they knew not how to speak, or put that which was spoken by them into [Page 254] any order; yea, they do nothing but make that part of Scripture which is plain, ob­scure: For if every Man should take a li­berty of explaining Scripture, as they do, we could not be sure of the true sense of any part thereof: I am perswaded, those Commentators themselves, tho' they with so much zeal excuse the Writers of the Old Testament, would count any other Man a ridiculous Historian, who should write as they have done; and if they think him a Blasphemer, who says the Scripture is in some places faulty, what shall I say of those Men, who bely the Scripture, and so ex­pose the holy Pen-men thereof, as if they knew not how to speak; and deny the plain and clear sense of Scripture? What in it can be plainer, than that Esdras and his fellow Priests in the second Chapter of that Book which is said to be his, took a particular account of all that went up to Ierusalem; seeing the number of them is set down, who could not derive their Pedigree, as well as theirs that could? And what is more clear, than that Nehemiah, as appears by the 7 th chap. and 5 th verse of that Book, only co­py'd out the Register which Esdras had made? Who ever makes any other Exposi­tion thereof, denies the true sense of Scrip­ture, and consequently, the Scripture it self. 'Tis ridiculous Piety to pretend to rectify [Page 255] one place of Scripture by another, when plain places are darkened by obscure, and those that are right and true corrected and corrupted by those that are false and errone­ous; but God forbid I should call them Blasphemers, who have no malicious inten­tions, because there is no Man free from Er­ror. Beside the Errors which are in the particular numbers, both of Esdras and Nehemiah's Genealogy, there are divers in the names of the Families, more in the very Pedigrees, in the Histories, and, I fear, like­wise in the very Prophesies themselves; for the Prophesie of Ieremy in the 22 th chap. a­gainst Iehoiachim, which says, He should be buried with the burial of an Ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the Gates of Ierusa­lem, doth not at all agree with the History of him in the last Chapter of the 2 d. Book of Kings; no nor with what is related of him in the last Chapter of Ieremy; especially, in the last Verse; neither do I see any rea­son why Ieremy should tell King Zedechiah, that he should die in peace, Ierem. chap. 34. v. 5. who was taken Captive, and after he had seen his Children slain before his Face, had his own Eyes put out. If Prophesies may be interpreted according to events, the names of those two Kings seem to be mi­staken one for the other, but that is too pa­ridoxical to be maintain'd, and I had rather [Page 256] leave the point under an impossibility of be­ing determin'd, seeing if there be any error in it, it must be the fault of the Histori­an, and not in the Original Copies from whence he wrote. Of any other Errors I will take no particular notice, seeing I cannot without troubling the Reader, because they have been already noted by others. Rabbi Solomon finding the manifest contradictions which are in the erroneous Genealogies, doth in his Commentaries on the 8 th chap. of the first Book of Chronicles, break out into these words, Esdras, (whom he supposeth to have written the Chronicles) called the Sons of Benjamin by wrong names, and deriv'd his Pedigree otherwise than we find it in the Book of Genesis, and describes the greatest part of the Cities of the Levites, otherwise than Joshua did, because he met with different Originals: And a little after saith, The Ge­nealogy of Gibeon, and others, is twice and diversly repeated, because Esdras found diffe­rent Registers of each. Genealogy; and in copy­ing them out, follow'd those whereof the great­er number did agree; but when the number of differing Genealogies was equal, he wrote after the Original of both: So that it appears by Rabbi Solomon's own confession, these Books were copied from uncertain, and imperfect Originals: The Commentators themselves, many times do nothing more than shew the [Page 257] causes of the errors, and I believe, that no person of any sound Judgment, can think that the Sacred Historians, did write pur­posely to contradict themselves: Perhaps it will be said, I go about to overthrow the Scripture, and give occasion to suspect, that it is every where faulty; but I have prov'd the contrary, for I hereby vindicate the Scripture, and provide against the adultera­ting and corrupting thereof in those places which are clear and true. It doth not fol­low, that because some places are faulty, therefore all must be so: because every Book is in some places false, 'tis no good ground to conclude it is no where true; especially when the Stile of it is perspicuous, and the meaning of the Author perfectly known. So much for the Books of the Old Testa­ment: Now by what hath been said, we may easily conclude, that before the time of Iudas Macch [...]b [...]us, no Books were esteem­ed Canonical, but those which we now have from the Pharisees of the Second Tem­ple, (who likewise instituted set forms of Prayer) these Books being selected from many others, and only by their Decree re­ceiv'd into the Canon: he therefore that will demonstrate the Authority of Holy Scripture, is bound to prove the Authority of every particular Book, the proving any one to be Divine, is not enough to prove [Page 258] the Divinity of all; unless it be granted, that the Council of the Pharisees could not err, which is impossible for any Man to make good; the reason which inclines me to believe, that none but the Pharisees chose the Books of the Old Testament, and made them Sacred by Canon; is, because the last Chapter of Daniel declares, That there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead, which the Zadduces utterly deny'd. Moreover in the Treatise of the Sabbath, chap. 2. fol. 30. parag. the 2 d, Rabbi Iehuda says, The learn­ed in the Law endeavour'd to suppress the Book of Ecclesiastes, because many expressions in it, were contrary (which observe) to the Books of the Law of Moses; but the reason why it was not suppress'd, was, because it begun and end­ed according to the Law: A little after he saith, They would also have conceal'd the Book of Proverbs; and lastly, in the first Chap­ter of the same Treatise, fol. 13 th, these are his words, Truly I name the Man for kindness sake, had it not been for Neguniah the Son of Hiskiah, the Book of Ezechiel had been absconded, because there are expressions in it repugnant to the words of the Law: By all which it is manifest, that the learned in the Law, held a Council to determin what Books should be receiv'd for Sacred, and what should be rejected, so that who­ever will be sure of the Authority of all, [Page 259] must search into the Council, and know upon what ground and reason every Book was receiv'd. I should now examin the Books of the New Testament, but I hear it hath been already done by Men learned in the Sciences, and skilful in Tongues; I am not Grecian good enough to undertake it, beside we want Original Copies of those Books which were written in Hebrew, and therefore I will not ingage my self in the business, but only observe some things which make to my main purpose, and that shall be the work of my next Chapter.

WHoever reads the New Testament, must be convinc'd, that the Apo­stles were Prophets, but because the Pro­phets, (as I have shew'd in the end of the first Chapter) did but seldom, and not al­ways [Page 260] speak by Revelation; it may very well be a Question, Whether the Apostles, like Moses, Ieremy, and others, did by ex­press Command and Revelation write their Epislles as Prophets, or else, only as pri­vate Men and Teachers; especially, because in the 1 st Epist. to the Corinthians, chap. 14. v. 6. Paul in express terms declares, there are two sorts of speaking, the one by Re­velation, the other by Knowledge; I say therefore, it may be doubted, whether the Apostles in their Writings did Prophesie or instruct Their Stile, if we mark it, is ve­ry far different from that us'd in Prophesie; it was alway the custom of the Prophets to declare, That they spake by the Com­mand of God, still beginning with expressi­ons like these, So faith the Lord: The Lord of Hosts saith, The Word and Decree of the Lord; which they did use not only in their publick Speeches, but also in their Letters or Writings, which contain'd Revelations; as appears in the Letter written by Elijah the Prophet to King Iehoram, (2 d Book of Chron. chap 21. v 12.) and there came a Writing to him from Elijah the Prophet saying, Thus saith the Lord God; but in the Apostles Writings, we meet with no such expressions, but the clean contrary; 1 st E­pist. Corinth. chap. 7. v. 40. Paul says he speaks after his own Judgment: Yea, in [Page 261] many places we find expressions which ar­gue a doubtful and uncertain mind; as in the Epist. to the Rom. chap. 3. v. 28. There­fore we conclude: And Rom. chap. 8 v. 18. for I reckon, and many of the like kind. Beside these there are other manners of speaking, which do not at all savor of Pro­phetical Authority; as in the 1 st Epist. Co­rinth, chap. 7. v. 6. But I speak this by per­mission, not of commandment: and in the 25. verse of the same chap. I give my Iudg­ment as a Man who hath obtain'd mercy of the Lord to be faithful; and it is to be ob­serv'd, That when Paul in this Chapter speaks, as if he did not know whether he had, or had not a command from the Lord for what he said, it is not to be understood of a Command from God by Revelation, but only, that he preach'd that Doctrine, which Christ the Lord taught his Disciples in the Mount. Moreover, if we observe in what manner the Apostles deliver the Do­ctrine of the Gospel in their Writings, we shall find it much different from the Pro­phets way of instructing; for the Apostles are always found reasoning, insomuch that they seem rather to dispute than Prophesie. Prophesies contain nothing but positive O­pinions and Decrees therefore God is always introduced, not arguing with Reason, but peremptorily commanding by the Power [Page 262] and Soveraignty of his Nature and Essence: Prophetieal Authority allows of no rational disputing; for whoever will by reasoning confirm his Opinions, doth in so doing sub­mit them to the Arbitrary Judgment of a­nother; as doth Paul reasoning in his 1 st. E­pist. to the Corinth. chap. 10. v. 15. I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say: And lastly, because the Prophets did not under­stand the things that were reveal'd to them by Reason and Natural Knowledge, as we have shewed in the first Chapter; tho' some things in the Pentateuch, seem to be conclu­ded and confirmed by Inference and Illati­on; yet if we consider them, they cannot be taken for peremptory and decisive Ar­guments: (For example) when Moses said to the Israelites, Deut. chap. 21. v. 27. Be­hold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord, and how much more after my death. We are not here to think, that this was an Argu­ment used to convince the Israelites by Reason, that they would certainly after Mo­ses death depart from the worship of God, because the Argument had been false, as may be prov'd by Scripture; for the peo­ple persevered constantly in it during the life of Ioshua and the Elders; and after­wards also in the life time of Samuel, David, and Solomon: these words therefore of Moses, [Page 263] were but a moral manner of speaking, which he Rhetorically us'd, the more strongly to imagin and foretel, that peoples future defection; the reason why I do not say, that Moses to make his Prediction true, spake these words of himself, and not by Revelation as a Prophet, is, because in the 21 verse of the same Chapter; God reveals to Moses in other words, what the people would do; so that there was no need of reasoning to make Moses surer of this Predi­ction and Decree; but it was only neces­sary to give him a livelier representation thereof in his imagination, (as I have shew­ed in the first Chapter) which could be done no better way, than by imagining that the peoples present rebellious Humor, which he had so often try'd, would be the very same for the future; so that we are not to think, Moses's Arguments which we meet with in the Petanteuch, to be drawn from the Repositories of Reason, but to be taken only for manners of speaking, where­by he did more lively imagin, and more effectually express God's Decrees. I will not deny, but that the Prophets might rea­son and argue by Revelation; but that which I maintain, is, That the Prophets by how much more rational the Arguments were which they used, so much more natu­ral did their Knowledge appear, which they [Page 264] had of things revealed, and that the Pro­phets knowledge was supernatural, chiefly appear'd in their speaking Dogmatically, Imperiously, and Sententiously; so that Moses the chief Prophet, never made use of any Logical Argument, and I therefore conclude, Paul's long Deductions and Rea­sonings, which we find in his Epistle to the Romans, were never written by Supernatu­ral Revelation, and the manner of speaking and arguing in the Writings of the Apostles, doth clearly shew, that they were not by Divine Revelation and Command, but were the dictates of their own natural Reason, and contain nothing but brotherly admoni­tions, full of gentleness and kindness, (no evidence of Prophetical Authority) such as is that excuse in the 15. chap. to the Rom. verse 15. Brethren I have written the more boldly unto you; and this Opinion may with the greater confidence be maintain'd, be­cause we no where read that the Apostles were commanded to Write, but only to Preach where ever they went, and to con­firm their Doctrine by Signs; for their Pre­sence and Signs were absolutely requir'd to convert the Nations to Christianity, and confirm them in it; as Paul himself in his Epist. to the Rom. chap. 1. v 11. expresly declares, I long to see you, that I may im­part unto you some spiritual gift, to the end [Page 265] you may be establish'd: But here it may be objected, that if we allow the Apostles did not write as Prophets, then by the same rea­son it may be concluded, they did not preach as Prophets; for when they went hither and thither to preach, they did it not by express Command, as did the Pro­phets in time past. We read in the Old Te­stament, Ionah went to Nineveh to preach, that he was expresly sent thither, and that which he was there to preach was reveal'd to him. We are told at large, that Moses was sent into Egypt by God, what he was commanded to say to the people of Israel, and to King Pharaoh, what Signs and Won­ders also he was to do in their presence to make them believe. Isaiah, Ieremy, and Ezekiel were expresly commanded to preach to the Israelites. Lastly, the Prophets ne­ver preached any thing, but what the Scripture testifies they receiv'd from God, but of the Apostles we very seldom read a­ny such thing, when they went hither and thither to preach; but on the contrary, we find the Apostles according to their own Will and Inclination, chose what places they would preach in, as appears by that contention even to separation between Paul and Barnabas, Act. chap. 15. v. 39. and that the Apostles many times in vain attempted to go to some particular places, whereof [Page 266] we have instances in Paul himself, who says in his first Chapter to the Romans, v. 13. I would not have you ignorant, that oftentimes I purposed to come to you, but was let hither­to; and chap. 15. v. 22. For which cause I have been often hindred from coming to you. And lastly, in the 16 th chap. 1 st Epist. to the Corinth. v. 12. he saith, As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desir'd him to come unto you with the Brethren, but his Will was not at all to come at this time, but he will come when he shall have convenient time; so that from such expressions as these, from the Apostles contention, and because when they went hither and thither to preach, the Scripture doth no where testify as it did of the Ancient Prophets, that they went by the express command of God; we ought to conclude, that the Apostles did not preach as Prophets, but as Men who were only Teachers. But this Objection may be easi­ly answered, if we take notice of the diffe­rence between the calling of Apostles in the New, and of Prophets in the Old Testament, for the Prophets were not called to Preach and Prophesie to all Nations in general, but only to some particular people, for which an Express and particular Command was necessary; but the Apostles were called to preach to all Nations without exception, and to convert them to Christ, so that [Page 267] where-ever they went they executed his Commission; nor was there any necessity before they went, that which they were to preach should be reveal'd to them, they being those Disciples to whom Christ said, Matth. chap. 10. v. 19, 20. When they deli­ver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given unto you in that same hour, what you shall speak: We therefore conclude, the Apostles had those things by particular Revelation, which they personally preach'd and confirm'd by Signs, but what they simply spake or writ with­out Signs to confirm it, that proceeded on­ly from their Natural Reason and Know­ledge, as you see in the forecited 14 th chap. of the 1 st Epist. to the Corinth. v. 6. That all their Epistles begin with the Declaration and Approbation of their Apostleship, makes nothing against me; for on the Apostles, as I shall presently shew, was not only be­stow'd the gift of Prophesie, but they had also Authority given them to teach and in­struct: Upon this ground the Apostles be­gan and wrote their Epistles with the de­claration of their Apostleship, and perhaps to gain upon the Minds of their Readers, and to stir them up to Attention, did in the first place testify, That they were those Men, who by their Preaching, were known to all Believers; and who, by such clear [Page 268] proofs had made it evident, they taught the true Religion, and right way to Salva­tion. What I find in these Epistles concern­ing the Call of the Apostles, and of the Di­vine and Holy Spirit wherewith they were inspir'd, relates only to their Preaching, ex­cept it be in those places, where by the Spi­rit of God, and the holy Spirit is meant on­ly a sound right Judgment, and a pure san­ctify'd Mind devoted to God, (of which we have spoken in our first Chapter.) For example, Paul, in 1 Corinth chap. 7. v. 40. saith, But she is happier if she so abide after my Iudgment, and I think also I have the Spirit of God; where by the Spirit of God is understood his own Opinion, as the Con­text proves; his meaning is, that in his Judgment and Opinion, the Widdow was happy who would not marry a second Hus­band, for he himself had resolv'd to live single, and therefore thought himself hap­py: Of this kind we find other expressions, which I think needless to mention: If then it pass for granted, That the Epistles of the Apostles were the dictates only of Natural Reason, how could the Apostles only by Natural Reason, teach those things which did not fall within the compass of it? Con­sider what I have said in the seventh Chap­ter of this Treatise, concerning the Inter­pretation of Scripture, and we shall find [Page 269] no difficulty in the Question; for tho' ma­ny things contain'd in the Bible, often sur­pass our Capacity and Understanding, yet we may safely dispute of them, provided we admit of no Principles but what are fetch'd from the Scripture; and upon this ground the Apostles might conclude, col­lect, and as they pleas'd, teach many of those things which they had seen, heard, and were reveal'd to them. Tho' Religion, as it was preach'd by the Apostles, in bare­ly publishing the History of Christ, is not to be comprehended by Natural Reason, yet the principal and chiefest part thereof, which consists, as doth the whole Doctrine of Christ, in moral Precepts and Instructi­ons, every Man by Natural Light may at­tain: The Apostles did not stand in need of Supernatural Illumination, to fit and ap­ply Religion which they had before con­firm'd by Signs, to every Man's ordinary Capacity, that it might be readily embra­ced; nor was Supernatural Assistance neces­sary to mind Men of it, the design, and end of all the Epistles, is, to teach and ad­monish Men to live that kind of life, which every one of the Apostles judg'd best to confirm and establish them in Religion: and here we are to remember, what was said a little before, That the Apostles were not only enabled to preach the History of [Page 270] Christ, and confirm what they preach'd by Signs as Prophets; but had also Power and Authority to admonish and instruct Men, in that way which every particular Apostle thought best; both which gifts Paul men­tions in his 2 d Epist. to Timothy chap. 1. v. 11. Whereunto I am appointed a Preacher, and an Apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles: Like­wise in his 1 st Epist. to Timothy, chap. 2. v. 7. Whereunto I am ordain'd a Preacher, and an Apostle: (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not) a teacher of the Gentiles in Faith and Verity; which Texts clearly prove both his Offices of Apostle and Doctor, but his Au­thority to warn and instruct, whomsoever, and whensoever he pleas'd, he expresly de­clares in his Epistle to Philemon, verses the 8 th and 9 th, Tho' I might be much bold in Christ, to enjoyn thee that which is convenient, yet for loves sake I rather beseech thee, whence we are to note, that if those things which Paul was to command Philemon, had been receiv'd from God by Paul as a Prophet, and which, as a Prophet he ought to have commanded him; then it had not been lawful for Paul, to change that Com­mand of God into Intreaties; it must there­fore be necessarily understood, that Paul here speaks of the liberty of Warning and Admonishing, which he had as a Teacher, and not as a Prophet. Tho' it be not clear­ly [Page 271] prov'd, that every Apostle might chuse that way of teaching which he himself thought best, but only that they were both Prophets and Teachers by vertue of their Apostleship, yet Reason tells us, that who­ever hath Power and Authority to teach, hath also Power and Liberty to chuse his own way of doing it; but because it will be more satisfactory to prove by Scripture, that every Apostle chose his own particular way of teaching: Consider what Paul him­self saith in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. 15. v. 20. So have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another mans foundation; if every one of the Apostles made use of the same way of teaching, and all built Christian Religion upon the same Foundati­on, what reason had Paul to call those Foun­dations another Mans? It must necessarily be concluded, that every one built Religi­on upon a several Foundation, and it was with the Apostles, as it is with other Do­ctors, who having a peculiar method of teaching, desire alway to teach those who are perfectly ignorant, and never learnt of any other Master. If we carefully read o­ver the Epistles, we shall find that the Apo­stles did agree concerning Religion it self, but differ'd about its Foundations. To esta­blish Men in Religion, and to prove that [Page 272] Salvation depended only upon the Grace and Mercy of God, Paul's Doctrine was, that no Man ought to boast of his Works, but only of his Faith; and that no Man could be justify'd by Works, but only by Faith, ( Rom. chap. 3. v. 27, 28.) By Paul al­so was preached the whole Doctrine of Pre­destination; but Iames on the other side, in his Epistle declares, that a Man is justi­fy'd by Works, and not by Faith only, ( Iames chap. 2. v. 24.) and in few words gives a brief account of Religion, not at all concerning himself with any of Paul's Dis­putations: Without doubt the Apostles building Religion upon several Foundations, hath been the original cause of all those Controversies and Schisms, wherewith the Church was in the Apostles time, hath been ever since, and for ever will be troubled; unless Religion be purg'd and separated from all Philosophical Speculations, and reduced to those few and plain Doctrines which Christ taught his Followers, which was im­possible to be done by the Apostles them­selves; because Men then knew not the Go­spel, and because the novity of its Doctrine should not offend their Ears, they as near as possible, suited and fitted it to the Genius and Disposition of Men in that time, as ap­pears by (the 1 st Epist. to the Corinth. chap. 9. v. 19, 20.) and was built upon the most [Page 273] known Foundations, and receiv'd Principles of those times; therefore none of the Apo­stles philosophiz'd so much as Paul, who was called to preach to the Gentiles; the rest preaching to the Iews, who were despi­sers of Philosophy, likewise apply'd them­selves to their Genius, (see the Epist. to the Galath. chap. 2. from the 11 verse forward,) and preach'd Religion strip'd naked from all Philosophical Speculations: How happy likewise would our times be, could we see Religion freed from all Superstition.

THey that look upon the Bible, how­ever it be, as a Letter sent from Heaven by God to Man, will certainly ex­claim [Page 274] and say, I am guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, in maintaining, that the Word of God is faulty, maimed, adultera­ted, and contradictory to it self; that we have but fragments of it, and that the Ori­ginal Writing of the Covenant which God made with the Iews perish'd; but I doubt not, would they well consider the thing it self, they would cease their exclamations; for Reason, as well as the Opinion of the Prophets and Apostles, plainly declares, That the Eternal Word and Covenant of God, and true Religion is written in Mens Hearts, (that is) imprinted by God upon the Mind and Understanding of mankind; which is that true Hand-writing of God, which he sealed with the Idea of himself; (that is) the I­mage of his own Divine Nature. Religion was first deliver'd to the Iews as a written Law, because they were at that time in their Understanding, little more than Chil­dren; but afterwards Moses ( Deut. chap. 30. v. 6.) and Ieremy ( chap. 31. v. 33.) prophesied, that in time to come, God would write his Law in their Hearts; so that the Iews, and, among them, chiefly the Zaduces, always contended for their Law written in Tables, which others did not, who had it engraven on their Hearts: He then that considers this, will find nothing in what I have said, contrary to God's word, or that will weak­en [Page 275] Faith and Religion; but rather, as I have shewed toward the end of the tenth Chapter, what will confirm and strengthen both. Had not that been my intention, I had been altogether silent upon this Subject, and to avoid disputes, would have freely granted, that there are deep Mysteries hid­den in the Scripture: but because from thence hath sprung up intollerable Super­stition, and many other mischievous in­conveniences, of which I spake in the be­ginning of the seventh Chapter, I could not possibly pass them by: Religion needs not be attired with any Superstitious Orna­ments, but rather loseth part of its Beau­ty and Lustre, when it is adorned with such Fopperies. But some will say, That tho' the Divine Law be written in Mens Hearts, yet nevertheless the Scripture is the word of God, and therefore 'tis as un­lawful to say of Scripture, as of the Word of God, that 'tis maimed or corrupted. I on the other side fear such Men pretend too much Sanctity, and convert Religion into Superstition; yea, that they worship Pictures and Images, (that is) Paper and Ink for the Word of God; this I know, that I have said nothing misbecoming the Scripture or the Word of God; and that I have laid down no Position, which I have not made good by clear Reason; and there­fore [Page 276] I may positively aver, that I have not publish'd any thing that is impious, or that savors of the least impiety: I confess, some prophane persons, to whom Religion is a burthen, may take a liberty of sinning, and without any reason indulging their sensual pleasure, may infer, that the Scripture is every where faulty and falsify'd, and con­sequently of no Authority; to such Men nothing will be an answer, for according to the common saying, that which is never so well and truly spoken, may be abused by an ill and sinister Interpretation; they that are lovers of their Pleasure, will take any occasion to do it; and they who in time past had those Originals, the Ark of the Covenant, the Prophets and Apostles them­selves, were not one jot the more obedient or the better for them, but all as well Iews as Gentiles were alike still the same, and Ver­tue in all Ages was a thing very rare: But to clear all Scruples, I will now shew upon what ground and reason, Scripture or any other mute thing, may be called Sacred or Holy; next, what is indeed the Word of God, that it is not contained in a certain number of Books: And lastly, that as it contains those things which are necessary to Obedience and Salvation, it cannot be corrupted: By these particulars every one may easily judge, that I speak nothing a­gainst [Page 277] the Word of God, or give any oc­casion for Men to be wicked or ungod­ly.

That is called Holy and Divine which is dedicated to Piety and the practice of Reli­gion, and a thing continues Holy so long as Men make a Religious use thereof; when Men cease to be Religious, that thing ceas­eth to be Sacred, and when the thing is used to impious purposes, then that thing which was before Sacred, becomes unholy and prophane: (For example) the very place called by Iacob the Patriarch Beth-el, the House of God, because he there wor­ship'd God reveal'd to him; was afterwards called by the Prophets the House of Ini­quity, Amos, chap. 5. v. 5. Hoshea, chap. 10. v. 5. because the Israelites, by the Com­mand of Ieroboam, did there sacrifice to I­dols. Another example will plainly prove the thing: Words have a certain significa­tion, only by use and custom; and if they be according to that use so disposed, that they move Men who read them to Devoti­on, then those words are esteemed Sacred; and likewise the Book wherein they are written; but if afterward it come to pass, that the use of those words is lost, and thereby the words become insignificant, and the Book wherein such words are, is quite neglected and laid aside, either [Page 278] through malice, or because Men have no need of it, then the words and the Book, as they are of no use, so have they no San­ctity in them. Lastly, If those words come to be otherwise construed, and Custom so far prevail, as to give them a clean contra­ry sense and signification, then the words and the Book which were before esteemed Sacred, may become filthy and profane; whence it follows, that nothing can be ab­solutely either Sacred or Profane, but only in respect of Mans Mind or Understanding; which clearly appears by many places of Scripture; I will quote only one or two; Ieremy ( chap. 7. v. 24.) saith, the Iews did falsely call Solomon's Temple the Temple of God; for as he further saith in that Chap­ter, the Name of God could remain in that Temple no longer than it was frequented by Men who worship'd him, and maintain'd Justice; but when Murderers, Robbers, and Idolaters resorted to it, 'twas then but a Den of Thieves. I have often wonder'd, that the Scripture no where declares what became of the Ark of the Covenant, cer­tainly it was either lost or burnt with the Temple, tho' nothing was esteemed more Sacred and Venerable among the Iews. The Scripture then is Sacred, and its say­ings Divine, so long as Men are thereby mo­ved to Devotion; but if the Scripture be [Page 279] quite neglected, as it was heretofore by the Iews, it is nothing but Paper and Ink, 'tis then profaned, and left liable to Corrup­tion; and when it is corrupted and perish­eth, it cannot be truly said the Word of God is corrupted and lost; as in the Pro­phet Ieremy's time, it could not be truly said the Temple of God was burnt, which Ieremy himself declareth of the Law; for chap. 8. v. 8. he reproves the Wicked in these words, How do ye say we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us? Lo certainly in vain made he it, the Pen of the Scribes is in vain; (that is) tho' ye have the Scripture, yet ye falsely say, you have the Law of God, since ye have made it of no effect: In like manner, when Moses brake the first Tables, it cannot be said, that in anger he cast the Law of God out of his Hands and brake it, no person ought to think so, he brake only the Stones, which, tho' before accounted Sacred, because upon them was engraven the Covenant by which the Iews bound themselves to obey God, yet after­ward had not the least Sanctity in them, be­cause the People by worshiping the Golden Calf, made that Covenant void: For the same cause the second Tables, with the Ark wherein they were kept, might like­wise perish. 'Tis no wonder then if none of those Originals are to be found, or that [Page 280] the like should befal the Books we have, when the very Original of Gods Law, the most Sacred of all things is utterly lost: Let Men then forbear to charge me with im­piety, seeing I have spoken nothing against the Word of God, nor have any way profaned it; if their anger be just, let it be vented against the people of old, whose wickedness prophaned and destroyed the Ark of God, the Temple, the Law, and all things else that were Sacred: If according to the 2 d Epist. to the Corinth. chap. 3. v. 3. The Epistle of Christ were written not with Ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in Tables of Stone, but in the fleshly Tables of the Heart: Let Men cease to adore the Letter, and not be so much concern'd for it. Having sufficiently explain'd the Holiness and Divinity of Scripture, let us now see what is properly meant by Debar Iehovah the word of God. Debar signifies Word, Speech, Decree, Thing; now upon what grounds any thing in the Hebrew Language may be said to be God's, or have relation to God, I have shew'd in the first Chapter; so that I need not repeat what I have there said, or in the sixth Chapter, what I have said of Miracles; 'tis evident what the Scripture means by the Word of God: To make the thing very clear, I need only declare, that when the Word of God is predicated of any [Page 281] Subject which is not God himself, it pro­perly signifies that Divine Law, of which we treated in the fourth Chapter, namely, That Religion which is universal and com­mon to all mankind, mention'd in Isaiah, chap. 1. v. 10. where the Prophet declares, That the right way of living, consisted in Charity, and in a sincere and pure Heart, which he calls the Law and Word of God: The Word of God is also taken Metaphori­cally, for the order or course of Nature, and Fate, (because it follows and depends upon the Eternal Decree of the Divine Nature) particularly for whatever the Prophets fore­saw in this course of Nature; because the Pro­phets understood future events, not by natu­ral Causes, but thought them to be the Will and Decrees of God. Moreover, it is taken for that which any Prophet commanded or declared, because he knew it not by Natu­ral Light, but by the singular Vertue and gift of Prophesie; and more especially, be­cause the Prophets (as we have shewed in the fourth Chapter) apprehended God un­der the notion of a Lawgiver; for these three reasons then, the Scripture is called the Word of God, (namely) because it teacheth us true Religion, whereof God from all Eternity is the Author. Secondly, because it makes Prophesies to be God's De­crees: And lastly, because the Authors of [Page 282] those Prophesies, taught for the most part that which they did not know by Natural Reason, but by a faculty and gift peculiar only to them, and introduced God speaking as it were in them. Now tho' the Scrip­ture contain many things which are meer­ly Historical, and may be unnderstood by Natural Knowledge, yet the Scripture is called the Word of God, in respect of those other particulars I have last mention'd; so that now we plainly see, why God is cal­led the Author of the Bible; (namely) up­on the account of teaching us what is true Religion, and not because it contains, and hath communicated to us such a certain number of Books. And hence we may al­so learn, that the Bible is divided into the Old and New Testament, because before the com­ing of Christ, the Prophets Preached Religion as the Law of their Country, and by force of the Covenant made in Moses's time; but after Christ's coming, because the Apostles preached Religion upon Christ's account, as a Law universal to all mankind; not that the Prophets and Apostles differ'd in Do­ctrine, or that the Books of either Testa­ment, are the Deeds and Indentures of the Written Covenant; nor, lastly, because Natural Religion which is universal, is new, unless it be in respect of those that knew it not, according to that saying of Iohn the [Page 283] Evangelist, chap. 1. v. 10. He was in the world and the world knew him not. If then we had not some of those Books which the Old and New Testament contain, yet we should not want God's Word, (as it proper­ly signifies true Religion) for we do not think any part thereof is wanting, tho' we lack many of those other excellent Writings, namely, the Book of the Law, which was so Religiously kept in the Temple, as the Original wherein the Covenant was first written, with many other Books of the Wars and Records of time, from whence the Books of the Old and New Testament, which we now have, were transcribed and collected: And this is made good by many reasons; first, because the Books of both Testaments were not written at one and the same time, for the use of all Ages; but by chance for some particular people, and that as the Time and their particular Dispositi­on requir'd, which plainly appears, by the calling of the Prophets, who are called to warn and reprove the ungodly of their own time, and also by the Writings of the Apo­stles. Secondly, Because understanding the Scripture, and the meaning of the Pro­phets, is one thing; but to understand the Mind of God (that is) the real truth of things is another; as appears by what hath been said in the second Chapter of Pro­phets; [Page 284] which distinction likewise holds in Histories and Miracles, as we have shewed in the sixth Chapter: But in understand­ing places which treat of true Religion and real Vertue, no such distinction ought to be made. Thirdly, Because the Books of the Old Testament, were chosen out of many o­thers, and were approved and joyned to­gether by a Council of the Pharisees; as we have declared in the tenth Chapter; and for the Books of the New Testament, they were receiv'd into the Canon by the Decrees of certain Councils, when several other Books, by many accounted Sacred, were re­jected as Spurious: These Councils both of Pharisees and Christians, were made up of Men, who were no Prophets, but only learned Doctors; yet it must necessarily be granted, that in this choice they made the Word of God their Rule; so that before they gave their Approbation to the Books, they ought to know what was the Word of God. Fourthly, Because as we have shewed in the preceding Chapter, the Apo­stles did not write as Prophets, but only as Teachers, and chose that way of instruct­ing, which every one judged most easie for his Disciples; from whence it follows, as we have concluded in the end of the said Chap­ter, that their Writings contain many things, whereof in Respect to Religion we [Page 285] have no absolute need. Fifthly and lastly, Because in the New Testament, there are four whom we call Evangelists; but who believes it was God's express Will, that the History of Christ should be four times told and deliver'd to Men in Writing? Tho' things may be contain'd in one, which are not in another, and that one helps to un­derstand another; we must not therefore conclude, that all things which the four de­clare, are absolutely necessary to be known, and that God made choice of them to write purposely, that the History of Christ might be the better understood; for every one preach'd his own Gospel in several places, and every one wrote what he preach'd plainly, that he might the more faithfully relate the History of Iesus Christ, and not for any explanation to the rest. If by mu­tually comparing them together, they are somet [...]mes more easily and better under­stood, that happens by chance, and only in very few places, of which, tho' we were ignorant, the History notwithstanding would be very perspicuous, and Men never­theless blessed and happy. Having shewed that the Scripture in respect of Religion only, and the universal Divine Law, is pro­perly called Scripture: It now remains to prove, that in this respect, and as it is pro­perly so call'd, it is neither maimed, faulty, [Page 286] or corrupted; and here I call that thing faulty, maimed and corrupted, which is so falsely written and compos'd, that the true sense of the words, cannot either by the use of the Language, or by the Scripture it self be found out; for I do not affirm, that the Scripture, as it contains the Divine Law, always observes the same letters, points, ac­cents and words, (I leave that to the Ma­sorites who so superstitiously adore the Let­ter) but only that the signification and sense (in respect of which only, any Speech is to be called Divine) is derived to us uncor­rupted, tho' the words whereby that sense was signified, have been often changed; that cannot, as we have said, detract from the Sacredness of Scripture, for it would not have been one jot less Divine, had it been written in other Words, or in any o­ther Language. That we have received the Divine Law in this respect uncorrupted, no body can question, for by the Scripture it self, without any doubt or difficulty we perceive, that the summ thereof is to love God above all things, and our Neighbours as our selves. This cannot be adulterated, nor written by a too hasty erring Pen, for if the Scripture ever taught any other thing, it must necessarily teach all other things; otherwise seeing this is the Founda­tion of all Religion, take away this Foun­dation, [Page 287] and the whole Fabrick falls to the ground; and if this were not so, the Scrip­ture were not Scripture, but quite another Book. It remains then without Controver­sie, this was always the Doctrine of Scrip­ture, and consequently, that no error could creep into it to corrupt its Sense, which would have been quickly perceiv'd by every body, and who ever had gone about to corrupt it, his Malice would have present­ly appear'd: If then this Foundation be im­moveable and incorruptible, the same must be concluded of other things, which indis­putably follow from it, and which are also fundamentals; as that God is, that he pro­vides for all, that he is Omnipotent, and that he hath decreed it shall go well with Good, and ill with Wicked-men, and that our Salvation depends only upon his Grace and Mercy. These things the Scripture e­very where plainly teacheth, and ought al­ways to teach, else all other things were vain and without any Foundation: 'Tis as impossible to corrupt any other Moral Do­ctrines, which are built upon, and evident­ly follow from this Foundation; namely, to do justice, to succour those that are in want and distress; not to kill, not to covet, and none of these moral Precepts can be mis-interpreted or corrupted by malice, or obliterated by length of time: If any of [Page 288] these things should be blotted out, they would be again dictated to mankind, by the first general Foundation, and more especially by the Doctrine of Charity which is every where so much commended in the Old and New Testament: Should it be grant­ed, that there is no wickedness which ever entred into the Heart of Man, which some person or other hath not committed, yet never was there any Man, who to ex­cuse or justifie his Crimes, endeavour'd to blot out the Laws, or to preach Impiety for good and wholsome Doctrine. Tho' it be every Man's nature, whether King or Subject, when he hath done any thing that is evil, to palliate the fact with such Cir­cumstances, as may make it appear as lit­tle as is possible dishonest or unjust. We therefore conclude, that the Universal Di­vine Law, which the Scripture teacheth, is deliver'd and derived to us pure and in­corruptible. There are other things also, which have been faithfully deliver'd to us, namely, the general Collection of Scrip­ture Histories, because they are universal­ly known. The common people of the Iews, were wont to sing the Antiquities and Ancient Facts of their Nation, in Psalms or Songs. The principal things done by Christ and his Passion, were quickly publish'd through the whole Roman Empire, [Page 289] and therefore 'tis impossible to believe, un­less the greatest part of mankind should a­gree in that which is incredible, that the principal things in Scripture Histories should be deliver'd to posterity, otherwise than they were first receiv'd. Whatever then is adulterated or faulty, must happen only in this or that Circumstance of a Prophesie or History, the more to move people to Devotion, or in some Miracle to puzzle and nonplus Philosophers; or lastly, in matters Speculative, after they were brought into Religion by Schismaticks, abusing Divine Authority to support their own inventions: But whether these things be or be not adul­terated and corrupted, doth not at all con­cern Salvation, which I will expresly shew in the following Chapter, tho' I think enough hath been already said to prove it, in this, and the second Chapter.

WE have already declared in the se­cond Chapter of this Treatise, that the Prophets did not so much excel in perfection of Mind and Understanding, as in a singular faculty and power of Imagi­nation: That God revealed to them no deep points of Philosophy, but only things very plain and easie, condesending and ap­plying himself to their Capacities, and pre­conceiv'd Opinions. We have in the fifth Chapter shewn, that the Scripture deli­vers and teacheth things in such a manner, as may render them most easie to be un­derstood by every Man, and that it doth not prove, deduce, and link things toge­ther, [Page 291] by maxims and definitions, but only plainly relates and declares things; and to make Men believe, confirms what it says by Experience, (that is) by Miracles and Histories; making use of such a Stile, and such Expressions, as are most likely to move and prevail upon the Minds of the com­mon people; of which I have spoken in proving the third Particular of the sixth Chapter. Lastly, I have shew'd in the se­venth Chapter, that the difficulty of under­standing the Scripture, lies only in the Lan­guage wherein it was originally written, and not in the sublimity and abstruceness of the Subject whereof it treats; and more­over, that the Prophets did not preach on­ly to the Learned, but in general to all the Iews; and that the Apostles preached the Doctrine of the Gospel, in Churches where there was a common and universal Assem­bly of all people: by all which it evidently appears, that Scripture Doctrine contains no high Speculations, nor Philosophical Arguments, but only things plain and intel­ligible by the meanest and dullest Capaci­ties. I strangely admire the accuteness of those Men, who discover in the Scripture Mysteries so profound, that 'tis impossible for the Tongue of Man to unfold them, and who have fill'd Religion with so many Philosophical Speculations, that they have [Page 292] turn'd the Church into an Academy, Reli­gion into a Science, or rather into Wran­gling and Dispute: But 'tis no wonder that Men who boast of Supernatural Illuminati­on should pretend to more than we find in Philosophers, who own they have no more than what is Natural. I would really ad­mire those illuminated Men, could they teach us any new Speculations, or any thing that was not common and vulgar a­mongst the Heathen Philosophers, whom they call Blind: For if you inquire what are those profound Mysteries, these inspir'd Men perceive in Scripture, they can tell us of nothing beyond the idle fancies and conceits of Plato and Aristotle, which look more like the Dreams of Ideots than Dis­coveries made out of Scripture by Learned Men. I do not positively maintain, that nothing belongs to Scripture Doctrine, which is matter of meer Speculation, for in the preceding Chapter I have mention­ed some fundamentals of Scripture that are so; but my meaning is, they are very few and very plain; what they are, and upon what reason determin'd to be so, I come now to shew, which will be easily done, after that we know the Scriptures chief de­sign was not to teach Arts and Sciences, and that it requires from Men nothing but Obedience, condemning their Obstinacy, [Page 293] not their Ignorance: Moreover, because Obedience toward God, consists only in loving our Neighbour, (for whoever lo­veth his Neighbour purposely to obey God, he, as Paul saith, Rom. chap. 13. v. 8. hath fulfilled the Law) it follows, that no other Knowledge is commended in Scripture, but that which is necessary to all Men, that they may, according to this Precept of lo­ving our Neighbour, obey God; which Knowledge, if Men have not, they must necessarily be stubborn, or at least without the discipline of Obedience; but all other Speculations which do not directly tend to this end, whether they concern the know­ledge of God, or of natural things, they have nothing to do with Scripture, and are to be excluded out of revealed Religion. Now tho' these things be obvious to every Man, yet because upon this point depends the ending of all debate in Religion; I will demonstrate and explain the thing as fully and clearly as is possible; which to perform, we in the first place ought to prove, That an intellectual and accurate knowledge of God, is not a gift so common to all Belie­vers as is Obedience. Secondly, That the Knowledge which God by his Prophets re­quir'd of all Men in general, and which e­very Man is oblig'd to have, is nothing else but the Knowledge of his Divine Justice [Page 294] and Love, both which particulars are evi­dently prov'd out of the Scripture it self, Exod. chap. 6. v. 3. God for an evidence of his particular favour to Moses, saith, I am the Lord, I appear'd unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah, was I not known to them; for the better under­standing of this Text, we are to observe, that Elsadai signifies in Hebrew, God alsuffici­ent, because he giveth to every Man that which is sufficient for him; and tho' Sadai of it self, be often taken for God, yet the word El, is always to be understood; we are therefore to note, that in Scripture there is no other word to be found but Iehovah, that signifies God's absolute Being without any relation to things created, and therefore the Iews will have this to be God's proper Name, and all others to be Appellatives; and indeed all the rest of God's Names, whether they be Substantives or Adjectives, are but Attributes given to God, as he is consider'd under a relation to his Creatures, or is made manifest by them: The word El, or by adding to it the Paragogical Let­ter He, Eloha signifies nothing else but Powerful, which is a title of Dignity or Excellency, as when we stile Paul an Apo­stle: Other Vertues of his Power, are ex­prest by saying the great God, God to be [Page 295] feared, the just, merciful God, &c. or to ex­press them all at once, the plural number of this word El is often used in a singular signification. Seeing then God said to Mo­ses he was not known to the Patriarchs by the Name of Iehovah, it follows, they knew no Name or Attribute of God that express'd his absolute Essence and Nature, but only his Works and his Promises, (that is) his Power as it was manifested by things vi­sible; and this God said to Moses, not to accuse the Patriarchs of Unbelief, but to magnify and commend their Faith and rea­diness to believe; by which, tho' they had not so great a knowledge of God as Moses had, yet they firmly rely'd on his Promi­ses; not like Moses, who tho' he had sub­limer Notions of God, doubted his Di­vine Promises, and told God, that instead of the Deliverance he had promised, he had brought the Children of Israel into a worse condition. If then God told Moses, that the Patriarchs knew not that singular and proper Name of God, to commend their Faith and simplicity of Heart, and to put Moses in mind of the particular Favour and Grace God had shewed him; it clearly proves my first Position; which is, That Men are not obliged by any express Com­mand to know God's Attributes, it being a peculiar gift granted only to some Belie­vers, [Page 296] which I need not prove by Scripture, since it is evident beyond all dispute, that every Man hath not an equal share of Di­vine Knowledge; and that a Man is no more able by a Command to become Wise, than 'tis in his own power to be, or live: Men, Women and Children may all, as they are commanded, obey, but never could a Command make any Man wise. If any Man say there is no need of understanding God's Attributes, but only of simply be­lieving them, without any demonstration, he talks idly; for invisible things, which are the objects only of the Mind, can only be seen by Demonstrations, (that is) firm convincing Arguments, and therefore what a Man only and barely hears of things in­visible, never affects the Understanding, nor declares a Man's meaning any more, than do the words of a Parrot, or some ar­tificial Engin, that speak without Under­standing or Sense. But before I proceed further, I ought to give an account why 'tis often said in Genesis, that the Patriarchs preached in the Name of Iehovah, which seems expresly to contradict what I have said. This is easily answer'd, if we consi­der what hath been said in the eighth Chapter, where we have proved, that the Writer of the Pentateuch did not call things and places by those very names which [Page 297] they had at the time of which the Writer speaketh, but by the names which they were known by, in the Writers own time; therefore when 'tis said in Genesis, that God was preached to the Patriarchs by the Name of Iehovah, it is not because God was known to them by that Name, but because to that Name of God, the Iews pay'd the highest Reverence and Venera­tion when Genesis was written: and this must necessarily be a true and clear An­swer, because it is expresly said in the forecited text of Exodus, that God was not known to the Patriarchs by his Name Ieho­vah; and because also in Exod. chap. 3. v. 13. Moses desired to know God's Name, which must have been known to him, had it been known to the Patriarchs before him. It must therefore be concluded, that the faithful Patriarchs were ignorant of this Name of God, and that the Knowledge of God is a Gift not a Command. It is now time to pass on to the proof of the second Particular, That God required from Men by his Prophets, no other Knowledge of himself, than the Knowledge of his Divine Justice and Love; (that is) those Attri­butes which Men in a right course of living, may in some measure and degree imitate; which the Prophet Ieremy in express words [Page 298] declares; for chap. 20. v. 15, 16. speaking of King Iosiah, he saith, Did not thy Father eat and drink, and do Iudgment and Iustice, and then it was well with him; he judged the cause of the poor and the needy, then it was well with him; is not this to know me, saith the Lord? Nor are those words less clear, chap. 9. v. 24. Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lo­ving kindness, Iudgment and Righteousness in the Earth, for in these things I delight, saith the Lord. We have a further proof, Exod. chap. 34. v. 6. where Moses desiring to see and know God, God revealeth no other Attributes to him, but such as de­clare his Divine Justice and Love. Lastly, How express in the point are the words of St. Iohn in the fourth Chapter of his first Epistle; because no Man ever saw God, he maketh God known only by Love; and concludes, that he knoweth God, and God dwelleth in him who hath Charity. We see then, that Moses, Ieremy, and Iohn com­prize that Knowledge of God which every Man is bound to have, in that only where­in we say 'tis comprehended; namely, in believing, that God is superlatively just and merciful, and the only pattern of a good life: The Scripture doth no where give a­ny express and positive definition of God [Page 299] neither doth it prescribe any other Attri­butes to be imitated and believed by us, but those we have named, nor are those expresly commended as Attributes; so that from all these things we conclude, that the intellectual Knowledge of God, which con­siders God as he is in his own Nature and Essence, which Nature no Man can by any certain course of life imitate or take for his pattern, doth not at all teach a Man how to live well, neither doth it concern a Man's Faith or revealed Religion: So that a Man may be infinitely mistaken in it, and yet not offend God. Let us not won­der then, that God apply'd himself to the Imaginations and preconceived Opinions of the Prophets, and that faithful Believers had different Opinions of God, as by ma­ny Instances we have proved in the second Chapter; nor let any Man wonder, that the Sacred Volumes do every where speak so improperly of God, ascribing to him Hands, Feet, Eyes, Ears, Mind, Local Moti­on, yea, Passions of the Mind, saying, he is Jealous, Merciful, &c. and sometimes set him out as a Judge sitting in Heaven on a Regal Throne, and Christ at his Right hand, all which is spoken according to the Capacity of the Vulgar, whom the Scrip­ture intended to make Obedient, but not Learned. Of these things, whatever ordi­nary [Page 300] profest Divines, have by Reason and Natural Light discovered to be disagreeable to the Divine Nature, they will have Me­taphorically Interpreted, but that which is above their Capacity must be taken Litte­rally. If all things of this kind we meet with in Scripture, must be taken and un­derstood Metaphorically, then the Scrip­ture was not written for the rude and ig­norant common people, but for the Learn­ed, and especially for Philosophers; and if it should be sin piously and in simplicity of Heart, to believe those things of God, which the Sacred Volumes have in the Let­ter ascribed to him, the Prophets conside­ring the weakness of the common people's Understanding, ought to have been very wary and careful, what Phrases and Ex­pressions they used, and should have clear­ly and plainly, which is no where done, declared those Attributes of God which e­very Man is bound to believe: No Man ought to think, that Opinions considered absolutely in themselves, without respect to a Man's Works, have any Piety or Impiety in them, but a Man is said to be Godly or Ungodly in his Faith, in respect of those O­pinions which incline him to Obedience, or those that encourage him to Sin and Dis­obedience; so that if a Man, tho' he rightly and truly believe, be stubborn and disobe­dient, [Page 301] his Faith is evil; and on the contra­ry, if a Man believe that which is false, and yet live well, his Faith is good; for the true knowledge of God, is not a Precept, but a Divine Gift, and God never required from Men, any other Knowledge, than that of his Divine Love and Justice, which Know­ledge is necessary only to Obedience, not to Science.

TO understand truly what Faith is, 'tis very necessary to know, that the Scripture was fitted and accommodated not only to the Capacity of the Prophets, but also to the Understanding of the inconstant mutable vulgar people of the Iewish Nation, of which no person can be ignorant, that will but a little consider and observe the Scripture. He that will take all things which are promiscuously set down in Scrip­ture, [Page 302] to be that universal positive Doctrine, whereby God is to be known, can never rightly discern what was suited to the Ca­pacity of the Iews, but not being able to distinguish between Divine Doctrine, and the common peoples Opinions, must take human Fictions and Fancies for Heavenly Instructions, and consequently very much a­buse the Sacred Scriptures Authority. Who doth not plainly see, that this is the cause we have so many Sectaries, who main­tain their different and contrary Opinions to be all Doctrines and Principles of Faith, which they confirm by many Scripture proofs, so that 'tis become a Dutch Proverb, Geen Ketter sonder letter, there is no Secta­ry or Heretick but hath a Text of Scripture to maintain his Opinion. The Sacred Books of Scripture were not all written by one person, nor for the people of one Age, but by divers persons of different dispositions, and for the people of several Ages distant in time from one another, almost two thou­sand years; by some computations many more. We do not charge these Sectaries with impiety, for applying the words of Scripture to their own Opinions, as here­tofore they were suited to Vulgar Capaci­ties, it being lawful for every one to apply Scripture to his own Opinions, if he find himself thereby more inclin'd to obey God [Page 303] in those things which relate to Justice and Charity; but we blame the Sectaries for not allowing other Men the same liberty they themselves take; they count all Men, be they never so honest and vertuous, who are not of their Opinions, the Enemies of God, and persecute them as such; but call those who are of their Mind, God's Elect, be they never so very Knaves; which is the most pernicious wicked humour can possibly be in a Common-wealth. To make it clear then, how far in point of Faith, every Man may extend his liberty of thinking what he pleaseth, and upon whom we are to look as Believers, tho' they differ in Opinion; I re­solve to shew in this Chapter what Faith is, to declare what are the fundamentals of Faith, and to distinguish Faith from Reason or Philosophy, which is the chief design of the whole Treatise. To do these things in order, 'tis necessary to put you in mind a­gain, what is the Scriptures principal inten­tion, for that will shew us the right Rule of determining what is Faith. We have told you in the preceding Chapter, that the chief design of Scripture is to teach Men O­bedience, which no Man can deny; for who doth not plainly see the Discipline of Obedience to be the main scope of the Old and New Testament? The only End of both is to make Men obey God with all their [Page 304] Heart. I need not repeat what I have al­ready told you, that Moses did not endea­vour to convince the Israelites with Reason, but to bind and oblige them by a Covenant, by Oaths and Benefits; he threatned those that broke the Law with punishment, and encouraged the observers of it with Re­wards; which were means not to increase Knowledge, but only to procure Obedience: The Doctrine of the Gospel, contains no­thing but plain simple Faith, namely, to be­lieve God, and to reverence and worship him, or which is the same thing, to obey him. There is no need of demonstrating a thing so evident, or of heaping up Texts of Scripture that commend Obedience, where­of there are many in both Testaments; what a Man is to do to obey God, the Scripture in many places declares; namely, that the whole Law consists in loving our Neigh­bour; so that it must be granted, that he in the Judgment of the Law is obedient, who according to God's Command loveth his Neighbour as himself; and that he on the contrary, who hateth his Neighbour, or cares not for him, is rebellious and disobe­dient. Lastly, it must be confest, that the Scripture was written and published, not only for the Wise and Learned, but for all people in general of all times: Hence then must it follow, that we are not commanded [Page 305] by Scripture to believe any thing else, but what is absolutely necessary to enable us to perform and obey this Commandment, so that this Precept is the only Rule of Catho­lick Faith, and by it only, all those funda­mental Doctrines of Faith, which every one is oblig'd to believe, ought to be defined and determined; which being clear and mani­fest, and that, from this Foundation only, all things ought to be rationally deduced and derived: Let any Man judge, whether the many Disputes and Dissentions sprung up in the Church, could have any other cause than those I mentioned in the begin­ning of the seventh Chapter, which force me here to shew from this Foundation I have laid, the manner and reason of stating and determining, what are the true Doctrines and Principles of Faith; for unless I do this, and make it good by sure and certain Rules, I have indeed hitherto done very little, see­ing otherwise every Man may introduce what he pleases, under pretence that 'tis a necessary means to Obedience; especially, when any thing comes into question con­cerning the Divine Attributes: To proceed orderly in making the thing clear and plain, I will begin with the definition of Faith, which according to the Foundation I have laid, ought to be thus defined. Faith, is to have such Thoughts or Opinions of God, as [Page 306] make a Man obey him; where such thoughts are not, there is no Obedience, and where they are, Obedience necessarily follows such Opinions; which definition is so clear, and evidently follows from what we have alrea­dy demonstrated, that it needs no explicati­on: What follows from this definition I will briefly shew; first, that Faith of it self with­out Obedience, is not able to save a Man, as Iames saith, Chap. 2. 17. Faith without Works is dead; which is the Subject of that whole Chapter. Secondly, That he who is truly obedient, must necessarily have Saving Faith; for where ever there is Obedience, there, as I have said, must be Faith, which the same Apostle saith expresly in the 18 th verse of the said 2 d chap. Shew me thy Faith with­out thy Works, and I will shew thee my Faith by my Works; and Iohn in his 1 st Epist. chap. 4. v. 78. Every one that loveth his Neighbour is born of God, and knoweth God, he that lo­veth not, knoweth not God, for God is love; from whence it likewise follows, that we can judge no Man to be a Believer, or an Un­believer, but by his Works, (that is) if his Works be good, tho' in his Opinions he dis­sent from other Believers, yet he is a Belie­ver; and if his Works be evil, tho' in words he agree with others that believe, he is an In­fidel; for where there is Obedience, there must necessarily be Faith, and Faith with­out [Page 307] Works is dead, which Iohn in chap. 4. 13. expresly declares, Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath gi­ven us of his Spirit, which Spirit is Love, for he said just before, God is Love; and con­cludes from his own Principles, that he cer­tainly hath the Spirit of God, who hath Love; and because no Man ever saw God, he con­cludes, that no Man can have any sense or knowledge of God, but only by Love; and that no Man can know any other Attribute of God but Love, by partaking of it; which Reasons, if they do not absolutely convince, yet they sufficiently explain St. Iohn's mean­ing. What he saith in the 3 d and 4 th verses of his 2 d chap. in express words fully proves what we maintain; And hereby, saith he, do we know that we know him, if we keep his Com­mandments; he that saith I know him, and keepeth not his Commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; hence it again fol­lows, that they are Antichrists, who perse­cute honest and just Men, that differ from them in Opinion, and do not maintain their Doctrines; they that love Justice and Cha­rity, are thereby only known to be Belie­vers, and whoever persecutes such Believers is Antichrist. Lastly, it follows, that Faith doth not require Opinions that are in themselves true, but such only as are pious, and incline a Man's Heart to Obedience: There are ma­ny things that have not the least shadow of [Page 308] [...]ruth in them, which a Man may believe, and yet be ignorant that they are false, o­therwise he would necessarily be disobedient. How cometh it to pass, that he who is a lo­ver of Justice, and studies to obey God, re­verenceth that as Divine, which he knows is no way agreeable to the Divine Nature? Men may err in the simplicity of their Hearts, and the Scripture, as I have already said, condemns stubbornness not ignorance, which follows from the very definition I have given of Faith; every part thereof be­ing derived from the general Foundation be­fore mentioned, and from the main end and design of Scripture; so that Faith doth not require from Men, Opinions absolutely true in themselves, but such only as are necessary to Obedience, and to confirm a Man in love towards his Neighbour; by which Love, to use St. Iohn's expression, every Man is in God, and God in him. Seeing then every Man's Faith in respect of Obedience or Dis­obedience, and not in respect of truth or falshood, is to be esteemed good or evil; and seeing Mens dispositions are so various, that none agree in all things, but are so di­versly sway'd by Opinion, that what moves this Man to Devotion, begets in another Laughter and Contempt; it f [...]llows, that to Universal Faith, only those Doctrines are necessary, concerning which, amongst honest Men there can be no dispute; those [Page 309] things that are of such a nature, that one Man may account them Religious, and ano­ther Irreligious, are to be judged only by Works; to Catholick Faith then those Do­ctrines only belong, which beget in a Man Obedience toward God, and of which, if a Man be ignorant, 'tis impossible he should obey him; in other things, every Man ac­cording to the knowledge he that of himself, may, to establish himself in the love of Ju­stice, think what to him seemeth best, which will take away all occasions of Dispute and Controversie in the Church. Now I will not fear to name those Doctrines of Universal Faith, or those Fundamentals of Scripture that (by what I have proved in these two last Chapters) tend all to this; that there is a Supreme Being that loveth Justice and Cha­rity, to whom all that will be saved, must be obedient, and worship him, in the exercise of Justice and love towards their Neighbour, and from hence these several Positions clear­ly and easily follow. First, That there is a God, or Supreme Being, who is most just and merciful, by whose Example every Man ought to regulate his life; he that knoweth not, or doth not believe that God is, cannot obey him, or acknowledge him to be his Judge. Secondly, That this God is one, which Opinion is absolutely necessary to make a Man adore, admire, and love God, [Page 310] for Devotion, Admiration, and Love, are caused by that excellency which is in one a­bove all others. Thirdly, That he is every where present, or that all things are known to him, for if any thing were hidden from him, or if Man did not think that he seeth all things, we might doubt of his Equity and Justice, whereby he governeth all things. Fourthly, That he hath Supreme Power and Dominion over all things, that he doth no­thing by compulsion, but of his own good Will and Pleasure; all are bound to obey him, and he no body. Fifthly, That the worship of God, and obedience to him, con­sists only in Justice and Charity towards our Neighbours. Sixthly, that only they who obey God by such a course of life will be saved, and others who live Slaves to their Lusts and Pleasures will be condemned. If Men did not firmly believe this, there would be no reason why a Man should rather obey God than his own desires and pleasures. Seventhly and lastly, God pardoneth the sins of those that repent; there is no Man li­ving without sin, and therefore if this were not an Article of Faith, all would despair of Salvation, and there would be no reason to believe God merciful; but he who stedfast­ly believes, that God, through Grace and Mercy, whereby he ordereth all things, par­doneth Men's offences, and is thereby more [Page 311] flamed with love towards God, he knoweth Christ according to the Spirit, and Christ is in him. Every one of these things is neces­sary to be known, that all Men without exception may obey God, according to the prescript of the Law which we have already explained. If you take away any of the a­foresaid Positions or Doctrines, there can be no Obedience; but what God, or what this exemplar of living well is? Whether he be Fire, a Spirit, Light, Cogitation, &c. it con­cerns not our Faith, neither in what notion or respect he is an example for us to live by. Whether it be because he hath a just and merciful Mind, or because all things subsist and act by him, and consequently, we by and through him understand what is just and good; it matters not what every Man thinks or concludes of these things, neither is Faith concerned, whether a Man believe that God is, in respect of his Power, Omnipre­sent; or whether he govern all things by the freedom or necessity of his nature; whether he prescribe Laws as a Prince, or teach E­ternal Verities; whether Men obey God as free agents, because they have freedom of Will, or because they are necessitated by God's Decrees? Whether the reward of good Men, and the punishment of evil, be natu­ral or supernatural? Faith is not concerned how a Man understands these things, so long [Page 312] as he makes no conclusions whereby he may take a liberty of sinning, or lessen his Obe­dience to God: Of these Doctrines of Faith a Man may make such an interpretation, as is most likely to make him believe, and o­bey God chearfully without any reluctancy; for as we have already shewn, Faith was heretofore revealed and written, according to the Capacity and Opinions of the Prophets and People of that time, so that now also, every Man is bound to apply his Faith to his own Reason, in such a manner as may make him without the least doubting or re­luctancy believe; for as we have proved, Faith rather requires Piety than Verity, and as Faith cannot be pious and saving, without Obedience, so nothing but Obedience makes a Man a faithful Believer; his Faith is not best, who can give the best reasons for it, but he that hath done the most and greatest works of Justice and Charity. A Doctrine which must in all Mens Judgments be very wholsome and necessary in all Common­wealths, for taking away the causes of much wickedness and many troubles. Before I go further, by what hath been said, the Obje­ctions may be easily answered, which were mentioned in the first Chapter, where I treated of God's speaking to the Israelites from Mount Sinai; for tho' that Voice which the Israelites heard, could not give that peo­ple [Page 313] any Philosophical or Mathematical cer­tainty of God's Existence, yet it was suffici­ent to make them admire God, under that knowledge they before had of him, and in­cite them to Obedience towards him, which was all that God purposed and designed in that spectacle; it was not God's intention at that time to teach them the true and real Attributes of his Essence, (because he then revealed none to them) but to break and sub­due their rebellious and stubborn humor, and draw them to Obedience; and therefore he did not set upon them with Arguments and Reason, but with Tempest, Noise, Thunder and Lightning, as is recorded, Exod. 20. 20.

I am now to prove, that between Faith or Theology, and Philosophy, there is no commerce or affinity; which no Man can deny, who knows how much the Foundation and End of these two faculties differ; for the end and design of Philosophy, is Verity; and the intention and end of Faith, is no­thing but Obedience and Piety. The funda­damentals of Philosophy, are common noti­ons which are to be drawn only from Na­ture it self, but the principles and fundamen­tals of Faith, are to be derived from Scrip­ture-History, Scripture-Language, from the Scripture it self, and from Revelation; as we have shewn in the 7 th Chapter: Faith therefore allows every Man such a freedom [Page 314] and liberty of Reasoning or Philosophizing, that he may think what he will of any thing, provided he do nothing that is wicked, and condemns only those for Hereticks and Schis­maticks, who broach Doctrines that are the causes of disobedience, hatred, contention, and wrath; esteeming only such to be Be­lievers, who use their utmost endeavours to perswade and practise Justice and Charity. Lastly, Because what I have said in this and the former Chapter, was what I chiefly in­tended in the whole Treatise; I earnestly re­quest the Reader, before I proceed further, that he will again and again carefully read, and seriously consider, the Contents of these two Chapters, and that he will have Cha­rity enough to believe, that I have written nothing with design to introduce new Do­ctrines; but only to rectify what is amiss, which I hope e're long to see done.

AMongst those that know not how to di­stinguish and divide Philosophy from Theology, there is very great dispute, whe­ther [Page 315] the Scripture ought to be subservient to Reason, or Reason to Scripture, (that is) whether we are to judge of the Sense of Scripture by Reason; or whether Reason ought to submit to Scripture? The Scepticks, who deny the certainty of Reason, maintain one of these Opinions, and the Dogmatists, who judge all things by Reason, the other; but both, as appears by what I have said, are ex­tremely mistaken; for whoever follows ei­ther of the two Opinions, must necessarily deprave either Reason or Scripture. We have shewn that the Scripture doth teach us no Philosophy, but only Piety, and all things contained in it, are fitted to the Capacity and Opinions of vulgar people: Whoever then goes about to apply it to Philosophy, must father upon the Prophets, many things whereof they did never so much as dream, and interpret that to be their meaning which never was. He, on the other side, who makes Reason or Philosophy a Handmaid to Divinity, will be necessitated to let the mi­staken Opinions of old times pass for Divine Truths; possessing and blinding his Under­standing with Error and Prejudice, and both run mad together without Reason. The first among the Pharisees, who openly declared, that Scripture was to be accommodated to Reasons, was Maimonides, (whose Opinion we have hinted and refuted in the 7 th Chapter) but tho' this Author were of great Authority [Page 316] among the Pharisees, yet the greatest part of that Sect did not agree with him in this point, but generally maintained the Opini­on of Rabbi Iehuda Alpakhar, who endea­vouring to avoid the Error of Maimonides, fell into the clean contrary Opinion, hold­ing that Reason ought to be a Handmaid to Scripture, and wholly subjected to it; and would have nothing in Scripture metaphori­cally interpreted, because the literal sense was contrary and repugnant to Reason, but because it was so to the Scripture it self, (that is) to the positive Doctrines of Scripture, and laid it down for a general rule, that whatever the Scripture did in plain and express words affirm and teach, that upon the account of its Authority was to be admitted for Truth, if no other Position were found in the Bible, which did only consequenti­ally, but not directly contradict it; for there are some Scripture expressions, which seem to imply contradiction to what hath been positively and expresly declared, and therefore those places only are to be meta­phorically taken: (For example) Deut. 6.4. it is plainly and positively declared, That there is but one God, or that God is but one; but there are many places where God speaking of himself, and the Prophets of God speak in the plural number, which manner of speak­ing supposeth and implies more God's than one, tho' that doth not clearly and directly [Page 317] appear to be the intention of the words: All those places therefore are to be metaphori­cally interpreted, not because it is repug­nant to Reason, that there should be more Gods than one, but because the Scripture it self directly declares that there is but only one. So likewise, because the Scripture, Deut. 4. 15. doth in the Rabbi's Opinion di­rectly declare, that God is Incorporeal, therefore upon the Authority only of this Text, and not upon any account of Reason, we are bound to believe God hath no Body, and consequently, all places of Scripture are to be metaphorically taken, which ascribe to God Hands, Feet, or which seem to sup­pose God Corporeal: This was the Opinion of this Author, whom I commend for ex­plaining Scripture by Scripture, but I won­der that a rational Man should endeavour to destroy Reason: It is very true, that Scrip­ture ought to be expounded by Scripture, so long as there is doubt of the sense of the words, or of the meaning of the Prophets; but when we have found out the true sense, 'tis absolutely necessary to make use of our Reason and Judgment, to gain our assent and consent to it; for if we must submit to Scripture, tho' our Reason be not at all con­vinced by it, must we submit with Reason, or like blind Men without any Reason at all? if we submit without Reason, we do it foo­lishly [Page 318] without Judgment; if we submit with Reason, then 'tis by the command and di­ctates of Reason, that we believe and em­brace the Scripture, which we would not do, were it contrary to Reason. Who can in his Mind believe, or consent to any thing which his Reason flatly opposeth? Denying a thing with a Man's Heart, is nothing else but the gainsaying and dissent of a Man's Reason. I extreamly wonder some Men should subject that excellent gift and Divine Light, Reason, to Dead Letters, which hu­mane Malice may corrupt and mis-interpret, and yet account it no offence to speak un­worthily against Reason and the Mind of Man, whereon God hath engraven his Word, saying, Our Reason is blinded and lost, but in the mean time declare, 'tis abominable wickedness to think any such thing of the Letter, which they Idolize for the Word of God; they account it great Piety in a Man, not to trust to his own Judgment and Rea­son, but great wickedness to doubt their fide­lity, who communicated to us the Sacred Volumes. Certainly such Men's Folly ex­ceeds their Piety: What troubles them? What is it they fear? Cannot Religion and Faith be defended unless Men be professedly ignorant, and bid Reason farewell? they that think so, do rather fear than believe Scrip­ture. God forbid that Religion should be a [Page 319] Servant to Reason, or Reason to Religion, both may with great Peace and Concord pre­serve their own proper Dominion, which I will presently prove, after I have a little exa­mined the Tenet and Opinion of our Rabbin Alpakhar; he, as I have said, would have us receive every thing for truth which the Scripture affirms, and reject every thing as false which the Scripture denies; and main­tains, that the Scripture doth no where in express words affirm or deny, any thing contrary to what in another place it hath positively affirmed or denied; both which are very bold and rash Positions. I will not press him with what perhaps he never took notice of, that the Scripture contains seve­ral Books, that it was written by several Authors, in several Ages, for the use of di­vers people; and seeing upon his own Au­thority only, he maintains, what neither Reason or Scripture ever said, he ought to shew, that all those places of Scripture, which do but by consequence contradict o­thers, may from the nature of the Language, and in respect of the place, conveniently bear a metaphorical interpretation; and he ought likewise to prove, That the Scripture is derived down to us, without any corrup­tion or adulteration. To come close to the business, I ask him concerning his first Posi­tion, Whether we are bound to believe eve­ry [Page 320] thing to be true which the Scripture af­firms; and reject every thing as false which it denies, tho' both be contrary to our Rea­son? If he answer that nothing can be found in Scripture contrary to Reason, I press him with this instance. In the Decalogue, Exod. 34. 14. Deut. 4. 24. and in other places, it is said, That G [...]d is Iealous; but that such a passion as Jealousie should be in God is con­trary to Reason: Now if there be other pla­ces in Scripture which suppose God not to be Jealous, they must be metaphorically in­terpreted, that they may not seem to sup­pose any such thing. The Scripture expresly saith, That God came down upon Mount Si­nai, Exod. 19.20. and ascribes to him other local motions, no where expresly declaring, that God is not moved; so that all Men ought to believe it to be truth, and there­fore that which Solomon saith of God in 1 Kings 8. 27. That he cannot be comprehended, or contained in any place, tho' it do not ex­presly but only consequentially declare, that God is not moved, ought to be in like man­ner metaphorically understood: The Hea­vens also must be taken for God's Throne and Habitation, because the Scripture de­clares positively they are. Many things of this kind, are said in Scripture, consonant to the Opinions of the Prophets and People, which Reason and Philosophy, but not [Page 321] Scripture say are false, all which accord­ing to the Rabbi's Opinion, who in such cases will allow no consulting with Rea­son, must pass for Truths. He affirms that which is not true, in saying that no one place of Scripture expresly and directly con­tradicts another, but only by consequence; for Moses, Deut. 4. 24. expresly declares, That God is a consuming fire, and directly de­nies that God is like any visible thing, Deut. 4. 12. Now if the Rabbi will have this lat­ter Text, not directly, but only by conse­quence to deny that God is Fire, and there­fore must be so interpreted that it may not seem to deny it; let him have his Will, and let us grant, that God is Fire; or rather, not to be as mad as he, we will let this pass, and make use of another example: Samuel di­rectly denies, that God ever repents of his Decrees, (1 Sam. 15. 29.) but Ieremy on the contrary affirms, ( Chap. 18. v. 8, 10.) That God doth sometimes repent, both of the good and of the evil that he purposed and decreed. Do not these two Texts di­rectly oppose one another? Which of these two must be metaphorically interpreted? both the Opinions are general, and contra­ry to each other; what one directly affirms, the other positively denies, so that the Rab­bi, by his own Rule, is bound to believe one and the same thing to be true and false: but [Page 322] what matter is it, tho' one place do not di­rectly, but only by consequence contradict another? If the consequence be clear, and the nature and circumstance of the place will admit of no Metaphorical Explication; of which many are to be found in the Bible, we have spoke to them in the second Chap­ter, where we have shewn, that several Pro­phets had different Opinions, and particular­ly of those contradictions which I in the 9 th and 10 th Chapter have made appear to be in several of the Scripture Histories; they need not be repeated, what I have said be­ing sufficient to confute the Absurdities and Falsities which must necessarily follow from the Rabbi's Rule, and to shew how unadvi­sedly and grosly the Author is mistaken. The different Opinions of both Rabbies be­ing confuted, I do again positively declare, That Divinity or Theology ought not to be a Servant to Reason, nor Reason to Theolo­gy, but both ought to maintain their own Dominion; Reason ought to rule in things which relate to Wisdom and Truth, and The­ology in matters which concern our Piety and Obedience: The power of Reason doth not so far extend it self, as to determin, that Men only by Obedience, without the true knowledge of things may be blessed and happy, but Theology dictates nothing else, and commands nothing but Obedience, not [Page 323] intending or being able to do any thing a­gainst Reason, as we have shewed in the pre­ceding Chapter: Theology determins Do­ctrines of Faith, no further than is necessary to Obedience, but how those Doctrines are precisely in respect of Verity to be under­stood, it leaves Reason to resolve, which is the light of our Mind, and without which we see nothing but Dreams and Fancies. But here by Theology, I mean only Revelation, so far as it declares the scope and end to which the Scripture aims, (namely, the rea­son and manner of living obediently, or the Doctrines of Faith and Piety.) This is that which is properly the word of God, and doth not consist in a certain number of Books, as we have shewed in the 12 th Chapter: Theo­logy taken in this sense, if we consider its Precepts and Instructions, perfectly agrees with Reason; and if we consider its End and Design, in nothing contradicts it; and there­fore universally concerns all mankind. As for the whole Scripture in general, the sense thereof, as we have shewed in the 7 th. Chap­ter, is to be determined by Scripture Histo­ry, and not by the History of Nature, which is the Foundation and proper Subject of Phi­losophy: Nor ought we to be troubled or concerned, if after we have found out the true sense of the Scripture, the Scripture in some places seem repugnant to Reason; for [Page 324] whatever of that kind we meet with in the Bible, and of which Men may without any breach of Charity be ignorant, doth not at all concern Theology, or the Word of God; and consequently, of such things, a Man may without sin think what he pleaseth, and therefore we positively conclude, that Rea­son is not to be accommodated to Scripture, nor Scripture to Reason. But seeing the fun­damental point in Divinity, of Mens being saved only by Obedience, cannot be de­monstrated by Reason to be true or false; it may by way of Objection be then asked, Why then do we believe it? If we do it blind­ly without Reason, we act like Fools with­out Judgment; if on the other side, we say this Fundamental Tenet may be proved by Reason, then Divinity is a part of Philoso­phy, and cannot be sever'd from it. To this I answer, That I do clearly confess, this Fun­damental Doctrine of Theology cannot be made out by Natural Reason, at least, no Man that I know hath ever done it; there­fore Revelation was absolutely necessary in the case, but yet we may make use of our Judgment and Reason, that what hath been revealed may with a moral certainty be be­lieved by us; I say with moral certainty, for it is not to be expected, that we can have any greater assurance than the Prophets them­selves had, to whom the Revelation was first [Page 325] made, and who had no more than a moral certainty, as we have shewed in the second Chapter of this Treatise. They therefore are in a very great error, who endeavour to prove the Authority of Scripture by Mathe­matical Demonstration, for the Authority of the Bible depends upon the Authority of the Prophets, and consequently, can be proved by no stronger argument, than the Prophets made use of to perswade the people of theirs: Our certainty of the Scriptures Authority, can be grounded upon no other Foundation, than that whereon the Prophets founded their Certainty and Authority; and we have already shewn the certainty of the Pro­phets, consisted in three particulars. First, In a clear and lively imagination. Secondly, In a Sign. Thirdly and principally, in a Mind inclined and devoted to Justice and Vertue: nor could they give any other evidences of their Authority, either to the people to whom they spake in their own persons by word of mouth; nor can any other be given to us, to whom they speak by their Wri­tings; the lively imagination of the Pro­phets, was an Argument only to themselves, and therefore all our assurance concerning Revelation, doth and must consist only in the other two particulars, namely, in a Sign, and in the Doctrine. The eighteenth Chap­ter of Deuteronomy commands the people to [Page 326] obey that Prophet, who in the name of the Lord gave them a true Sign, but if he pro­phesied any thing that was false, tho' it were in the Name of the Lord, he was to be put to death; as he was who endeavoured to se­duce them from the true Religion, tho' he confirm'd his Prophesie with Signs and Mi­racles; as appears in the 13 th Chapter of Deuteronomy; whence it follows, that a true Prophet was to be known from a false, by his Doctrine and by a Miracle both toge­ther, for such a one only Moses declareth to be a true Prophet, and commanded the peo­ple to believe him, without any fear of be­ing deceived: But he declared those to be false Prophets, and guilty of Death, who foretold any thing that was false; tho' it were in the Name of God; or he that preach­ed false Gods, tho' he wrought true Mira­cles: We then are oblig'd to believe the Scripture, (that is) the Prophets, upon ac­count only of their Doctrine confirm'd by Signs; because we see the Prophets above all things commend Justice and Charity, and intended nothing else; because with a sin­cere Mind without any guile or deceit, they declared that Men by Faith and Obedience should be made happy, and confirm'd this their Doctrines with Signs. We therefore conclude and perswade our selves, that when they prophesied, they did neither dote or [Page 327] speak unadvisedly; in which Opinion we are the more confirm'd, when we consider, that all their Moral Doctrines, did perfectly agree with Reason; for it is very observable, that the Word of God in the Prophets, is exactly consonant to the Word of God with­in us; so that I say again, we are as much assured of these things by the Scripture, as the Iews were by the Prophets preaching to them viva voce; for we have proved in the end of the second Chapter, that the Scrip­ture as to its Doctrine and the principal Hi­stories thereof, is derived down to us uncor­rupted, and therefore this Fundamental Do­ctrine of Scripture and Theology, ought with good reason to be embraced by us, tho' it cannot be proved by Mathematical De­monstration. It is very great folly not to believe a thing which hath been confirmed by so many Testimonies of the Prophets, and which is so great a comfort to those who have but ordinary portions of Reason, which is so beneficial to the publick, and which may without any danger or loss be believed: We can give no reason for our doubting or unbelief, but our not having Mathematical Demonstration to prove it; as if nothing could contribute to living vertu­ously and prudently, but that which is ab­solutely and apparently true, in which there is not the least shadow or doubt, and as if [Page 328] there were nothing of chance and uncertain­ty in our Actions: I confess, they who think Philosophy and Divinity contradictory one to another, and therefore conclude one of them ought to be dethroned and subjected to the other, do very well to build Divinity upon a sure Foundation, and endeavour by Infallible Demonstration to support it; yet I cannot but condemn those that make use of Reason to destroy Reason, and by Certain Rea­son endeavour to prove there is no certainty in Reason; while they are demonstrating the Verity and Authority of Theology, and strive to deprive Reason of its power; they sub­ject Theology to the Empire of Reason, and allow it no other splendor, than what it borrows from Natural Light: If they boast of relying upon the Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit, and say they make use of Reason only to convert Infidels, we ought not to believe them, because 'tis evident, that the Holy Spirit beareth witness to no­thing but good Works, which Paul, Galath. 5. 22. therefore calls the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is nothing else, but that Tranquility of Mind, and Peace of Conscience, which ariseth in us from do­ing good. But of the truth and certainty of things meerly speculative, no other Spirit but Reason beareth witness, Reason only can challenge the power of judging what is true, [Page 329] they that pretend to any other Spirit, whereby to make themselves certain what is true; maintain that which is false, and are either prejudiced with their own Passions and Affections, or else fearing to be baffled and made ridiculous by Philosophers and Men of Reason, fly for Shelter and San­ctuary to that which is Sacred; but what Altar can protect him, who offends the Sa­cred Majesty of Reason? I need say no more to such Men, having I hope sufficiently proved, why Theology ought to be distin­guish'd from Philosophy, and in what each of them chiefly consists; that neither of them ought to be a Servant to the other, and that both of them may exercise their own peculiar power, without offending one another: Lastly, I have shew'd where there was occasion, what Absurdities, Mischiefs and Inconveniencies follow from Men's con­founding these two faculties, not knowing how exactly to distinguish and divide one from the other. Before I proceed, I desire notice may be taken, that I declare the be­nefit and necessity of Sacred Scripture; (that is) Revelation, to be exceeding great, for seeing we cannot by Natural Light, perceive that Simple Obedience is the way to Salvation, and that God's special Grace and Favour hath by Revelation only, and not by Reason, made it known unto us; [Page 330] the Scripture must certainly be a great help and consolation to all mankind; because tho' every Man may obey, yet in respect of the whole, there are very few, who by the dictates and conduct of Reason live vertu­ously, so that were it not for the Testimony of Scripture, we might doubt of most Men's Salvation.

HItherto I have carefully endeavoured, to distinguish and divide Philosophy from Theology, and have shewed the liber­ty of reasoning which Theology allows eve­ry Man; it is now time to enquire, how far this liberty of thinking and speaking a Man's Thoughts, may in the best governed Com­monwealths extend it self. And that we may orderly examin the matter, we will discourse of the Foundations of Commonwealths, and in the first place, of every Man's Natural Right, without any relation either to Go­vernment or Religion.

By the Law and Institution of Nature, I mean nothing else, but those Rules of Na­ture, [Page 331] according to which every individual Being, is naturally appointed and ordained, in such a certain manner to be, and to act; (for Example) Fishes are by Nature ordain­ed to swim, and the greater to eat the less; therefore by the Sovereign Right or Law of Nature, they possess and enjoy the Water, and the greater eat the less: For it is cer­tain, that Nature considered absolutely hath Sovereign Right to all things within its own power; (that is) the Right of Nature may extend it self, so far as its Power can ex­tend; for the Power of Nature, is the Pow­er of God, who hath Sovereign Right to all things. But because the universal Power of the whole frame of Nature, is nothing else but the Power of every individual Being joyned together; it follows, that every in­dividual Being hath Sovereign Right to all things within the compass of its Power; or the Right of every Individual may extend it self, so far as its determinate Power will reach: And because the supremest Law of Nature is, that every thing should endea­vour as far as it is able, to preserve it self in that state wherein it is, without having re­gard to any thing else but it self; it follows, that every individual Being, hath Sovereign Right to this self-preservation; (that is) to continue its existence, and to operate as it was naturally ordained: And in this respect [Page 332] there is no difference between Men and o­ther Individual Beings in Nature, nor be­tween Men endued with Reason, and others who know not the use of it, nor between Fools and Men in their right Senses; for what every thing doth by, and according to the Laws of its own Nature, that it hath in the highest degree right to do; because it acteth as it was by Nature appointed, and can do nothing otherwise; amongst Men therefore considered living only under the Power of Nature, he that knows not what Reason is, as well as he who knows not what Vertue is, hath as much right to live according to the Laws of his Appetite, as he who direct­eth his life by the Rules of Reason: My meaning is, That as a wise Man hath right to all things which Reason dictates, or that lives according to the Laws and Rules of Reason; so likewise an ignorant or meer sen­sual Man, hath right to all things, whereto his Appetite leads him, or that liveth accor­ding to the Law of his Appetite, which is the same thing that Paul declares, who ac­knowledgeth that before the Law (that is) so long as Men were considered living in the State and under the Power of Nature, there was no sin.

The Natural Right therefore of every Man, is determin'd not by Reason, but by Appetite and Power, for all Men are not [Page 333] naturally ordain'd, to act and operate ac­cording to the Rules and Laws of Reason; but on the contrary, all Men are born actu­ally ignorant of all things, and before they can know the right of living, and acquire the habit of Vertue, a great part of their Age, tho' they be well educated, is spent and pas­seth away; yet in the mean time they are bound to live, and as much as in themselves lies, to preserve themselves by the impulse of their Appetite, seeing Nature hath given them nothing else wherewith to do it, and hath denied the actual use of right Reason; so that they are no more obliged to live by the Rules of it, than a Cat is bound to live like a Lion; whatsoever then every Man, as he is considered under the Power and Laws of Nature, shall either by the dictates of Right Reason, or by the impulse of his Appe­tite, think convenient and profitable for him; that by the Law of Nature is lawful for him to desire, and either by force, deceit, intreaties, or any other way he thinks most easie to get it, and may consequently take a­ny one for an Enemy, that endeavours to hinder him from having his desires.

From whence it follows, that the Law and Institution os Nature, under which all Men are born, and for the most part live; prohi­bits nothing but what no body desires, or is in no bodies power, nor doth it forbid, Con­tention, [Page 334] Hatred, Wrath, Deceit, or any thing absolutely to which a Man's Appetite inclines him: Nor is this any wonder, for Na­ture is not bounded and shut up within the Laws only of Human Reason, which designs and intends nothing but the real good and preservation of mankind, but acts according to an infinite number of other Laws and Rules, which regard the whole frame and eternal course of Nature, whereof Man is but a small Particle, and all Individual Be­ings are by the necessity and Laws of Nature only, ordained in such a certain manner to exist and operate; so that if there be any thing in Nature, which seemeth to us ab­sur'd, and rediculous, or evil, 'tis because we know things only in part, and because we are for the most part ignorant of the Order, Course, and Coherence of Universal Nature, and would have all things directed and go­verned by our Reason; when in the mean time, that which our Reason thinks evil, is not so in respect of the course and Laws of Universal Nature, but only in respect of the Laws of our particular Nature.

But without doubt or dispute, 'tis very much for Mens advantage, to live according to the Laws and Dictates of Reason, which, as I have said, intends nothing else but the real good of mankind; and there is no body who doth not desire to live in safety and out of fear, which is impossible, so long as it is [Page 335] lawful for every Man to do what he lists; and Reason hath no greater priviledge than Ha­tred or Anger. He that lives where there is continual Enmity, Hatred, Wrath, and De­ceit, must live always in danger and fear, and therefore Men avoid them as much as they can: When we likewise consider, that Men live wretchedly and miserably without mutual Assistance and the conduct of Rea­son, as we have shewed in the fourth Chap­ter, it must clearly appear, that if Men will live securely without fear, there is an abso­lute necessity of uniting themselves and a­greeing together, to transfer the Right which every particular Man hath by Nature to all things, upon the whole collective Bo­dy assembled and living together in Society, which Right is to be determined and direct­ed, not by the strength and Appetite of e­very single person, but by the Power and Will of the whole assembled together, which would however be a vain attempt, if that Society would still follow the Dictates of sensual Appetite. By the impulse of sen­sual desire, every Man is carried a several way, and therefore they must stedfastly re­solve, and firmly covenant to govern and di­rect all things, according to the dictates of Reason, (which no Man will oppose that is not out of his Wits) and must bridle all de­sires that are injurious to one another: They [Page 336] must do nothing to others, which they would not have done to themselves. And lastly, must defend one anothers Right, as they would their own: Why such an agree­ment ought to be entred into, and ought to stand firm and inviolable, is our next enquiry. It is the Universal Law of Human Nature, that no Man should quit or neglect any thing, which he thinks to be for his good, unless it be for the hope of a greater good; (that is) every Man of two goods ought to chuse the greatest, and of two evils the least; I mean, that which seemeth to the Chuser the great­est, or the least; because things are not sometimes in themselves what we judge them to be: And this Law is so deeply en­graven upon Human Nature, that it is to be reckoned amongst the Eternal Verities of which no Man can be ignorant. From this Law it necessarily follows, that no Man doth ever sincerely promise, to depart from that Right which he hath to all things, and faith­fully keep his Promise, unless it be for fear of a greater evil, or for the hope of a greater good. Suppose a Thief force me to promise, that I will give him all my Goods when he pleaseth to have them; now seeing, as I have already said, that my Natural Right is only limited and determined by my own Power, it is certain, that I may by falshood and deceit, free my self from this Thief, in [Page 337] promising what he demands, and by the law of Nature I may deceitfully make him such a Promise. Suppose likewise, that I have, without any fraudulent intention, pro­mis'd a man not to taste Meat, Drink, or any other kind of Nourishment, for the space of twenty days; afterwards I perceive what a foolish promise I have made, and that I can­not without the hazard of my life keep it; in this Case, seeing I am by the Law of Na­ture obliged, of two evils to chuse the least, I may very lawfully break this promise, and do as if I had never made any; and it is my natural right so to do: for whether I have in truth, or but in mine own Opinion made an ill promise; yet since the evil is so great which I fear, I am authorised by the Law of Na­ture, to take any Course to avoid it: from whence we conclude, that no Promise or Co­venant can have any obligatory Power, un­less it be upon a consideration, that some ad­vantage or benefit is to accrue by it; take a­way the Consideration, and the Covenant becomes null and void. It is therefore perfect folly, to expect from any Person, the con­stant keeping and faithful performance of his Promise or Contract, unless at the same time things be so order'd, that he who keeps not his Covenant, shall lose much more than he can gain by the breach thereof; which is a Consideration that ought first to take place [Page 338] in the founding of any Commonwealth: if all men would willingly submit to the con­duct of Reason, and knew what was necessa­ry and profitable for the Publick, every man would detest fraud and deceit; and for the good and preservation of the Common­wealth, would above all things faithfully per­form his Promises, which is the Common­wealth's only defence and security: but men are far from being guided by reason, every man is led away by his Pleasure and Lusts, and mens minds are often so possest with Co­vetousness, Glory, Envy, Anger, and other Passions, that they have no room left for Rea­son; and therefore tho' men may promise, with external Signs of Faithfulness and Sin­cerity, and enter into Covenants to make good their Promises; yet no man can be sure they will be made good, unless some benefit and advantage attend their performance; seeing every man by the Law of Nature may deal deceitfully, and break his promise, in hopes of greater good, or for fear of greater evil: but because (as we have already shewn) natural right is determin'd by every man's particular power, it follows, that as much as every man either voluntarily, or by force transsers of his own Power upon another, from so much of his own right he parts with to another, and he hath Soveraign right over all, who hath the Supream Power, where­with [Page 339] he may by Force and severe Punish­ment which is Universally feared, keep all in subjection; which right he shall no longer retain, than he can preserve the power of doing what he will, otherwise he must reign precariously, and no man that is stronger than he, is bound to obey him.

For this reason, without any repugnancy or resistance made by natural right, may a Society be formed, and Covenants faithfully kept, if every particular person do transfer all the Power which he hath, upon the So­ciety; which Society by that means will have the Soveraign right of nature to all things, (that is) will be possest with the Supream Power of Governing, which every one willingly or for fear of Punishment will be bound to obey. The Right or Power of such a Society, is called Democracy, which is a general Assembly of men, who in fellow­ship have Soveraign right to all things with­in their Power; from whence it follows, that Supream Power is bound by no Law, but all ought to obey it in all things; which obe­dience every one did in express words, or ta­citly, and by implication promise, when he transfer'd all his own Power of defending himself, (that is) all his own natural right upon the Society: So that if any men in­tended to keep any thing to themselves, at the same time they ought to have provided, [...] [Page 338] [...] [Page 339] [Page 340] and taken care for the defence and safe keeping thereof; but if they did not, nor could do it, without dividing, and conse­quently destroying the Government and Commonwealth, that ought to be accounted an absolute submission of themselves to the will of the Supream Power; which being done absolutely, and not only upon necessi­ty, but likewise for very good reasons, un­less we will declare our selves Enemies to the Commonwealth, and act contrary to Reason, which perswades us to defend the Commonwealth with our utmost power; we are bound to obey all the Commands of the Supream Power, be they never so absurd; for even those, Reason commands us to obey, that of two evils we may chuse the least: Consider likewise, how easily every one may run into the danger, of submitting himself absolutely to the Will and Arbitrary Power of another; for as we have shewn, Supream Powers have no longer right of commanding what they will, than they can keep that Power; for as soon as they lose it, they lose likewise the right of commanding all things, and that right falls to him or them that can get and keep it; therefore it very rarely happens, that Supream Powers com­mand harsh and unreasonable things, for it very much concerns them to look to them­selves, to keep their Power, to mind the pub­lick [Page 341] good, and order all things by the Rules of Reason. No violent Governments, saith Seneca, ever stood long: It is observable that in Demo­cratical Governments, severe and unreasona­ble Commands are never much to be feared; for 'tis almost impossible, that the major part of an Assembly, if it be great, should agree in that which is unreasonable and absurd; the Foundation and End likewise of that Go­vernment, being only to avoid the mischiefs of boundless Appetite, and to keep Men as much as may be within the compass of Rea­son, that they may live together in Peace and Amity; which Foundation once taken away, down falls the whole Fabrick, against which Ruin to provide, is the duty of the Su­pream Power: The Subjects part is to obey, and acknowledge nothing else to be right, but what is declared to be so by the Supream Power. But some may think, that by this Rule, I make Subjects Servants or Slaves, because they account him a Servant who acts by Command, and him free, who only obeys his own Will; which is not absolutely true, for he that gives himself up to his own pleasure and desires, and neither sees or does what is for his own good, is indeed the greatest of Slaves; and he only is free, who of his own accord lives according to the di­ctates of Reason. Acting by Command, which is Obedience, doth in some sort take [Page 342] away Liberty, but 'tis the account upon which a Man acts, that makes him a Ser­vant; for if the end of the action be wholly and solely for the benefit of him that com­mands, without any advantage to the Agent, then the Agent is a Servant, and unprofita­ble to himself; but in a Commonwealth or Government, where the welfare of all the People, and not of him that governs, is the principal and Supreme Law; he that in all things obeys the Supreme Power, is not an unprofitable Servant to himself, but is to be counted a Subject, and therefore that Com­monwealth is counted freest, where the Laws are sounded upon most Reason, for there e­very Man, when he will, may be free, in li­ving with his own intire consent, according to the Rules of Reason: Tho' Children are bound to obey all the Command of their Pa­rents, yet they are not Servants, for the Commands of Parents tend chiefly to the good of their Children, and therefore we ac­knowledge there is great difference between a Servant, a Son, and a Subject, who are thus defined. A Servant is he, who is bound to obey the Commands of his Master which respect only the Masters benefit. A Son is he, that by his Parents Command doth that which is for his own good: And a Subject is he, who by the Command of the Supreme Power, doth that which is for the good of [Page 343] the Publick, and consequently, as he is one of that Body, for his own benefit: By what I have said, I think I have clearly shewn, what is the Foundation of Democratical Go­vernment, of which, before all others, I chuse to treat, because it seems most natu­ral, and comes nearest to that freedom and liberty which Nature allows every Man; for in Democratical Government, no Man so transfers his own Natural Right to another, as for ever after to be excluded from consul­tation, but only transfers it upon the major part of the Society, of which he still makes one, and upon this all remain as they were before, in their natural estate, equal. More­over, I purposely treated of this Govern­ment, because it best suited with my Intenti­on, which was to speak of the benefit of Li­berty in a Commonwealth: I will therefore have nothing to do with the Foundations of other Powers; nor to know their Right, is it necessary to know whence they had, and of­ten have their Original; that is too manifest. From what I have declared, where ever the Supreme Power is, whether in one person, in few, or in all, 'tis certain, that they have the Soveraign right of commanding what they will, and whoever either willingly or by compulsion transfers to another the Power of defending himself, he hath clearly parted with his Natural Right, and conse­quently [Page 344] must resolve to obey him that hath it in all things, which he continues obliged to do, as long as the King, the Nobles, or the People can preserve the Supreme Power which they received, which was the first Foundation of transferring Natural Right, of which I need say no more.

The Foundations and Right of Govern­ment being laid open, it is easie to deter­mine, what is private civil Right, what is In­jury or Wrong; what is Justice, what Inju­stice in a Civil State. Lastly, Who is a Con­federate or Ally, who is an Enemy, and what is Treason. By private civil Right, no other thing can be understood, but every Man's keeping and preserving himself in the state wherein he is; which Liberty is limited and determined, by the Decrees and Dictates of the Supreme Power, and defended by the sole Authority thereof; for after every one hath transferr'd to another, his right of li­ving according to his own Will, which on­ly bounded his own power; I mean, his li­berty of defending himself; he is then obli­ged to live according to his Will, to whom he hath parted with that Liberty, and from him only must expect Protection. Injury or Wrong, is when a Citizen or Subject is compell'd to suffer loss or damage from ano­ther, contrary to Civil Right, and the De­crees of the Supreme Power; for there can [Page 345] be no such thing as Wrong or Injury, any where but in a Civil State, nor can any wrong be done to Subjects by the Supreme Power, which may lawfully do whatever it pleaseth, and therefore hath place only amongst private persons, who by Law are obliged not to offend one another. Justice is a constant resolution of giving to every one, that which by the Law rightly interpreted belongs to him: Ju­stice and Injustice, are sometimes called Equi­ty and Iniquity, because they that are appoin­ted to end Suits and Differences, are bound not to have any respect to persons, but to look upon all as equals, and equally to defend eve­ry Man's right; neither envying the rich nor despising the poor. Confederates are Men of two Cities or Societies, who to avoid the dan­ger and inconveniencies of War, or for any other advantage and benefit, mutually cove­nant not to offend or hurt one another; but in case of necessity to assist and help one ano­ther, both preserving their own Power and Dominion. This League or Contract, will so long continue firm and binding, as the consi­deration of danger or profit upon which it was founded continues; because no person cove­nants, or is oblig'd to perform his contracts, unless it be in hope of some good, or fear of some evil, which being the Foundation of all Contracts; take away that Basis, Experience tells us, they all fall to the ground: For tho' [Page 346] divers Empires and Governments, do mutual­ly covenant not to do any thing to the preju­dice or hurt of one another, yet 'tis always the endeavour of both, to hinder one another from growing too powerful; neither do they believe one anothers promises, unless they be fully satisfied, that the End of their agreement be for the benefit of both; nor is there any wrong in the case, for who but a Fool, igno­rant of the right of Supreme Power, will give credit to the words or promises of him who having Supreme Power, hath right to do what he will, and who is obliged by no other Law, but the publick safety and benefit of the peo­ple under his Government? we likewise ob­serve, that Religion and Piety signify very lit­tle; for who ever hath the Supreme Power, cannot without consequent mischief, keep his Promises which prove prejudicial and destru­ctive to his People and Government; or that he cannot perform them without breaking Faith with his Subjects; by which Faith he is principally obliged, and which usually with Oaths he solemnly and religiously promiseth to keep. An Enemy is one that liveth out of the Commonwealth, and neither as a Confe­derate or Subject, will own its Power or Go­vernment; for 'tis not the hatred of a Com­monwealth, but its Right and Power, which maketh a Man an Enemy; for the Power of a Commonwealth over him, who will by no [Page 347] kind of Contract own its Power, is the same that it hath over him who doth it harm, be­cause it hath right to compel him one way or other, to yield and submit to it, or confederate with it: Lastly, Treason in Subjects or Citi­zens, is only where they have by express or imply'd Contract, transferr'd all their right to the City or Commonwealth, and that Subject is counted guilty of Treason, who endeavours to usurp the right of the Supreme Power to himself, or transfer it upon another; I say, he that but endeavours it, for if none were to be condemned till after the commission of the fact, the punishment would many times come too late; therefore I say positively, he that by any means goes about to usurp, or take a­way the right of the Supreme Power, making no difference whether the Commonwealth shall be a gainer or loser by it, upon what ac­count soever he attempted or did it, yet he hath committed Treason, and is justly con­demned, which every one also acknowledgeth to be just in War; for if a Souldier keep not his station, but without his General's know­ledge or command, assaults the Enemy, tho' he beat him, and did it very advisedly, yet doing it of his own head, he deserves death, having violated his own Oath and his Gene­neral's Authority: Now tho' Subjects do not see that their case and a Souldiers is alike, yet in truth the reason is the same in both, sor see­ing [Page 348] the Commonwealth ought to be govern­ed, defended, and preserved, by the Counsel only of the Supreme Power, and all have ab­solutely covenanted that this right shall reside only in the Supreme Power; if any Man shall at his own Will and Pleasure, without the knowledge of the Supreme Council, make any publick attempt, which would certainly prove very advantageous to the Commonwealth, yet having violated the right of the Supreme Pow­er, he is lawfully and deservedly condemned.

Now to clear all scruples, if any Man ask, Whether maintaining that a Man in his Natu­tural State hath Natural Right to live ac­cording to the Laws and Dictates of his own Appetite, be not flatly contrary to the reveal­ed Law of God? Seeing every Man, whether he have or have not the use of Reason, is equal­ly obliged by God's Command to love his Neighbour as himself, and therefore we cannot, without being very injurious, do any harm to another and live according to our own Lusts. This Objection is easily answered; for if we consider only the state of Nature; that state, and Nature it self, were before there was any Religion; for by Nature no Man knows that there is any obligation upon him to obey God, nor can he come to the knowledge of it by Reason; but whoever knows it, must know it only by Revelation confirm'd with Signs; and therefore, before Revelation no body was [Page 349] bound by the Divine Law, of which every Man must be necessarily ignorant. The state of Na­ture then, and the state of Religion, must not be confounded, but considered apart, and as we have proved by Paul's Authority, the state of Nature is understood to be without Religion, without Law, without sin or wrong doing. Nor do we consider the state of Nature as before, and without the revealed Law of God, in re­spect of Ignorance only; but in respect also of that freedom and liberty in which all Men were born; for if Men by Nature were bound by the Law of God, or if God's Law were by Na­ture a Law, there was no need of God's ma­king a Covenant with Men, and obliging them by Oath and Contract. It must therefore be absolutely granted, that God's Law took place, from the time that Men by an express Cove­nant with God, promised to obey him in all things; by which Covenant and Promise, they did as it were depart from their natural free­dom, and transferr'd their natural right upon God; in like manner as we have declared is done in a Civil State. But of this I will treat more at large in the following Chapter. It may by way of Objection be further demand­ed, how I can maintain, that Supreme Pow­ers still retain their natural right of doing what they will; when Supreme Powers as well as Subjects are bound by the Law of God? To solve this difficulty, which doth not rise [Page 350] so much from the state, as from the right of Nature; I say, that the same consideration which obligeth a Man in the state of Nature, to live according to the dictates of Reason; obligeth him likewise to God's revealed Law, namely, because it is better and safer for him so to do: But however, if he will not, 'tis still but at his own peril, and therefore he may live according to his own Will, and is not bound to live by any other Man's direction, or to ac­knowledge any mortal Man to be his Judge, or upon any religious account his Superiour. And this is the Right and Power which I say the Supreme Power still retains. Supreme Powers may consult Men, but are not bound to acknowledge any Man their Judge, nor any Man but themselves the Assertor or Protector of Religion, a Prophet only excepted; who confirms his express Mission from God by un­doubted Signs and Wonders; and then nei­ther, do Supreme Powers acknowledge Man but God to be their Judge; but if the Supreme Power will not obey God in his revealed Law, 'tis at their own peril, no Natural or Civil Right can resist them, for Civil Right depends upon the Decree and Will of the Supreme Power, and Natural Right depends upon the Laws of Nature, which do not respect Religion as it in­tends and designs the benefit of man­kind only, but were fitted and accommoda­ted to the order and course of Universal Na­ture, [Page 351] (that is) the Eternal Decree of God, whereof we are ignorant: And this is what others mean, who do not so clearly express themselves, when they say, that a Man may sin against the re­vealed Will of God, but not against his Eternal Decree, by which he predestinated and ordained all things: If any Man ask me, when the Supreme Power commands any thing against Religion, and the Obedience which we by express Covenant have promised to God, whether we ought to obey God or Man? I answer very briefly, resolving to speak more fully of it in the following Chapter, That a­bove all things we ought to obey God, when we have a certain and undubitable Revelation; but because Men are usually very much mistaken in mat­ters of Religion, and because of the diversity of their Dispositions, have great contests about their own Phancies, as we find by woful experience; it is cer­tain, that if no Man should be bound to obey the Supreme Power, in things which a Man thinks con­cern his Religion; the Civil Right and Laws of the Commonwealth, would depend upon every par­ticular Man's different Judgment and Affection; for no Man would be bound by any publick Law, which he thought contrary to his Faith or Supersti­tion; and under this pretence every one would be at liberty to do what he pleased: For his reason therefore, Supreme Power, to whom by Divine and Natural Right, it belongs to preserve and protect the Laws of Government, ought to have the sole power of judging, determining, and establishing Religion; and all Men are bound by their Faith and Allegiance, which God hath commanded should be kept, to obey all the Commands and Decrees of the Supreme Power which concern Religion; but if they that have the Supreme Power be Heathen [Page 352] and Infidels, we must either make no agreement with them, or suffer all extremities if we do covenant with them, and transfer our Right and Power upon them; seeing we thereby deprive our selves of defending Religion and our selves: We are bound to obey and keep Faith with them, and may be compell'd to it, unless it be where God by undoubted Revelation hath declared a person to be a Tyrant, or excepting the person by Name, hath promised his particular aid and assistance a­gainst him. We read, that of all the Iews which were in Babylon, there were only three young Men who were assured of God's particular assistance, that would not obey Nebuchadnezzar; all the rest but Daniel, whom the King himself adored, were compell'd by the Law to obey him; perhaps be­lieving in their Minds, that by God's Decree they were delivered into that Kings Hands, and that by God's appointment he was to be King, and keep the Supreme Power. Eleazer, on the contrary, however it went with his Country, gave an Exam­ple of his constancy to his followers, and would ra­ther endure all extremities than suffer their Right and Power to be transferr'd upon the Greeks, and tried all means possible to avoid being compell'd to embrace the Faith and Religion of the Heathen; which is confirmed by daily experience. The Su­preme Powers that profess Christian Religion, for the security of their Government, make no scruple of entring into Leagues and Covenants with Turks and Infidels, and command their Subjects who live amongst them, not to use any greater liberty in Religion, or any other Affairs, than the Articles of such Leagues, or the Country in which they live allow; as appears by the Contract, which I have al­ready told you, the Hollanders made with the peo­ple of Iapan.

THough much of what hath been said in the preceding Chapter, of the right of Supreme Powers, and transferring on them every Mans natural Rights, may upon serious conside­ration be very agreeable to Practice; yet when all is done, many things will re­main in theory only, and be found abso­lutely impracticable: For no Man can so far transfer his Power, and consequently his Right upon another, as to cease from being a Man; nor was there ever any [Page 354] Supreme Power that could do all that it would: 'Tis vain for Supreme Power to command a Subject to hate his Friend and love his Enemy; or to command a Man not to be provoked with Reproach and Contempt, or not to desire to be freed from fear, and other things of the like kind, which necessarily follow from the Laws of Nature: this is made manifest by daily Experience; for Men never so depart from their Right, or so transfer their Power upon others, but that they are still feared even by those to whom they have transfer'd it; for Go­vernment is many times as much in dan­ger of Subjects deprived of their Right, as it is of foreign Enemies; and if Men could be so far divested of their Natu­ral Right, as afterwards not to be able to do any thing but according to the Will and Pleasure of those that have the Su­preme Power; then indeed all sorts of Tyranny and Violence might without danger be practis'd on Subjects, which I believe cannot enter into any Mans thoughts; so that it must be granted that every Man retains much of his own Right, which still depends upon no bo­dies will but his own. Now that it may be rightly understood how far the right of Government extends it self, it is to [Page 355] be observed, That the Power of Govern­ment doth not precisely consist in its being able to compel men by fear, but also in all other means whereby it is able to make men obey its Commands; for 'tis not the Reason of obeying; but actual Obedience that makes a man a Subject. Upon what account soever a man resolves to perform the Commands of Supreme Power, whe­ther for fear of punishment, for hope of benefit, for love of his Country, or any other affection; yet still he acts by the Command of the Supreme Power, though it be upon deliberation with himself. It is not therefore to be concluded, That a man who doth any thing by his own coun­sel and deliberation, acts by his own Pow­er, and not by the Authority of the Go­vernment; for being obliged by love, or forced by fear, he still of his own accord acts to avoid some evil. Either there must be no such thing as Authority and Power over Subjects, unless it did necessarily ex­tend it self to all things which make men upon deliberation submit to it; and con­sequently whatever a Subject doth agree­able to the Commands of the Supreme Power, whether he do it for fear, love, (or, which is more frequent) for hope and fear together, or out of reverence, which is composed of fear and admirati­on, [Page 356] on, or for any other Reason; yet he still acts not by his own Power, but by the Au­thority and Power of the Government: And hence it is very evident, that Obe­dience doth not so much respect external Actions, as the inward Consent and Sub­mission of the Mind; and he is most un­der the Power of another, who with a willing mind, deliberately resolves to exe­cute all his Commands. That Power is always greatest, which reigns over the hearts of Subjects; but if they should be accounted most powerful who are most feared, how potent must they be, who are govern'd by Tyrants, who commonly dread nothing so much as their own Sub­jects. Though there cannot be so great a Command over mens Minds, as there may be over their Tongues, yet the Minds of men are in some kind under the Do­minion of Supreme Power, because it can several ways bring it so about, that a very great part of the People shall believe, love, and hate, whatever the Supreme Power pleaseth: And though this be not effected by the direct Commands of the Supreme Power, yet Experience tells us, 'tis often done by the Authority (that is) by the direction of that Power: So that we may without any difficulty conceive, how men may believe, love, hate, de­spise, [Page 357] and be carried away with any o­ther Passion, to which the Authority of the Supreme Power pleaseth to in­cline them.

But though upon this very account we may conceive the Right and Power of Government to be very large, yet 'tis im­possible that any Dominion should be so great and absolute, that he or they who have it, should be able in all things to do what they please: therefore, as I have already said, it is not my intention to shew how to form a Government that shall be perpetual; but my purpose is only to take notice of those things, which Mo­ses by Divine Revelation declared were most likely to preserve and perpetuate a Commonwealth. We shall then see what those things are, which for the benefit and safety of a Commonwealth, are to be granted to Subjects by the Supream Power.

Reason and Experience tell us, That the safety and preservation of Govern­ment, depends chiefly upon the fidelity of Subjects, and their Courage and Con­stancy in executing the Commands of the Supream Power; but the way of teach­ing Subjects to be constantly faithful and couragious, is not so easily found out; because Governours, as well as the go­verned, [Page 358] are Men, and not caring for La­bour, are still prone to Lust. They think securing Government to be an impossible Work, who have tried the mutable Hu­mours of the Multitude, which is never ruled by Reason, but by their own Passi­ons and Affections, ready for all rash At­tempts, easily debauched by Covetousness and Luxury; every single man thinks he knows all things, and judgeth every thing to be just or unjust, right or wrong, as it makes for his profit or loss: Pride makes him scorn to be governed by his Equals, still envying another man's better Reputation or greater Fortune, which is never equal, desires and rejoyceth in his Neighbours Misfortunes. There is no need of more Instances; all know how mens Minds are agitated and possest, and to what Mischeif men are hurried head­long, by dislike of their present Conditi­on, by desire of Change, by Rage and contemptible Poverty. To prevent all these things, and to constitute a Govern­ment wherein there shall be no place left for fraud, and so to order all things, that all People, of what Disposition soever, shall prefer the publick good before their. own private benefit, is the great difficul­ty. The Necessity of preserving and se­curing Government, hath much busied [Page 359] mens heads; but it hath been hitherto im­possible, to put Supreme Power into a condition of being less in danger, or in less fear, of Subjects than of Enemies: Witness the Roman Commonwealth, ne­ver conquer'd by its own Enemies, but often opprest and overthrown by its own Citizens, and especially in that Civil War of Vespasian against Vitellius; as may be seen in the Fourth Book of Tacitus, where he describes the miserable condition of the City of Rome. Alexander the Great (saith Quintus Curtius, in the End of his Eighth Book) did more fear the Fame of a Subject than an Enemy, because he was afraid his own People might ruine his Greatness. Distrusting his own Fate, he thus bespake his Friends: Let it be your care only to preserve me from the Treachery and Conspiracy of my own People, and then no hazards in the War shall put me in fear. Philip was more secure in the Front of Bat­tel abroad, than in the Theatre at home; he oft-times avoided the force of his Enemies, but he could not escape the violence of his own Friends; and if you consider the End of other Kings, you shall number more that have been slain by their own Subjects, than by any Forreign Power (See Quintus Curtius, lib. 9. §. 6.) This was the Reason why Kings, who were Usurpers, to secure [Page 360] themselves and their Dominion, endea­vour'd to perswade the People, they were descended from the Immortal Gods; be­cause they thought, if their Subjects did not take them for Men, like themselves, but believed them to be Gods, they would be the better contented to deliver themselves up to their Power and Go­vernment. Augustus perswaded the Ro­mans, that he was descended from AEneas, the Son of Venus, one of their Deities; he had Temples dedicated to him, and was worshipt by Flamens and Priests, in the same manner that other Gods were. Tacitus in his First Book of Annals, tells us, That Alexander would be saluted by the Name of Iupiter's Son, which was not Pride, but Design, as appears by the An­swer he return'd to the invective Speech made by Hermolaus: (In the Eighth Book and Eighth Section of Quintus Curtius) Alexander speaks to this purpose: One thing is very ridiculous which Hermolaus re­quires, That I should not own Jupiter to be my Father, being so declared by his Oracle, as if the Answer of the Gods were in my Power; he offer'd me the Name of his Son, which was very suitable to the Designs I am now about; I wish the Indians would also believe me to be a God: Success in War de­pends much upon Fame, and that which is [Page 361] falsly believed, sometimes works the same ef­fects which things do that are true. In which few words, he very artificially en­deavours to continue People in their ig­norance, and neatly insinuates the Design of his dissembling, which Cleo likewise did in his Oration, whereby he endeavour'd to perswade the Macedonians to sooth and flatter the King: for after he had with ad­miration spoken in praise of Alexander, and reckon'd up all his Merits, giving a colour of Truth to the Fraud, he shews the ad­vantages gain'd by it, in words to this effect. The Persians are not only prudent, but pious in worshipping their Kings as Gods, because it was the Safety of Majesty; and then concludes, That he himself would be the first, who at the King's entrance, would fall down upon the Earth, and worship him; and that he thought the wisest amongst them would follow his Ex­ample: (See Curtius in his Eighth Book, §. 8.) But the Macedonians were wiser: Nor can any but meer Barbarians be so grosly cheated, and of Subjects, suffer themselves to be made Slaves, altogether unprofitable to themselves. Others have, with more ease, perswaded the World, That the Majesty of Kings is Sacred, that they are God's Vicegerents on Earth, or­dained by God, and not establisht by the [Page 362] Votes and Consent of Men, but preserved and defended by the particular aid and protection of Divine Providence. This, and much more, have Monarchs devised to secure their Government, with which I will not meddle, but proceed to those things, which, for the preservation of Government, Divine Revelation taught Moses.

We have already declared, in the Fifth Chapter, that after the Israelites went out of Egypt, they were not sub­ject to the Laws or power of any other Nation; but it was lawful for them to Institute what Laws, and possess what Lands they pleased; for when they were freed from the intollerable bondage of the Egyptians, and were not bound by Covenant to any Mortal, they again re­cover'd their natural Right to all things which were in their Power, and every Man might freely resolve whether he would keep his natural Right, or part with, and transfer it to another. Being then in this natural State, by the Counsel of Moses, in whom all had a very great trust and confidence, they resolved to transfer their Power upon no mortal Man, but upon God only; and without further delay promis'd, all with one Voice, to obey God in all things, and never to own [Page 363] any other Power, but such as God by Prophetical Revelation should institute and appoint. This Promise and Tran­slation of their Right and Power upon God, was in the same manner that we have supposed it to be done in a com­mon Society, when Men resolve to de­part with their natural Right: For as it appears ( Exod. chap. 24. ver. 7.) they freely without any Compulsion, not ter­rified with any threats, did by express Covenant and Oath, part with their na­tural Right, and transfer'd it upon God; and that the Covenant might be firm and binding, without any suspicion of fraud, God Covenanted nothing with them till after they had made tryal of his wonder­ful Power; by which they had already been, and were afterwards to be preser­ved; (see Exod. chap. 19. v. 4, 5.) for upon this very ground of believing, that the Power of God only could save them, they transfer'd all their Power of pre­serving themselves, and consequently all their Right upon God. The Govern­ment then of the Jews was only in God, and therefore by vertue of the Covenant was called the Kingdom of God; God was rightful King of the Jews, and con­sequently the Enemies of that Govern­ment were Gods Enemies, and the Sub­jects [Page 364] of that Commonwealth, who went about to usurp that Government, were guilty of Treason against his Divine Ma­jesty, and the Laws of that Common­wealth were the Laws and Commands of God: So that in this Commonwealth, Civil Right and Religion, which we have shewn consists only in Obedience towards God, were but one and the same thing: My meaning is, that the Do­ctrines of Religion were Laws and Com­mands; Piety was Justice, and Impiety wrong and Injustice: he that forsook the publick Religion ceased to be a Subject, and upon that very account was thought an Enemy; he that dy'd for Religion was thought to dye for his Country, and between Religion and Civil Right there was no difference. Upon this account this Government might very well be cal­led Theocracy, seeing the Subjects there­of were bound by no Law but what was revealed by God. But these things were thus, more in opinion then reality, for the Jews did indeed still retain the Ab­solute Power of Government, as will ap­pear by what shall be presently declared, namely by the Form and Rules whereby their Government was Administred, which is now my purpose to explain.

[Page 365]Seeing the Jews did not transfer their Power upon any other Man, but all e­qually parted from it as is done in Demo­cratical-government, and all cryed with one Voice, Whatsoever God himself (without any other intermediate Person) shall speak to us, that will we do; it clear­ly appears by this Agreement, they all continued equal, and the Power and Right of consulting God, of receiving and interpreting Laws, was equal in them all, and the Administration of the Government was in the whole Congrega­tion. Upon this ground all equally at first hearken'd what God would say, and what he would Command; but in this first meeting they were so terrified, and heard God speaking with so muh astonish­ment, that every Man thought that day would be his last. Full of very great fear they came again to Moses, and said, We have heard Gods Voice out of the midst of the Fire: Now therefore why should we dye? This great Fire will consume us, we shall dye if we hear the Voice of the Lord our God any more; therefore go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say, and speake thou unto us, all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee, we will hear and do it. By saying this they clearly a­bolisht the first Covenant, and transfer'd [Page 366] upon Moses their own Right of consulting God, and interpreting his Laws and De­crees; for here they did not as before, promise to obey all that God should say to them, but all that God should speak to Moses; (See Deut. c. 5. v. 25, 26, 28.) so that now none but Moses, became the giver and interpreter of Gods Laws, and consequently was the Supreme Judg, o­ver whom no Man had power; he only was Gods Vicegerent among the Jews, in him resided the Supreme Majesty, seeing he only had the power of consulting God, of returning Gods Answers to the People, and compelling the People to obey them. I say he only, for if any Man, during the Life of Moses, had preached any thing in the name of God, though he were a true Prophet, yet he had been a guilty Usurper. (see Numb. c. 11. v. 27, 28.) And here we ought to observe, that though the People chose Moses, yet they had not the power of E­lecting any Successor in his place; for at that very time when they transfer'd their Right and Power of consulting God up­on Moses, and promis'd to receive from him Gods answers, they lost all their power, and whoever Moses declared should be his Successor, him were they bound to accept as chosen by God him­self; [Page 367] and had Moses chosen one who was to have, as Moses himself had, the whole Administration of the Government; namely, the Power of consulting God a­lone in his Tent, and consequently the Power of making and abrogating Laws; of making War and Peace; sending Em­bassadors; appointing Judges; chusing a Successor, and ordering all other things that belong to Supreme Power; the Go­vernment had been perfectly Monarchical, and there had been no other difference be­tween the Jewish and other Monarchies but this, that other Monarchies are or should be Govern'd according to Reason, by Gods Decree, of which the Monarch is ignorant; but the Jewish Monarchy, by Gods Decree revealed only to the Monarch; which difference doth not at all diminish, but increase the Monarchs Power and Dominion over all, but the condition of the Subjects in both Monar­chies is the same: For the Subjects in both being ignorant of Gods Decree, do absolutely depend upon the Mouth of the Monarch, and he only is to declare what is right and what is wrong. And if the People believe that the Monarch is to command nothing but by the will of God revealed to him, in that very re­spect they are not the less, but the more [Page 368] subject to him. Now Moses did not chuse any such Successor, but left Succes­sors, who were so to Administer the Go­vernment, that it could not be called Popular, Aristocratical, or Monarchical; but rather Theocratical: For the Power of Interpreting Laws, and Communica­ting Gods Answers to the People, was in one Person, and the Right and Power of Administring the Government, accord­ing to the Laws already explain'd, and ac­cording to the Answers already made known, was in another. (See Numb. c. 27. v. 21.) But that these things may be clearly understood, I will, in order, de­clare in what manner the Government of the Jews was Administred. First, The People were commanded to build a House, which was to be God's, that is, the Pa­lace of the Supreme Majesty of that Go­vernment; and this was not to be built at any particular Persons cost, but the pub­lick charge of all the People, that the House where Counsel was to be asked of God might be Publick and Common to all: The Levites were the Courtiers or Officers of this Divine Palace; of these, the Chief next to God after the King, was chosen Aaron, the Brother of Moses, whose Legitimate Sons succeeded him: He, as next to God, was the chief Inter­preter [Page 369] of the Divine Laws, return'd the Answers of the Divine Oracle, and made Supplications to God for the People; had he herewith had the commanding Power, there had nothing wanted of his being an absolute Monarch; but that Power he had not, and the whole Tribe of Levy was so far excluded from having any hand in the Administration of govern­ment, that they were not allow'd to pos­sess, with the rest of the Tribes, any Lands in their own right, upon which they might live; but were to be main­tain'd and relieved by the rest of the People, as a Tribe dedicated to God. The Militia was chosen out of the rest of the twelve Tribes, they were command­ed to invade the Country of the Canaanites to divide their Lands into twelve parts, and to distribute the parts amongst the Tribes by Lot. Ioshua was elected Ge­neral and Chief Commander of the Mi­litia, who only in future Affairs and E­mergencies had the power of consulting God: not as Moses had alone in his Tent or in the Tabernacle, but by the High-Priest, to whom only God gave his An­swers: The power of passing those An­swers which were deliver'd to the High-Priest into Laws, and the power of com­pelling the People to obey them; the [Page 370] Manner and Means of executing those Commands; the choice of the Militia, or the choice of those that should chuse it; of sending Embassadors in his own name; the whole power of making and carrying on War, depended absolutely and solely upon the Will of Ioshua, into whose power and place no body did ever law­fully succeed, nor was there ever any other chosen, unless by God himself, the Peoples affairs not requiring any such choice; but all matters of Peace and War were under the direction and govern­ment of the Princes of the Tribes. All from twenty years old to sixty were commanded to bear Arms; the Army was formed only out of their own Peo­ple, who did not swear Fidelity to the General or Chief-Priest, but to God and Religion, and were therefore called the Lords Host, and God, by the Jews, the Lord of Hosts: For this reason the Ark of the Covenant, upon which depended Victory or the loss of their Battels, was always carryed in the midst of the Army, that the People beholding as it were their King, might fight with their utmost courage and strength. From these Com­mands of Moses to his Successors, we conclude that he chose Administrators or Ministers of State, but none that had ab­solute [Page 371] Power; for he gave to no body the sole power of Consulting God when he pleas'd, and consequently not the Autho­rity which he himself had, of making and abrogating Laws; of making War or Peace; of chusing Officers for the Tem­ple, or in any of the Cities; all which do properly belong to him that hath Su­preme Power. The Chief Priest indeed had power of interpreting the Laws, and returning Gods Answers to the Peo­ple; but not as Moses, when he pleas'd, but only when he was called upon by the General or Supreme Council to do it. On the other side, the General of the Army, and the Councils, could consult God when they pleas'd, but could not receive God's Answers from any but the High Priest; and therefore what God said by the Mouth of the High Priest, was not a Law and Decree, as it was in the Mouth of Moses, but only Answers; and when those Answers were received by Ioshua and the Council, then had they the force of Laws and Decrees. More­over, the High Priest, who receiv'd An­swers from God, had nothing to do with the Militia, nor had he any share in the Government; and on the other side, they that were possest of Lands had no power to make Laws: The Chief Priest Aaron, [Page 372] and his Son Eleazer, were both chosen by Moses; but when Moses was dead no man had the power of chusing the High Priest, but the Son still succeeded the Fa­ther. The General of the Army was al­so elected by Moses, not by the Power of the High Priest, but took upon him the Generalship or Supreme Power by vertue of that Authority which Moses gave him; and therefore when Ioshua dyed, the High Priest chose no body into his place, nor did the Princes ask Council of God concerning a new General, but every one commanded the particular Militia of his own Tribe, and all the Princes, jointly together, had the same power over the whole Army that Ioshua had; and it seems there was no need of a General, unless when they were to fight against an Enemy with joint Forces, of which there was constant occasion and necessity in Ioshua's time, when they had no fixed place of abode, and all things were in Common: But after all the Tribes were by right of Conquest possest of Lands, which they were commanded to keep and divide amongst themselves, and Proper­ty began; then there was no more need of a General, because the several Tribes by that division, became not only fellow Subjects but Confederates; they were in [Page 373] respect of God and Religion fellow-Sub­jects, but in respect of one Tribes power over another, no more than Confede­rates. In all particulars (that of the Jews publick Temple excepted) like the States of the seven United Provinces; for the division of that which is common in­to parts, is nothing else but every Mans possessing his own part, and the rest quit the right which they had to it. Moses therefore chose the Princes of the Tribes, that after the Land and the Government was divided, every one might take care of his own part; that is, that the Prince of every Tribe, should by the High Priest ask Council of God, concerning the Affairs of his own Tribe; that he should command the Militia of his own Tribe; build and fortifie Cities; appoint Judges in every City; fight against the Enemies of his own Tribe, and have the absolute Power of Peace and War within his own Tribe; nor was he obliged to acknow­ledge any other Judge over him, but God, or a Prophet whom God should ex­presly send; and if he departed from the Worship of God, the rest of the Tribes were to account him no Subject, but fight against him as a publick E­nemy, that had violated the Faith of the Covenant made with God; of which in [Page 374] Scripture we have several Examples. When Ioshua was dead, the Children of Israel, without any new General, asked Counsel of God, and when they under­stood that the Tribe of Iuda was first to assault the Enemy, Iuda agreed only with his Brother Simeon, to go up with united Forces, and fight the Enemies of both their Lots; in which agreement none of the rest of the Tribes were comprehend­ed. (See Iudges c. 1. v. 1, 2, 3.) But every Tribe, as that Chapter declares, fought separately against its own particular Ene­my, and spared the Lives of whom they pleased, though they were commanded upon no terms to spare any, but to extir­pate all; for which Sin they were indeed reproved, but never called to account for it. When the Tribes made War one upon another, and medled with one ano­thers Affairs in assaulting the Benjamites, it was because they had justly offended the rest of the Tribes, by breaking the common Bond of Peace; so that none of their Confederates could safely venture themselves amongst them. This was the reason the rest of the Tribes invaded the Benjamites in a hostile manner, and after the fighting of three several Battels ha­ving conquer'd them, by right of War put all Nocent and Innocent to the [Page 375] Sword, which they afterward repented too late.

That which I have said of the Power of every particular Tribe, is by these Exam­ples confirm'd: But some body will per­haps ask, who chose the Successor of the Prince of every particular Tribe? I find nothing certain in Scripture concerning it, but seeing every Tribe was divided into Families, and the eldest were the Heads of every Family, I suppose of these Heads, the eldest did by Right succeed him that was Prince of these Seniors or Elders; Mo­ses chose the Seventy that were to assist him, who with him, were the supreme Council, and after the Death of Ioshua, had the Administration of the Govern­ment. By Elders, often in Scripture, and amongst the Iews, are meant Judges; but this particular not being much to our pur­pose, it is sufficient that I have proved, no person after Moses's Death, executed all the Offices of Supreme Power; for since all things did not depend upon the pleasure and will of one single person, nor upon the Decrees of the Council or Peo­ple, but some things were done by one Tribe, others by another, by the equal Power, and joynt Authority of every one; it evidently follows, that from the Death of Moses the Government was nei­ther [Page 376] Monarchical, Aristocratical or Popu­lar, but, as I have said, Theocratical: First, because the Temple was the Palace of the Government, and upon that ac­count only all the Tribes were Fellow-Citizens. Secondly, Because all the Ci­tizens or Subjects, were to swear Fidelity and Allegiance to God their Supreme Judge, to whom only they promised to yield Obedience. And lastly, Because the Chief Commander, or General, when there was occasion, was to be chosen by none but God, which Moses, in the Name of God, expresly prophesied to the Peo­ple ( Deut. 17. 15.) which likewise appears by the Election of Gideon, Sampson, and Samuel; and therefore it is not to be doubted, but the rest of their faithful Captains were chosen in the same man­ner, though it be not set down in their History.

These things being thus laid open, it is time to enquire, how this Con by poverty, sold his Land, when the Year of Iubilee came, it was e who did govern, as of those that were govern­ed, that neither the Subjects should be­come Rebels, nor the Governours Ty­rants. They that have Supreme Power, or the Administration of Government, when they wickedly oppress and abuse [Page 377] their Subjects, they still endeavour to make the People believe, that all their A­ctions are just and legal, which may be ea­sily done, when the Interpretation of the Law depends only upon them. 'Tis this that makes them take so much Liberty of doing what their Desires dictate, and think much of their Prerogative lost, when the power of interpreting the Laws is in any but themselves; or when the Laws are so perspicuously and clearly in­terpreted, that there can be no doubt or dispute concerning them. The Iews there­fore were very much secured against the Oppression and Injustice of their Princes, by Moses giving the power of interpre­ting the Laws to the Levites, ( Deut. chap. 21. v. 15.) who had no administration or part in the Government with the rest; but all their Honour and Fortune depended upon their truly and rightly interpreting the Law. Moreover, all the people were commanded once in every seven years, to assemble together in one place, where the High Priest read and expounded to them the Laws; and likewise every particular person was obliged, constantly, with great care, to read over the Book of the Law: (See Deut. chap. 21. v 9. and chap. 6. v. 7.) The Princes and Rulers therefore, for their own sakes, were to take good [Page 378] heed, that they did all things according to the known Prescription and Rules of the Law, if they expected any Honour from the People, who would then reverence them as God's Ministers and Vicegerents; otherwise they must expect the Universal Hatred of the People, which was a sort of Divine Vengeance. Another thing which very much bridled the Exorbitant Power and Lust of their Princes, was their Mi­litia's being formed out of their own Peo­ple, none from Twenty to Sixty except­ed; it not being in the Prince's Power to levy, or keep in Pay any Forreign For­ces. This, I say, was a thing of great Consequence; for Princes cannot possibly oppress their Subjects, without Forces in continual Pay; and Princes fear nothing so much as the Power of their own arm­ed Subjects, by whose Valour, Labour, and Expence of Blood, the Glory and Liberty of a Kingdom is purchast and se­cured. Therefore Alexander, when he was to fight a second Battel against Dari­us, hearing Parmenio give Advice which did not please him, Quintus Curtius, in his Fourth Book, says, Alexander would not check Parmenio again, though he had upbraided Alexander more bitterly than was expedient, but fell upon Polyperchon, who was of Parmenio's Opinion: Nor [Page 379] could Alexander oppress the Liberty of the Macedonians, which he most feared, till after he had, out of the Prisoners he took, formed Troops that out-numbred his own People; that being done, he did what he pleas'd, being before restrain'd by the Liberty which the best of his own Subjects enjoy'd: And if this Liberty of Armed Subjects in other Governments, be a Bri­dle to Princes, who ascribe to themselves the Glory of all Victories, it was certain­ly a much greater Curb to the Princes of the Iewish Tribes, whose Soldiers fought not for the Glory of their Prince, but the Glory of God, and ventur'd no Battles till they received an Answer from God. What is more to be observed, is, That all the Princes of the Iews were associated and linked together by a Religious Cove­nant; so that if any one forsook the pub­lick Religion, and offer'd to violate e­very man's Divine Right, they might just­ly account him a publick Enemy, and de­stroy him.

Thirdly, Another thing which kept the Iewish Princes within bounds, was the fear of a New Prophet; For if any man of an unblameable Life and Conversati­on, could by some certain signs, prove himself a Prophet, that Prophet had pre­sently Right to the supreme Power, in [Page 380] the same manner that Moses himself had by Revelation; and not as the Princes who were to consult God by the High Priest: and without doubt such Prophets could easily make the Oppressed People of their Party, and by some little signs perswade them to what they pleas'd: But when Justice was duely administred, the Prince could make such timely provision, that the Prophet should so far submit to his Judgment, as to be strictly examined, whether his Life and Conversation were good? Whether the signs of his Mission were true? And lastly, Whether that which he prophesied in the Name of the Lord, were agreeable to the Religion and Laws of the Country? If the Signs he gave failed, or if his Doctrine were new, he might by the Authority of the Prince, be justly condemn'd, or else approved and received.

Fourthly, The Prince could not claim the Power of governing, upon the ac­count of being more Nobly descended than others, but had Right to it only by Seniority of Age and Merit.

Lastly, The Princes, and all the Army, had as much Reason to desire Peace as War; for the Militia being composed only of Iewish Subjects, the same persons that were Soldiers, managed Affairs in [Page 381] times of Peace; he that was a Comman­der in the Field, was in the Tribunal a Judge; and he that was a General in the Camp, was a Prince in the City: There­fore none could desire War for Wars sake, but only to enjoy Peace, and to defend their Subjects Liberties. Perhaps the Prince abstain'd, as much as was possible, from Innovations, that he might not at­tend, and wait on the High Priest, which he might think beneath his Dig­nity.

So much for the Reasons which kept the Princes within bounds. Let us now see what kept the People to their Duty. The Principles of the Government will make this clear; for whosoever considers them, will find, they begot so much Affe­ction in the Hearts of the People, that it was impossible any man should think of betraying or deserting his Countrey; but must be so much affected with it, that he would suffer any Extremities, rather than be subject to any other Forreign Go­vernment: For after they transferr'd their Power upon God, acknowledging their Kingdom to be the Kingdom of God, and believed they only were the Chil­dren of God, and all other Nations God's Enemies, believing their mortal Hatred a­gainst them to be Piety: (See Psal. 139. [Page 382] v. 21, 22.) They could abhor nothing more, than swearing Fidelity, and promi­sing Obedience to Strangers; nor could any thing be thought so execrable and a­bominable, as betraying their Countrey; (that is) the Kingdom of that God they worship'd. It was counted an horrible Of­fence to go out of their Countrey to live, because they would not celebrate the Worship of God, to which they were strictly obliged, any where but in their own Land, which was therefore called, the Holy Land, and every part of the Earth beside, esteemed by them profane and unclean. Therefore David, being forced by Saul to fly his Country, com­plains in these words, (1 Sam. chap. 26. v. 19.) If they be the children of men that have stirred thee up against me, cursed be they before the Lord; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheri­tance of the Lord, saying, go serve other Gods. This was the Reason (which is very worthy Observation) that no Iew­ish Subject was ever condemn'd to Ba­nishment; He that sins deserves to be pu­nish't, but his punishment oughr not to be a sin. The Affection which the Iews had for their Countrey, was not simply Love, but Piety, which, with their Ha­tred to other Nations, was so augment­ed [Page 383] by their daily Worship, that it be­came natural to them; for their daily Worship was not only different from, but absolutely contrary to that of all other Nations, and was the Reason they did not only live unmixt, but separate from them. Continual Reproach must neces­sarily beget perpetual Hatred, and there is no Hatred so great and lasting, as that which is grounded upon difference in Religion, and is believed to be pious: There was no Reason why their Hatred should decrease; for all other Nations did as mortally hate them.

Let Reason and Experience judge then, whether the Liberty of the Sub­ject, Devotion towards their Countrey, Absolute Power over all Nations, against whom their Hatred was not only counted lawful, but pious; Singularity of Reli­gious Rites, and manner of living, were not powerful Arguments to perswade the Iews, with great Courage and Constancy of Mind, to suffer any thing for their Countrey? For while Ierusalem stood, they would never endure any other Government; therefore was it called, the Rebellious City, ( Ezra chap. 4. v. 12, 15.) The second Government (which was scarce a shadow of the first, after the Priests had usurped the Power of [Page 384] the Princes) was with great difficulty destroyed by the Romans, as Tacitus tells us, in the second Book of his Hi­story: Vespasian, saith he, put an end to the Iewish War, by the taking of the City Jerusalem, an hard and difficult work, because of the Peoples Disposition and Ob­stinacy in their Superstition, and because the besieged had Courage and Strength e­nough to suffer all Extremities. Beside all these things, which only Opinion made dear and valuable, there was another thing in this Government, which was a fingular and solid Argument to continue the People in their Obedience, and take from them all thoughts of deserting their Countrey; and that was Profit, which is the Strength and Life of all Humane Actions. In this Particular, their Advantages were very considerable; for Subjects had no where greater Right to any thing they possest. The Iewish Subjects had an e­qual portion of Land and Fields with the Prince; and every one was an eternal Lord of his part; for if any man, for­ced by poverty, sold his Land, when the Year of Iubilee came, it was to be intire­ly restored. There were likewise other Institutions of this kind; so that a fixed Estate could never be perpetually alie­nated: Where could poverty be more [Page 385] tolerable, than in a Country where e­very man's mutual Charity, was that part of his Religion whereby he ho­ped to purchase the Favour of God, who was his King: so that the Iews could never live well in any Country but their own, and out of it were sure to meet with Injury and Reproach. To keep them in their own Country from Civil War, and to take away the Causes of Contention, their being subject to no Equal, but only to God himself, con­tributed very much: so likewise did their mutual Love and Charity, which was not a little increased by the general Ha­tred all other Nations had against them. Another thing, which beyond all that I have mentioned, much contributed to keeping the people within the Limits of their Duty, was that strict Discipline of Obedience under which they were edu­cated; for they were to do nothing but according to positive prescriptions of Law; they could not when they pleas'd, but only at certain times, and in certain Years plow, and that but with one sort of Cattel; they had likewise prescribed Rules for sowing and reaping; and in­deed, (as we have shewn in the Fifth Chapter, concerning the Use of Ceremo­nies) their whole course of Life was [Page 386] but a continual practice of Obedience, so that being accustomed to it, it seem­ed rather Liberty than Servitude. This was the Reason they desired not what was forbidden, but that which was comman­ded. At certain times of the Year they were to give themselves up to Mirth, Pleasure and Ease; not to indulge their own Appetites, but to serve God the more chearfully: Thrice in a Year they were God's Guests, (see Deut. chap. 16. v. 16.) Every Seventh day of the Week they were to cease from all kind of La­bour, and take their rest; at other set times, rejoicing; honest Recreations and Feasting, were not only allow'd, but commanded, which above all things pre­vail upon mens Minds, especially that Joy which ariseth from Devotion, (that is) from Love and admiration together. Their Worship prescribed on Festival Days being short and various, kept them from loathing and weariness. To all this add the high Reverence and Veneration they had for the Temple, which was still preserved by the particular Worship they were to perform in it, and by many things they were to observe and do, be­fore it was lawful for any one to en­ter into it: So that even now we cannot without great horror, read that abomi­nable [Page 387] wicked act of Manasseh, who cau­sed an Idol to be set up in the Temple. Nor was the Reverence much less which the People had for the Law, which was religiously kept in the Sanctuary; so that no Rumors or Discontents among the People were here to be feared; for no body could meddle or pass any Judgment in matters of Religion, but every man, without consulting Reason, was to do all things which God by his Answers in the Temple, or by the Laws already given, commanded them. It now then appears under what manner of Government the Iews lived, of which, I hope, I have gi­ven a very clear, though but brief Ac­count.

It now remains, that we enquire, Why the Iews did so often forsake the Law, why they were so often conquer'd, and why at last their Government was to­tally destroyed. Perhaps some will tell me, Their stubborn and rebellious Hu­mour was the Cause; That's but a childish and frivolous Answer: Why was this Nation more rebellious than a­ny other, was it their Natures? Nature doth not make Nations, but only in­dividual Persons, who are distinguish't and divided into Nations, by diversity of Language, Laws and Customs: From [Page 388] Laws and Customs every Nation ac­quires a particular Disposition, a parti­cular Condition, and peculiar Prejudi­ces and Opinions. If it must be grant­ed, That the Iews were more stiff-necked and rebellious than any other Nation, it must be because they had Bad Laws and Evil Customs; and it is a certain Truth, That if God had de­creed their Government should have had a longer continuance, he would have given them other Laws and Statutes, and another Administration of Government. Therefore what can we say more, than that God was offended and angry with them, not only as Ieremy saith, from the building of their City, ( Ierem. chap. 32. v. 31.) but from the very time he gave them their Laws, which Ezekiel testifies, ( chap. 20. v. 25.) saying, I gave them sta­tutes which were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live, and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they cau­sed to pass through the fire all that open­eth the womb, that is, the first-born, that I might make them desolate, to the end, that they might know I am the Lord. That these Words, and the Cause of their Destruction may be rightly understood, we are to take notice, That God's first Intention was to commit the Administra­tion [Page 389] of all things pertaining to Religi­on, to the First-born; not to the Le­vites, as appears, ( Numb. chap. 8. v. 17.) where God says, all the first-born of the children of Israel are mine, I sanctified them for my self. But after all the Peo­ple, the Levites only excepted, had worshipped the Golden Calf, they were defiled and rejected, and the Levites who sided with Moses, as appears, ( Exod. chap. 32. v. 20, 27.) were chosen into their room: ( Deut. chap. 10. v. 8.) The Lord separated the tribe of Levi to stand before the Lord, to minister him, and to bless his Name. Which change, when I seriously consider, it makes me think of those Words in Tacitus: Illo tempore non fuisse Deo curae securitatem illorum, fuisse ultionem: At that time God took more care to be revenged upon them, than to preserve them. God was so ex­treamly incensed against them, that though Laws usually provide for the Safety, Honour and Security of People, yet the Laws which God gave the Iews, were with a purpose to punish, and be revenged upon them: so that their Laws were not Laws; that is, the Peoples Safe­ty, but their Plague and Pnnishment. Consider how many things the People were bound to give to the Priests and [Page 390] Levites, beside the Money that was to be pay'd for the Redemption of the First-born: Consider likewise, that the Levites were only permitted to come near what­ever was accounted holy, which conti­nually minded the People of their Un­cleanness and Repudiation; with which 'tis very likely the Levites might often re­proach them: for amongst so many thou­sand Levites, no question but there were some troublesome pragmatical Fellows, who provoked the People; and the Peo­ple on their part, to be quit with the Le­vites, narrowly watched and pryed into their Actions, who being but Men, were subject to many failings and miscarriages, which, as is usual, were charged upon the whole Function, and at last, especi­ally when Provisions were dear, in all probability, the People grew weary of maintaining so many lazy, idle and hated persons, who were no Kin at all to them. No wonder then when the People were at ease, and publick Miracles ceased, if they who were in Authority became re­miss, and the covetous incensed Minds of the People grew careless, and neglecting the Divine Worship, of which they be­gan to be suspicious and ashamed, desi­red a new. 'Tis likewise possible, that the Princes to keep the Commanding [Page 391] Power still in their own hands, might court the People to take part with them against the Priest, and bring in a new Religion. But had the duration and se­curity of the Government been designed when it was first instituted, things might have gone well, if all the Tribes had had equal Honour and Power; for who would have violated the Sacred Right of his Kindred? They would rather for Piety and Religion's sake, have maintain­ed their Parents, Brothers, and Kinsmen, seeing from them they were to receive the Interpretation of the Law, and the Divine Oracles. The Tribes would have been tied in a stricter Bond of Amity, if all had had equal Power of administring in the Temple; at least, there had been less fear of Discord, if the Election of the Levites had not been grounded upon the Wrath and Vengeance of God: But, as I have already said, God was very an­gry with them, and that I may again use Ezekiel's Expression, he polluted them with their gifts, in the redemption of their first-born, that he might destroy them. This appears by their Histories; for as soon as the People began to be idle in the Wilderness, many, not of the mean­est sort, began to be offended with the Choice of this Tribe, believing that Mo­ses [Page 392] did not act by God's Command, but did all things as he himself pleased; because he made choice of his own Tribe above all the rest, and made a perpetual Settlement of the Priesthood upon his own Brother: So that a Tumult being rais'd, they tell Moses and Aaron, that all the Congregation were every one of them holy, and that they lifted themselves up above all the Congregation of the Lord. No Reason could appease them, but they were all miraculously destroy'd, which occasion'd a Universal Sedition amongst all the People, who believed that they who perished were not destroyed by God's Judgment, but by some Trick of Moses; after which followed a great Plague, which made the People weary of their Lives. This was the end of the Sedition, but not the beginning of any Amity or Affection; and God told Mo­ses ( Deut. chap. 33. v. 21.) that he knew the imagination the people went about, even before he had brought them into the Land which he sware: and Moses a little after, Verse 27. saith to the People, I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck; behold while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord, and how much more after my death? And, as all the World knows, so it happened; great [Page 393] Changes, all manner of Licentiousness, Luxury and Idleness, made them grow daily worse and worse, till being often beaten by their Enemies, they brake their Holy Covenant, and desired a Mortal King. The Temple became his Palace, and the Tribes casting off the Divine Law and the Priesthood, his Subjects. The Electing of a King was a great oc­casion of new Seditions, to reign preca­riously, or suffer any Power to controll theirs, was intolerable to their Kings: They who from private Men were ele­cted to the Throne, were contented with the Dignity conferr'd upon them; but when their Sons came by Right of Succession to the Crown, they began by degrees to make Alterations, that the Supreme Power might reside only in them; which Power they had not, so long as the Power of the Laws was not in their hands, but were interpreted and kept by the High Priest in the Sanctuary. So that the Kings were still subject to the Laws, and had not Authority e­nough to abrogate the Old, or make New. Moreover, the Levites had pow­er to keep the Kings, as well as the Sub­jects, under the Notion of being profane persons, from medling with Sacred Mat­ters. Lastly, Because all the power of [Page 394] their Kings depended upon the pleasure of any one who was accounted a Pro­phet; of which they had an Example in Samuel, who with great Boldness and Li­berty commanded Saul to do what he pleas'd, and for one Offence only trans­ferr'd the Kingdom upon David, which indeed made the Government perfectly precarious. To avoid this, their Kings consecrated other Temples, that they might have no more need of consulting the Levites, and enquired after others to prophesie, in opposition to those who were accounted true Prophets: But yet they could never compass their Ends; for the Prophets were still ready, watch­ing their opportunity till a Successor came, and then the Prophets, by their Divine Power, did sometimes set up some Famous and Worthy Person, who being displeas'd with the King, did, un­der pretence of vindicating Religion, en­deavour to usurp the Supreme Power, or some part thereof. But neither this way could the Prophets compass their Ends; for though they took away the Tyrant, yet the Causes of Tyranny still remain'd, and they did, with a great Effusion of the Subjects Blood, only purchase another new Tyrant. So that there was no end of their Discords and [Page 395] Intestine Wars; and the Causes of vio­lating God's Law, were still the same; which could never end but with the Total Destruction of the Common-Wealth.

We have now seen how Religion began in the Iewish Common-Wealth, and how the Government might have been perpetual, if the Just Wrath of God would have permitted it to con­tinue; But because it would not, there­fore it perished. I have here spoken only of their First Government, the Second being but a Shadow of their First, seeing they were still under the Power of the Persians. After they ob­tained their Liberty of Cyrus, the High Priests became their Princes, by usurp­ing the Supreme Authority; the Priests having as great a Mind to the Crown as to the Mitre. Of this Second Go­vernment I need say no more. Whe­ther their First Government, as it was conceived Durable, or Religious, be a Pattern that may be followed, will appear in the next Chapter.

For the Close of all, I desire it may be particularly observed, That by what hath been declared in this Chapter, it [Page 396] is evident, That Divine Right or Re­ligion, had its Beginning and Rise from a Covenant or Contract; without which there is no Right but that of Nature; and therefore the Iews were not ob­liged by any Precept of Religion, to shew any Kindness towards any other Nations, who were not concerned in the Covenant, but only to those of their own Common-Wealth.

THough the Government of the Jews, as it hath been describ'd in the preceding Chapter, might have been perpetual; yet 'tis an Example that cannot now be follow'd, nor is it ad­visable to put it in practice; for if any Men would transfer their power upon God, they ought to do it as the Jews did, by an express Contract or Covenant; so that not only the mind of them that trans­fer their power, but also the Will of God, upon whom the power is transfer'd ought to be known; but God hath revealed by the Apostles, that the Covenant of God shall no more be written with Ink, nor in Tables of Stone, but shall by his Spirit be written in our Hearts. That form of Go­vernment, under which the Jews lived, might be very useful and convenient for [Page 398] them who lived alone, without any fo­reign Trade or Commerce, who kept themselves within their own Territories, and separated themselves from all the rest of the World; but 'tis in no wise fit for People that live by trading with others, and consequently it is to very few people that the Jewish government can be of a­ny use or advantage; but though it be a pattern that cannot be follow'd in all things, yet there were in it many things very worthy of our observation, and which are fit to be put in practice. Be­cause my intention is not to treat expresly of Government, I will pass many things by, and only take notice of those that make for my purpose; Namely, That it is not repugnant to the Kingdom of God, to make Majesty Elective; that is, to chuse the Person or Persons who shall have the Su­pream Power of Government; for after the Iews transferr'd their Power upon God, they delivered the Supream Pow­er of Governing to Moses, who thereby had in God's Name, the sole Authority of making and abrogating Laws, of chu­sing sacred Ministers, and likewise the sole power of teaching, judging, and punishing: and though the Priests were Interpreters of the Law, yet they had no power at all to judge the People, [Page 399] nor to excommunicate any person; for none could do that but the Judges and Princes, who were chosen out of the People, as appears ( Ioshua chap. 6. v. 26.) where Ioshua adjured the people, not to rebuild Iericho; ( Iudges chap. 21. v. 18.) where the Elders of the Congrega­tion appointed what Women the Benja­mites should marry, to propagate their Tribe, and (1 Sam. chap. 14. v. 24.) where Saul commanded the People not to eat any food till Evening. If we con­sider the Histories and Successes of the Iews, we shall find other things very well worth our Observation:

First, That there were no different Sects of Religion amongst them, till after the Priests in the Second Government usurped the Supream Authority, and the Power of making Laws. To make their Authori­ty lasting, they took upon them the Power which the Princes had, and at last, would be called Kings. The Reason is apparent; for in the First Govern­ment, nothing was made Law by the High Priest, because he had no power of decreeing any thing; his Business was only to return those Answers to the Princes and Council, which were given by God: So that at that time, their [Page 400] High Priests could not desire to make new Decrees, but only to do that which was their known Duty; for they had no other way to preserve their Liberty against the Princes, but by keeping the Laws free from Violation and Corrupti­on; but after the Priests got power of medling with matters of Government, and of Priests became Princes, then eve­ry one, as well in Religion as other Af­fairs, would have all things determin'd by the Pontifical Authority, daily ma­king Decrees, which they would have to be as Sacred as the Laws of Moses; so that Religion degenerated into hor­rible Superstition; the true Sense and Interpretation of the Law was corrupted, and the Priests, after the Restauration, attempting to get the Supream Power into their hands, to gain the People, so soothed and flatter'd them, that they ap­proved of all they did, were it never so wicked, and made Interpretations of Scripture suitable to their Humours and Practices, which Malachy in express Words testifies, reproving the Priests of his own time in this manner, ( Mal. chap. 2. v. 7, 8.) The Priest's lips should pre­serve knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts: But ye are departed out [Page 401] of the way, ye have caused many to stumble at the law, ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. And so goes on in reproaching them with interpret­ing the Law as they pleased, with their respecting of persons, and taking no heed to walk in God's ways. It is certain, that though the Priests were never so cautious and wary, yet they were nar­rowly observed by the wiser sort, who taking notice of the Priests Boldness, declared, That the People were not bound to the Observation of any Laws, but those that were Written, and that all Decrees made by the Priests, which the deceived Pharisees (chosen, as Iose­phus tells us, out of the meanest of the People) called, the Tradition of their Fa­thers, were not at all obligatory, nor to be obey'd. Without all doubt, the High Priest's flattering the People, the Corruption of Religion, and the Multi­plication of Laws, became a great oc­casion of those Disputes and Controver­sies which could never be ended; for when men in the heat of Superstition begin to quarrel, and supreme Magi­strates on one side or other, concern them­selves in the Dispute, the Controversie ne­ver ends, and there is a necessity of divi­ding into Sects.

[Page 402]In the Second place, it may be obser­ved, That the Prophets, who were but pri­vate persons, sometimes by the great Liberty they used, in admonishing, reproving, and reproaching the People, did rather provoke than make them better, who notwithstand­ing, would with much greater patience, receive correction and instruction from their Kings. Yea, the Prophets were sometimes intolerable to very pious good Kings, by arrogating a Power of judg­ing what was well, and what ill done, and sometimes by reproving Kings to their faces, if they suffer'd any thing to be publickly or privately done, which was contrary to their Judgment. Asa, who was by the Testimony of Scripture, a good King, imprison'd Hanani the Pro­phet, (see 2 Chron. chap. 16.) for too boldly reproving and reproaching him, for the League he made with the King of Syria. Beside this Example, there are o­thers, which shew, That the Liberty the Prophets took, did sometimes more hurt than good; I need not instance the Ci­vil Wars, which were occasioned by the Prophets pretending to the Supream Power.

A Third thing fit to be observed, is, That during the time the People governed, there happened but one Civil War, which [Page 403] being ended, the Victors had so much com­passion for the Conquer'd Party, that their whole care and study, was, how to restore them to their former Power and Dignity. But after the People, not accustomed to Kings, had changed the Form of their Government into Monarchy, there was no end of their Civil Wars; they fought such fierce and bloody Battels, as almost exceed Belief; for in one Battel (which is hardly credible) Fifty Thou­sand Israelites were slain by the men of Iudah, and in another, the Israelites slew a very great number, though not specifi­ed of the men of Iudah, took the King himself Prisoner, demolish'd a great part of the Walls of Ierusalem; and, to shew, that the Rage of War hath no Moderati­on, they destroy'd the Temple, sack't the City, laden and glutted with the Spoils and Blood of their Brethren, ta­king Hostages, they leave the King in his almost ruin'd Kingdom, and more secu­red by the Weakness, than the Faith of the King of Iudah's Subjects, laid down their Arms. The men of Iudah in a few years after, recovering strength, come again into the Field, and fight another Battel, wherein the Israelites were again Victors, killing an Hundred and Twen­ty Thousand of the Men of Iudah, and [Page 404] carried away Captives Two Hundred Thousand of their Wives and Children, with a very great Booty; so that con­sumed by these and other Battels, men­tion'd in Scripture, they at last fell a prey to their Enemies. Before they had Kings, they sometimes lived in perfect peace Forty Years together; and once, which is scarce credible, Fourscore Years with­out any Forreign or Domestick War; but after they were governed by Kings, and fought not for Peace and Liberty, but the Glory of their Monarch, we find them continually embroil'd, the Reign of Solomon only excepted, whose Wis­dom and Vertue better appear'd in Peace than in War; the desire of reigning at last became so excessive, that their Kings sometimes waded to the Throne in Blood.

Lastly, During the Government of the People, the Laws remain'd in their first purity, and were constantly observed; for before Kings came in, there were very few Prophets [...] but after the Election of Kings, the Prophets grew very numerous. We read, Obadiah hid at one time an Hun­dred in a Cave, to save their Lives. We likewise find, the People were often deceived with False Prophets; the Peo­ple, before Kings had the Government, [Page 405] being as there was occasion, sometimes haughty, and sometimes humble, did, when they were in Calamity, forsake their evil ways, sought God, restored the Laws, and by these means freed themselves from danger and distress; but their Kings, whose haughty Minds can­not without shame stoop, obstinately persisted in their Sins and Vices, till the Commonwealth was utterly de­stroyed.

By all this it clearly appears, First, How dangerous it is both to Religion and Go­vernment, to put the Power of making Laws and governing, into the hands of Priests, and that it is much safer to restrain them from medling in any Business, till their Counsel be ask'd, and to keep them from preaching and teaching New Do­ctrines and Opinions.

Secondly, It is very dangerous to judge and determine of things meerly specula­tive by Scripture, or to make any Laws concerning Opinions, which are, or may be in themselves disputable. That Go­vernment is very Tyrannical, where Opi­nions are counted Crimes; 'tis a sign the angry Multitude are Masters. Pilate, to gratifie the incensed Pharisees, comman­ded Christ to be crucified: It was usual with the Pharisees, when they had a [Page 406] mind to put Worthy Persons out of their Places, and Offices of Dignity, to ask Questions concerning Religion; this made them accuse the Sadduces of Impie­ty. According to the Example of the Pharisees,, base and abominable Hypo­crites, under pretence of Zeal for Religi­on, persecute and traduce honest wor­thy vertuous men, whom for that Rea­son they envy, and by publickly inveigh­ing against their Opinions, stir up the People against their Persons. This un­worthy Practice, because it is cloaked with Religion, can hardly be restrained, where the Supreme Powers have intro­duced any Sect whereof they themselves were not Authors; for then the Secta­ries, not the Supream Powers, are ac­counted Interpreters of the Divine Law; that is, the Supream Power makes Secta­ries Interpreters of Scripture, and then the Magistrates Authority signifies little with the People, who have great Venera­tion for their Teachers, to whose Do­ctrine and Decisions they think even Kings ought to submit. To avoid all these Mischiefs, nothing can be safer for a Commonwealth, than to place all Re­ligion and Piety only in Works; that is, only in the Exercise of Justice and Cha­rity; and for Matters of Opinion, to [Page 407] leave every Man free to his own Judg­ment. But of this Particular more largely hereafter.

Thirdly, We see how necessary it is, for the good both of Religion and Go­vernment, to fix the Right and Autho­rity of determining even in things per­taining to God and Religion, and of judging what is right and what is wrong, in the Supream Powers; for if the pow­er of judging Mens Actions, could not without great danger to Religion and Government, be allow'd to the Pro­phets, much less ought it to be grant­ed to Men, who can neither prophesie or do Miracles. But of this Particular I will speak expresly in the next Chap­ter.

Fourthly, and lastly, We see how dan­gerous it is, for People never accustom­ed to Kingly Government, and have Laws accordingly framed, to chuse a Monarch; for as the People cannot en­dure such a Government, so Kingly Au­thority cannot brook Laws, or any Rights and Priviledges of the People, Establish't by any others of less Autho­rity; and a King will have very little mind to maintain Laws, wherein the Peoples Interest was more intended and provided for than his own: for in main­taining [Page 408] such Laws, he will think himself rather the Peoples Servant than their Master. A New Monarch will make it his business to make New Laws, framing the Rules of Government to his own purpose, and will reduce the People to such a Condition, that they shall not be able, with as much ease, to unmake as make a King. But here I cannot pass by another Observation, which is, That it is a very dangerous thing to take away the Life of a King, though it be evident to all the World he is an Absolute Tyrant; Because when a Nation is accustomed to Kingly Authority, and hath been go­verned only by it, they will scorn and contemn any Authority that is less; and when they have taken away one Ty­rant, they will be necessitated as here­tofore the Prophets were, to chuse ano­ther in his room, who must be a Tyrant whether he will or no; for how can he behold his Subjects Hands stain'd with Royal Blood, and approve the Fact, which was but a president, to shew how they might likewise deal with him? If he will be a King, and will have the People acknowledge his Power, and not be his Judge, he must, unless he intend to reign precariously, first revenge the Death of his Predecessor, and make the [Page 409] People an Example, that they may not dare to commit the like Parricide upon him. But how can he revenge upon the People the Death of a Tyrant, un­less he first defend the former Tyrant's Cause, approve his Actions, and conse­quently tread in his steps? Hence it comes to pass, that people may indeed change, but never destroy a Tyrant, or turn anci­ent Monarchical Government into any o­ther form. Of this the People of a King­dom not far from us, have given the World a fatal Example, who under co­lour and form of Law and Justice, took away their King's Life; and when he was gone, they could do no less than change the form of Government; but after much Blood spilt, it came to this pass at last, that another person was set up, not by the Name of King (as if all the Quar­rel had been for nothing but a Name,) who could not possibly stand, unless he destroyed the Royal Line, and all that were suspected to be the last King's Friends: He disturb'd the Quiet of Peace, which breeds Rumors, with new Wars, that thereby he might divert the Minds of the People from reflecting upon the King's Murder; but the Nation at last finding they had done nothing for the publick good, by putting to Death their [Page 410] Lawful King, and by changing the Go­vernment, had brought themselves into a Condition worse than they were in be­fore, they resolved to return from whence they had strayed; nor were they quiet till they saw all things restor'd to their former state. Perhaps some will object the Example of the People of Rome, who with much ease rid themselves of a Tyrant; but their Example, I think, makes good my Opinion; for though the People of Rome could easily destroy a Tyrant, and change their form of Go­vernment, because the Power and Right of chusing a King and his Successor, was in the People; and because the People (amongst whom were many criminal and seditious persons) were not accustomed to Kings, for of Six they kill'd Three, yet still they did nothing, but in the place of one Tyrant chuse many, who kept them always embroil'd in Foreign and Civil War, till the Government, under another Name, as it did lately in England, fell again to a Monarch; but the States of Holland never, that we know, had Kings, but only Earls or Counts, upon whom the Supream Power was devolved: for the States, by their Declaration publisht in the time of the Earl of Leicester, make it evident, That they still reserved to them­selves [Page 411] the Power and Authority of mind­ing those Counts of their Duty, and like­wise kept continually in their own hands the power of maintaining their own Au­thority, and defending their Subjects Li­berty; in case those Counts did at any time abuse their power, the States had still Au­thority to restrain and punish them, that they could do nothing without their Con­sent and Approbation. Whence it clearly follows, that the Right of Supream Power and Majesty always resided in the States, which Power the last Earl endeavouring to usurp, the States could not possibly be thought guilty of any Revolt or Rebelli­on, when they did only restore their al­most lost Government to its Pristine State: These Examples fully prove, That ancient Forms of Government ought to be pre­served, and cannot, without great danger of total ruine, be changed.

WHen I said, That they only who have the Supream Power, have Right to all things, and that all things depend upon their Decrees, I meant things Sacred as well as Civil; that is, Supream Magistrates are the Supream Heads, Judges, and Interpreters of all things both in Church and State, which is the particular Point I intended to treat of in this Chapter, because there are many, who will not allow Supream Civil Magi­strates to have any power over things Sa­cred, nor will they own them to be Judges or Interpreters of God's Law, but with strange Boldness accuse and traduce them; [Page 413] yea, sometimes (as heretofore Ambrose did the Emperor Theodosius) Excommunicate them out of the Church. But, as it will appear in the end of this Chapter, these Men have a mind to divide and share the Government, or get it wholly into their own hands.

I will first shew, That Religion hath the Force of a Law, only from their Decrees who have the Supream Power; and that all External Religious Worship, and Outward Practice of Piety, ought to be suited and ac­commodated to the Peace of the Common­wealth; (That is) so ordered and regula­ted, as may make most for the Quiet there­of, and consequently ought to be deter­min'd and settled by the Supream Power, to whose Judgment in all Causes, Sacred and Civil, we ought to submit. But that I may not be mistaken, I speak only of the outward Worship and Exercise of Religi­on and Piety, and not of Piety it self, and the inward Worship of God, or of the Means whereby the Mind is internally dis­posed to worship God in sincerity: for the inward Worship of God, and Piety it self, is in every man's own power, (as we have shewn in the end of the Seventh Chapter) which power no man can trans­fer upon another. It appears by the Four­teenth Chapter, what I mean by the King­dom [Page 414] of God, where I shew, That he ful­filleth the Law of God, who exerciseth Justice and Charity, because God hath commanded it; from whence it follows, That the Kingdom of God, is where Ju­stice and Charity have the force of a Law and Precept. I think there is little diffe­rence, whether God teach us the Practice of Justice and Charity by Natural Light, or by Revelation, or whether God com­mand it; for it matters not how it was revealed, so as it obtain the Force of a Law, and become in the highest Degree obligatory to Men. If I then prove, That Justice and Charity cannot become a Law or Command, but by the Power and Command of the Supream Powers, it will be easily granted (seeing Supream Power is always in the hands of the Supream Ma­gistrates,) that Religion becomes a bind­ing Law, only by their Decrees, who have the Power of Government, and that God hath no peculiar Kingdom over Men, but by them who have the Supream Ru­ling Power. That the outward Practice of Justice and Charity becomes an obliga­tory Law by the Command of the Supream governing Power, appears by what I have said in the Fourteenth Chapter, where I have declared, That in the State of Na­ture, Reason cannot pretend to any great­er [Page 415] power than Natural Appetite may; and that they who live according to the Laws and Dictates of Natural Appetite, have as much Right to all things within their Power, as they that live according to the Rules of Reason: So that for this very Reason we cannot conceive, there can be in the State of Nature any sin, nor can we think God to be a Judge punishing sins, but all things carried on in their course, according to the Laws of Univer­sal Nature; to use Solomon's own Words, all things come alike to all, there is one e­vent to the righteous and to the wicked, to the clean and to the unclean, no place be­ing left for Justice and Charity. But that the Dictates of Reason (that is, as I have shew'd in the Fourteenth Chapter,) the Di­vine Law written in our hearts, might ob­tain the strength and force of a Law, it was necessary, that every man should part from his Natural Right, and transfer it ei­ther upon all, upon some, or upon one; and that then we first came to know what was Justice and what Injustice, what Equity and what Iniquity: Justice there­fore, and the Dictates of Right Reason, with Love to our Neighbour, becomes a Precept and obligatory Law, by the Pow­er and Decrees of Supream Magistrates; and because, as I have shew'd, the King­dom [Page 416] of God consists in the power that Ju­stice, Charity, and true Religion have o­ver us, by becoming a Law to us; there­fore it follows, that God hath no peculiar Kingdom over Men, but by those who have the Supream Ruling Power. Whe­ther we consider Religion revealed to us by natural or prophetical Light, the De­monstration is Universal, seeing Religion is the same, and equally revealed by God, which way soever it be supposed to come to our knowledge; and therefore that Re­ligion prophetically revealed, might obtain the force of a Law among the Iews, it was necessary every man should first part with his natural Right, and that all with one common consent, should resolve to obey and submit to all things which should by God be prophetically revealed to them; just as People do in Democratical Go­vernment, where all with common con­sent resolve to live according to the Di­ctates of Reason; and though the Iews did transfer their Power upon God, yet they did it more in opinion than reality; for the Supream Power really and abso­lutely remained still in them till they trans­ferr'd it upon Moses; who was thence­forward an absolute King, and by him on­ly God reigned over the Iews. More­over, because Religion became a Law on­ly [Page 417] by the Power of the Supream Govern­ment, Moses could punish none before the Covenant was made, because then no man had parted with his own Power and Right. They broke the Sabbath before the Covenant was made, and were not pu­nished, as appears ( Exod. chap. v. 27.) but after the Covenant, when every man had parted with his Natural Right, he that broke the Sabbath only by gathering sticks, was stoned, as appears ( Numb. chap. 15. v. 36.) and the observation of the Sabbath when the People had parted with their Power, became a Law by the Com­mand of the Supream Magistrate. Last­ly, Upon this very ground also, when the Commonwealth and Government of the Iews was destroyed, Revealed Religion had no longer the Force of a Law; for without doubt, as soon as the Iews trans­ferr'd their Power upon the King of Baby­lon, the Covenant of the Kingdom of God, and the Obligation of the Divine Law ceased; for as soon as they were Subjects to the King of Babylon, the Co­venant whereby they promised to obey God in all things became void, and they could no longer perform it: From the time they were subjected to the King of Babylon, they were no longer in their own power (as they were in the Desart and [Page 418] their own Country), but were in all things obliged to obey the King of Babylon (as appears by what we have said in the Six­teen Chapter), and by what Ieremy saith ( Chap. 29. v. 7.) Seek ye the peace of that City whither I have caused ye to be earried captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. They could not seek or provide for the peace of that City as Ministers of Government, be­cause they were Captives; and therefore they were to do it as Servants or Subjects, by keeping themselves free from Sedition, and by observing the Laws of the Go­vernment, though very different from those of their own Country: By which it is evident, that Religion among the Iews obtain'd the force of a Law by the Com­mand of the Supream Power, which Pow­er being destroyed, Religion was no more a Law or Command of that particular Go­vernment, but was to be accounted a ge­neral Dictate of Reason: I say, of Rea­son, because Catholick Religion was not yet known by Revelation; we therefore conclude, that Religion, whether it be natural or revealed, acquires the Force of a Command only by the Decree of those who have the Supream Power; and God hath no peculiar Kingdom over Men, but by the Supream Magistrate. And this is [Page 419] made more clear by what hath been said in the Fourteenth Chapter, where we have shewn, That all God's Decrees imply E­ternal Verity and Necessity; nor can we conceive God as a Prince or Lawgiver to Men; therefore Divine Documents made known to us by the light of Nature, or revealed to us by the Prophets, have not the force of a Law immediately from God, but must necessarily receive it from those, or by their means, who have the Power of commanding and making Laws; and by their means only we apprehend that God reigns over Men, and directs Humane Affairs according to Justice and Equity, which is also proved by Experience; for we can find no Footsteps of Divine Ju­stice, but where the just reign: otherwise (to use Solomon's Expression once more,) the like event is to the righteous and to the wicked, to the clean and to the unclean; which made many doubt God's Provi­dence, who believed, that God did im­mediately reign over Men, and made U­niversal Nature only for their use. See­ing then both Reason and Experience make it evident, that the power of the Divine Law depends upon the Decrees of the Supream Magistrate, it follows, that the Supream Powers are Interpreters of it. Upon what account we shall presently [Page 420] declare, but first we will shew, That the External Worship of God, and the Exer­cise of Piety, if we will rightly obey God, ought to be perform'd and regula­ted in such a manner, as may best suit with, and is most likely to preserve the Peace of the Commonwealth.

Certainly a Man's Piety and Love to his Country ought to be very great; for take away Government, farewel all hope of benefit or safety, all things are present­ly in a perillous Condition, and the Reign of Rage and Impiety fills all Peo­ples Minds with Terror and Confusion. Whence it must follow, that what good soever I do to my Neighbour, if it be de­structive to the Commonwealth, may be counted Impiety; and on the other side, any hurt done to my Neighbour for the preservation of the Commonwealth, ought to be accounted Charity; (for Example) if a Man strive with me for my Coat, it is very great Charity in me to give him my Cloak also; but where this may endanger the safety of Government, it is much greater Charity to bring that Man to Ju­stice, though I know he will be condemn'd to death. Manlius Torquatus is celebra­ted in Story, for preferring the Peoples Publick Safety before his own Son's Life. If then Publick Safety be above all Laws, [Page 421] and all Laws, both Divine and Humane, have a special regard to it; if it likewise be the Office and Duty only of the Su­pream Power, to determine what is for the Publick Safety of Government, and to command whatever it thinks is so, 'tis a necessary consequence, that no body but the Supream Power ought to determine in what manner a Man ought to shew his Love to his Neighbour; that is, in what manner he is bound to obey God. So that now we understand why, and upon what ground the Supream Powers are Arbiters and Interpreters of Religion, and that no body can rightly obey God, if he do not accommodate the Publick Practice of Piety whereto every man is obliged, to the publick benefit and peace of the Com­monwealth, by observing all Commands of the Supream Powers; for seeing we are all bound to practice Piety towards all men, none excepted, and to do no man any Injury, it follows, That it is not law­ful for any man to do good to one, if thereby he hurt another; much less if he thereby endanger the Commonwealth; and no person can, according to God's Command, practice Charity towards his Neighbour, unless his Religion and Cha­rity be so regulated, as to promote the Publick Good. Now no private man can [Page 422] know what is for the Publick Good, un­less it be by the Decrees and Laws of the Supream Power, whose business it is to take care of the Commonwealth; and therefore no man can rightly practice Pie­ty, and obey God, unless he be obedient to the Decrees and Determinations of the Supream Power, which is verified by com­mon practice: for it is not lawful for any Subject to help or assist any Man, whom the Supream Power hath judged worthy of Death, or declared to be a publick E­nemy. Though the Iews were comman­ded to love their neighbours as themselves, ( Levit. chap. 19. v. 8.) yet if any man had offended against the Commands of the Law, they were bound to make it known to the Judge, and in case he were condemned to Death, to kill him ( Deut. 13. 8, 9. and 17. 7.) That the Iews might preserve their Liberty, and keep their Lands in their own possession, it was ne­cessary (as we have shewn in the Seven­teenth Chapter) to accommodate their Religion to their Government, and se­parate themselves from other Nations. It was therefore said, Love thy neighbour, but hate thine enemy, ( Matth. chap. 15. v. 43.) But after they lost their Government, and were carried away Captives to Babylon, then Ieremy bid them seek the peace of [Page 423] that City: And because Christ knew they were to be scattered and dispersed into all parts of the World, he taught them the Practice of Charity to all Mankind in general; which evidently proves, That Religion was always accommodated to the publick benefit of the Common­wealth. If any man ask me, by what Right or Authority the Disciples of Christ, who were but private persons, could preach Religion? I say, they did it by Vertue of that Power they received from Christ against unclean Spirits: (See Matth. chap. 10. v. 1.) I have in the end of my Sixteenth Chapter expresly declared, That all men are bound to keep Faith with a Tyrant, unless it be such a one a­gainst whom God hath by Revelation pro­mis'd his particular assistance; and there­fore none can take Example from the A­postles, unless he have also power to do Miracles, which appears by what Christ said to his Disciples, ( Matth. chap. 10. v. 28.) Fear not those who can kill the bo­dy. Had this been said generally to all men, Government would be to no pur­pose, and those Words of Solomon not at all to be regarded, ( Prov. chap. 24. v. 21.) My son, fear God and the King. We must therefore conclude, That the Authority which Christ gave his Disci­ples, [Page 424] was in a particular manner given only to them, and ought not to be drawn into example by others. I value not the Reasons which are urged against this Opinion, by them that would have the Civil Power to be in the Civil Ma­gistrate; but all things pertaining to Re­ligion in the Power of the Church; their Reasons are so frivolous they need no re­futation; yet I cannot chuse but take no­tice, how mightily those men are decei­ved, who to maintain (pardon the Ex­pression) their seditious Humour, urge the Authority of the High Priest among the Iews; who, say they, was the sole Administrator of all things that were sa­cred and concern'd Religion: But those men may remember the High Priests re­ceived that Power from Moses, who, as we have proved, was the person that had the Supream Power, and by whose Command or Decree, the High Priest could at any time be divested and de­prived of his Power; for Moses did not only chuse Aaron, but also his Son Elea­zer, and his Nephew Phineas, and gave them power to exercise the Pontifical Of­fice; and though the Priests always kept that power, yet nevertheless were they still but the Substitutes of Moses; that is, of the Supream Power: for as we have [Page 425] made it appear, Moses chose no Successors, but so distributed all his own Offices, that they who came after him, seemed but such Deputies as administer the Govern­ment for absent, not deceased Kings. In the second Government the High Priests were indeed the Supream Magistrates, but that was after they had usurped the Re­gal Power; but before that Usurpation, the Priests always depended upon the Decrees of the Supream Power, and their Kings had absolute power over all things pertaining to Religion (as shall appear by what will be said towards the End of this Chapter.) 'Tis true their Kings could not personally officiate as a Priest in the Temple, because all men that could not derive their Pedigree from Aaron, were counted profane and unclean, which is now no Obstacle in a Christian Common­wealth; for in these days, the Priest­hood not being entailed upon any parti­cular Family, but requiring only some particular Qualifications, Kings or Su­pream Magistrates, cannot be barred from medling with Matters belonging to Religion, upon any account of profane­ness; but all is in their power, and no body, but by their authority or allow­ance, hath any Right to officiate in the Church: for the Power of chusing Mini­sters, [Page 426] of setling the Church, of stating and determining the Doctrines thereof, prescribing Religious Rites and Cere­monies, judging of Mens Piety and Man­ners, the power of excommunicating and receiving again into the Church, and of providing for the poor, are all in the Su­pream Magistrate; and these things are not only true, but likewise very neces­sary, not only for the good of Religi­on, but also for the safety of the Com­monwealth; for all men know, how much the People esteem and depend up­on the Power and Authority of those, whose Function is accounted Sacred, they having an absolute Dominion over their Minds. He then that endeavours to de­prive the Supream Magistrate of this Power, goes about to share and divide, or else usurp the Government; from whence must necessarily arise such Con­tention and Discords, as were hereto­fore between the Kings and Iewish High Priests, which could never be appeased. If this Power be taken away from Su­pream Magistrates, how can they deter­mine of Peace or War, or of any other Business, if they must be obliged to fol­low other Mens Opinions, by whom they are to be taught what is good or evil? That Power is Supream, and there can [Page 427] be none greater, which hath the Right of declaring and determining what is Piety, what Impiety, and what in Reli­gion is lawful or unlawful. All Ages have been sensible, how many Mischiefs such a Power in any but the Supream Magistrate, hath produced: I will give you but one Example: As soon as such a Power was granted to the Pope, or Bi­shop of Rome, by degrees he became Su­periour to all Kings, and at last ascended to so high a pitch of earthly Dominion, that whatever Kings or Emperours have since done to lessen it, hath been to no purpose; but they have rather much en­creased it, and that which no Monarch e­ver effected by Fire and Sword, Church­men have been able to do only with their Pen; which is a plain proof of the Pope's Power, and a convincing Argu­ment to perswade Supream Powers, to keep that Authority he pretends to in their own hands. If we consider the Ob­servations I have made in the preceding Chapter, we shall find, that the residing of this Power in the hands of Supream Magistrates, is very much for the Benefit and Advancement of Religion and Piety; for as I have already declared, the Pro­phets themselves, though fill'd with Di­vine Power and Vertue, yet because [Page 428] they were but private men, the great Liberty they took in admonishing, re­proving, and upbraiding the People, did rather provoke than amend them; who notwithstanding patiently submitted to the Reproof and Chastisement of their Princes. Besides, Kings themselves, be­cause they had not the power of judging and determining Matters of Religion, many times forsook the true Religion, and most of their People with them; which hath likewise, upon the same ac­count, often happen'd in Christian Go­vernments. But here perhaps some will ask, if Supream Powers should chance to be wicked, who shall then have the Power and Authority of vindicating and maintaining Religion and Piety? And who shall then be the Interpreters of it? I ask them on the other side, What if Priests and Ecclesiasticks grow wicked and impious, must they continue Inter­preters of Religion, and God's Word? If they that have Supream Power should do whatever they please, whether they do, or do not meddle with Religion, all things without doubt, both Sacred and Civil, are like to be in a very ill Con­dition; but in much worse, when pri­vate men shall seditiously pretend to a Divine Right, of defining and defend­ing [Page 429] all chings which concern, or in any wise pertain to Religion. The denying of this Power to Supream Magistrates, must necessarily cause very ill Consequen­ces; for they will in all probability (as did the Iewish Kings, who had not this Power absolutely) grow wicked and un­godly, and from that which is but un­certain and contingent, will follow most certain Mischief and Ruin to the Govern­ment. If then we have any regard either to the Just Right of Supream Power, to the safety of Government, or the ad­vancement of Religion and Piety, we must grant, that the regulating and de­termining all things concerning Religi­on, and the Worship of God, depends upon the Decrees of the Supream Power; and that such only are Ministers of God's Word, who are authoriz'd by the Su­pream Magistrate, to teach and instruct the people in those principles of Religion and Piety, which they that have the Su­pream Power, think most likely to pro­cure the publick Good of the Common­wealth.

I have now no more to do, but to de­clare the Cause, why in Christian Govern­ments there hath been so much dispute a­bout this Power, when in the Iewish Com­monwealth [Page 430] it never, that I know, came into controversie. It is little less than a Wonder, that a thing so necessary and profitable, should still be a Question, and the Subject of continual Cavil; and that Supream Magistrates should never be a­ble to exercise this Power, without con­tention, and without fear of danger and prejudice to Religion. If the Cause of this could not be found out, I would confess all I have said in this Chapter, to be meer Theoretical Speculative Notions, of no use; but any person that will but look back, and consider the beginnings of Christian Religion, may easily disco­ver the Cause of this Controversie. They that first taught Christian Religion, were not Kings, but private persons, who con­trary to the Will and Commands of those in Supream Power, whose Subjects they were, preached in private Churches or Congregations, and instituted Forms of Worship, without any respect had, or account given to the Government; and likewise regulated and determined all things relating to Religion. Though Christian Religion, after many years, be­gan to be profest in Commonwealths, by those that had the Supream Power, yet the Ecclesiasticks, who instructed Empe­rours and Kings in the Christian Religi­on, [Page 431] were, without any difficulty, still acknowledged Teachers and Interpreters of God's Word, Pastors of the Church, and God's Ministers; but that Christian Kings and Princes might not afterwards assume any such Authority to themselves, Churchmen very warily provided against it, by forbidding the Chief Ministers and the High Priest of the Church to marry, by multiplying the Doctrines and Tenets of Religion to a prodigious number, and by so confounding them with Philosophy, that it was absolutely necessary for the Chief Interpreter, and Judge of Religi­on, to be a Philosopher as well as a Divine, and to busie himself in unprofitable Spe­culations, fit only to take up private mens time, who have nothing else to do. But it was far otherwise in the Iewish Commonwealth; for their Church be­gan with their Government, and Moses, who was the Supream Magistrate, taught the people Religion, setled their Forms of Worship, and chose their Priests. This was that which made Kingly Authority so much esteemed by the People, and put the Right and Power of all things per­taining to Religion, into the hands of Supream Magistrates; for though after the Death of Moses, no Man governed so absolutely as he did, yet the Right [Page 432] and Power of determining all things concerning Religion, as well as other Affairs, still remained, as we have al­ready proved, in the Prince; and the People, to be instructed in Religion and Piety, were no more bound to go to the High Priest, than they were to the Chief Iudge, ( Deut. chap. 17. v. 9, 11, 12) Thou shalt come to the Priests, the Levites, and to the Chief Iudge, that shall be in those days to enquire; and he that will not hear­ken unto the Priest, or unto the Iudge, that man shall die. Though the Kings had not power equal to that of Moses, yet the Priests and Levites were appointed and ordered to do what the Kings thought fit; for, as it appears in (1 Chron. chap. 28. v. 11, 12.) King David order'd how the Temple should be built, according to a Model he prescribed; and as it ap­pears in the 23 d Chapter of the same Book, David, out of all the Levites, chose twenty four thousand to set forward the building of the Temple, six thousand to be Officers and Iudges, four thousand to be Porters, and four thousand to praise the Lord upon musical Instruments: he likewise divided the Levites into companies, and set Rulers over them, which Companies were to serve and wait in their turns. For o­ther particulars, I refer the Reader to [Page 433] the (28 th Chapter of the 2 d Book of Chron. v. 13.) where it is said, That King Solomon commanded Offerings to be made according as Moses instituted: And ( ver. 14.) it is said, That Solomon, according to the order of David his Father, appoint­ed the Courses of the Priests and Levites to their Service and Charges; and ( ver. 15.) the Historian saith, They departed not from the Commandment of the King, given to the Priests and Levites, concerning any matter, or concerning the Treasures. By all which, & by other Histories of their Kings, it is evident, that the whole Exercise of Religion, and all the Service that con­cerned it, depended only upon their King's Command: And tho' their Kings had not, as Moses had, the Power of chu­sing the High-Priest, or of consulting God without him, or of condemning the Prophets that prophesy'd in their Reigns, the Prophets having power to chuse a new King, and to pardon any that had taken away a King's Life; yet, I say, the Prophets themselves had no power to call any King to an account for breaking the Laws, or in any judicial manner and form to proceed against or condemn him. And therefore if there had been no Prophets who by particular Revela­tion could pardon the killing of a King, [Page 434] Kings in the Jewish Commonwealth must have had absolute Power over all things both Sacred and Civil, as Supreme Powers have in these our Days, who have no Prophets, nor are obliged to receive any; being in no wise bound by the Laws of the Jews Commonwealth. And this Pow­er, tho' our Kings marry, they absolute­ly have, and may keep, if they do not suffer Doctrines and Articles of Religion to be multiplied, or mingled and con­founded with Arts and Sciences.

WEre it as easie to command Mens Minds, as it is their Tongues, all Supreme Powers would reign securely, and no Government would be Violent or Tyrannical: For then every Man would live according to the Will of those in Supreme Power, and would think every thing true or false, good or evil, just or unjust, according to their Determinations and Decrees. But it is impossible, as we have observed in the beginning of the 17 th Chapter, that any Man's Mind or Thoughts should be in another Man's power; because no Man can transfer, or be compelled to transfer his natural Right of Reasoning and Judg­ing of Things, upon any other Man: And therefore that Government is count­ed Tyrannical, which would reign over [Page 436] Mens Minds; and Supreme Powers do their Subjects wrong, and deprive them of their just Right, when they command them to receive or reject, according to their Prescriptions, whatever they declare to be true or false; and positively ap­point what Opinions and Notions Men in their Devotions shall have of God; which is a thing wholly in a Man's own power, and from which no Man, tho' he would, can part. I confess, a Man's Judgment may be so many ways prepossest, that tho it be not directly and absolutely in another Man's power, yet it may have such a dependence on him, as to be thought very much at his dispose; but in spite of all that Art can do, Men will abound in their own Sense, and there will for ever be as many diversities of Opinions, as there are of Palats: Tho' Moses, not by Craft, but by Divine Power, had so pre­possest the Minds of his People, that they believed he said and did all things by Di­vine Inspiration; yet he could not escape ill Reports and sinister Interpretations; much less then can other Monarchs. Were the thing possible, it might rather be done in Monarchical, than in Democratical Go­vernment, which is managed by an As­sembly of all, or the greatest part of the People; and the Reason I think is obvious.

[Page 437]Tho' Supreme Powers have right to all things, and are believed to be Interpre­ters both of Law and Religion; yet they could never keep Men from judging of things according to their Reason and Ca­pacities, nor from being this or that way affected. They may indeed account all men Enemies who do not in all things ab­solutely think as they do; but we do not here dispute of their Power, but of what is most convenient and profitable. I grant, that Supreme Powers may Reign Tyrannically, and put Subjects to death for very slight Causes, if they please; but all Men will deny that this can be done with Reason or Prudence, because it will prove dangerous and destructive to the Government: Yea, it may be denied that Supreme Magistrates have absolute Pow­er, and consequently have not absolute Right to do such things as these; because we have proved, that the Right of Su­preme Magistrates is determined by their Power. If then no Man can part with this Liberty of Judging and Thinking what he will, but every Man by the Sovereign Right of Nature is Master of his own Thoughts. Supreme Powers in any Commonwealth can never hope for Success, in prescribing to Men of diffe­rent Opinions, Limits and Rules for what [Page 438] they shall say: For if Wise-men cannot keep silence, much less can the ignorant Multitude hold their peace, it being all Mens Infirmity, tho' never so much Se­cresie be required, to make others privy to their Counsels: And therefore that Government is Violent, where every Man is deny'd the Liberty of saying and de­claring what he thinks; and that Go­vernment is moderate and well ordered, where such a Liberty is allow'd. 'Tis true, and no Man can deny, but that Supreme Magistrates may be injur'd and offended by Words as well as Deeds; and tho' it be impossible wholly to take away this Liberty from Subjects, yet, on the other side, it will be pernicious to put no Restraint upon it: So that now my Business is to shew, how far this Liberty, without any danger to the Peace of the Commonwealth, or prejudice to the Right of Supreme Power, may and ought to be allow'd; which was, as I have hinted in the beginning of the 16 th Chapter, my chief Intention and Design.

From the Fundamentals of Govern­ment which I have already explain'd, it clearly follows, That the ultimate End of Government is not to domineer, and keep Men in fear and Subjection; but to free Men from Terror, that every Man [Page 439] may, as far as 'tis possible, live securely; that is, may still retain his natural Right of subsisting and acting without hurting himself, or any other person. I say, The End of Government is not to turn Rati­onal Men into Beasts or walking Engines, but to suffer both their Souls and Bodies to do each their proper Duties, allowing them the free Use of Reason, that they may not by Hatred, Envy, Anger, or Deceit, become Enemies to one another: So that the End of Publick Government is indeed Liberty; and to the forming of a Commonwealth, it is absolutely ne­cessary, that the Power of making Laws and Decrees should be either in all, in some, or in one single Person: For seeing in every Man's Opinion, tho' it be free, there is difference and variety, and eve­ry Man is apt to believe that he knows all things; 'tis impossible to make them all of one mind, or to agree in their Discourse. So that they can never live peaceably, unless every one part with his power of doing what his own Mind prompts him to. But tho' every one part with the power of doing what he plea­ses, yet he doth not part with his power of Reasoning and Judging; so that tho' he cannot without offence act or do any thing against the Decrees or Determina­tions [Page 440] of the Supreme Powers; yet he may freely think, judge, and consequent­ly speak; provided in what he simply speaks or teacheth, there be Reason, and no crafty malicious Design, through Ha­tred or Revenge, to make, by vertue of his own Authority, Innovation in the Commonwealth. For example, If a Man think a particular Law contrary to right Reason, and therefore fit to be repeal­ed; yet if he submit his Opinion to the Judgment of the Supreme Power, (whose Right it is to make and repeal Laws) and in the mean time do nothing con­trary to the Tenor of that Law, he de­serves well of the Commonwealth; as doth every good Subject: But if, on the contrary, he speak against that Law pur­posely to accuse the Magistrate of Inju­stice, and to render him odious to the People; or if he seditiously endeavour to abrogate that Law, in spite of the Magistrate, he is a rebellious Disturber of the Publick Peace.

We see then upon what ground every Man, without prejudice to the Peace of the Gommonwealth, or to the Right of Supreme Powers, may speak and teach what he thinks, if he leave them the power of regulating Mens Actions, and do nothing contrary to their Decrees, [Page 441] tho' he sometimes do contrary to that which in his own Opinion and Judgment he thinks to be good; which notwith­standing he may with a good Conscience, yea ought to do, if he will be accounted a good Subject. For, as I have already shewn, Justice depends upon the Decrees of the Supreme Power, and no Man can be said to be Just, unless he live accord­ing to the known Laws. Piety, as I have declared in the preceding Chapter, chief­ly consists in the practice of things which preserve the Peace and Tranquillity of the Commonwealth; which cannot pos­sibly be preserved, if every Man should live as he pleaseth: And therefore 'tis Impiety in any Subject, to act contrary to the Decrees of the Supreme Power; because, were it lawful for every Man so to do, the total Ruine of the Com­monwealth must necessarily follow. No Man can be said to act against the Di­ctates of his own Reason, who submits to the Decrees of the Supreme Power; because every Man by the persuasions of his own Reason resolved to part with his Right of Living according to his own Will: And this is proved by practice; for in Councils compos'd of the Supreme or Subordinate Powers, it seldom hap­pens that any thing is decreed or deter­min'd [Page 442] by the universal Consent and ge­neral Vote of all the Members; yet the Results of those Counsels, whatever they be, are always accounted as much the Decrees of those who voted against, as of those that voted for them: So that by the very Principles of Government, we see, that without any wrong done to the Rights of Supreme Power, a Man may use the Liberty of his own Judg­ment: And 'tis very easie from the Fun­damentals of Government, to determine what Opinions in a Commonwealth are to be accounted Seditious; namely, those which directly nullifie and destroy the Covenant, whereby every Man obliged himself to part with his Right of Living according to his own Will. For exam­ple, If any Man think the Supreme Pow­er is subject to some other Power; that a Man ought not to perform his Promi­ses; or, that it is lawful for every Man to live as he pleases: These, and the like Opinions, render a Man seditious, because they are directly repugnant to the fore­said Covenant; not barely because they are his Judgment and Opinion, but be­cause such Opinions have in them a great deal of Crime and Guilt: For even by so thinking, a Man tacitly breaks all the Bonds of that Fidelity which he promi­sed [Page 443] to the Supreme Power. Therefore other Opinions, which contain no actual Breach of the Covenant, no Revenge, no Anger, &c. are not to be accounted Se­ditious, unless it be in a Commonwealth where Reason is depraved, and where ambitious and superstitious Men are grown to such a heighth, that they cannot en­dure those that are honest or ingenuous, but will have the People think their Au­thority greater than the Supreme Magi­strate's. I do not deny, but that there may be some Opinions, which tho' they seem to intend nothing but simply to argue and judge, what is true, and what false; yet they may be very maliciously pro­pounded and divulged: Of these we spoke in the 15 th. Chapter, but so that Reason nevertheless should remain free. Lastly, If we seriously consider, that eve­ry Man's Fidelity to the Commonwealth, as his Faith towards God, ought to be judged and known only by his Works; namely, by Charity towards his Neigh­bour; we cannot doubt but that the best Commonwealths will give every Man the same Liberty of Reasoning, that they do of Believing. I confess, by such a Liberty some Inconveniences may some­times happen: But what Wisdom and Pru­dence can prevent all Inconveniences? [Page 444] He that by Laws thinks to prevent all, will sooner provoke then amend vicious Men. Inconveniences that cannot possi­bly be prevented or avoided, must be tolerated; we must bear with them, tho' we suffer by them. Of how many Mis­chiefs are Luxury, Drunkenness, Envy, and Covetousness the Cause? Yet these are tolerated, because tho' they be Vices, it is not in the power of Laws to re­strain them. How much more then ought Liberty of Judgment to be allowed, which is truly a Vertue, and should not be sup­prest? No Inconveniences can arise from it, which may not, as I will prove, be avoided by the Authority of the Supreme Magistrate. Beside, this Liberty is very necessary to the Advancement of Arts and Sciences, in which the greatest pro­ficiency is made by those men who have their Judgments free from preoccupa­tion. But suppose mens mouths may be stopt, and so awed, that they shall not dare to utter any thing against the Determinations of the Supreme Power; yet 'tis still impossible to keep them from thinking what they please; and when men think ill of Magistrates, there breach of Faith soon follows; and no­thing is to be expected in such a Com­monwealth, but abominable Flattery, [Page 445] Perfidy, and the destruction of all in­genious Arts. 'Tis not so easie a mat­ter to keep men from talking; the great­er care is taken to keep them silent, the more many times will they talk. Per­haps Covetous men, Flatterers, and mean­spirited People, who place their chiefest Felicity in filling their Bags and their Bellies, may hold their Peace; but ver­tuous honest men, who have had Liberal Education, cannot be silent: Such is mens Nature, that nothing is a greater Vexation to them, than to see those Opi­nions, which they verily believe to be true, condemn'd; and themselves ac­counted wicked and sinful, for doing that which they think is their Duty both to­wards God and Man. This makes them detest the Laws, and count any seditious Attempts against the Magistrate lawful and just. In Laws against Opinions, wicked men are seldom concern'd; such Laws are commonly made, not to re­strain bad, but to provoke good men; and cannot be defended without a great deal of danger to the Government: Such Laws are likewise useless; for men cannot obey Laws which condemn those Opinions they firmly believe to be true: And, on the other side, they who think those Opinions false, take the Laws that [Page 446] condemn them, to be be their Privile­ges; wherein they so triumph, that af­terward the Magistrate, if he would, is not able to repeal them. Lastly, The making of such Laws hath often caused great Schisms in the Church; for if men did not hope with the general applause of the People to insult over their Adver­saries, and get Preferment, by procuring the Magistrate to favour, and the Laws to countenance their Opinions, Learned Doctors would quickly leave their fierce Disputes, and bitter Contentions. Rea­son and daily Examples tell us, That Laws which command what every man must believe, and forbid speaking or writing against this or that Opinion, are commonly instituted to gratifie or give way to the Passions of those, who ra­ther than endure a Baffle from ingenious men, will with their stern and morose Authority turn the Peoples Zeal into Fury, and hound them on upon whom they please. But would it not be much better, to suppress the Anger and Rage of the Multitude, rather than make Laws against men that love Vertue and Learn­ing, and bring the Commonwealth into such a Condition, that honest harmless men cannot live in it? What can be more mischievous to a Commonwealth, [Page 447] than to send Honest men like Rogues in­to Banishment, only because they are of this or that Opinion, and cannot dissem­ble? Can any thing be more pernicious, than to treat Persons of a free ingenuous disposition like Enemies, and for no Crime or Wickedness put them to death, making the Scaffold, which frights none but Villains, a publick Theatre whereon innocent Persons give such Examples of Courage and Patience, as turn to the shame and reproach of the Supreme Ma­gistrate's Majesty? They that know them­selves to be honest, never fear Punish­ment, as the wicked do; neither will they by base whining Submissions and Recantations endeavour to avoid it: Their innocent Minds are not troubled with Guilt or Repentance; they do not think it shameful, but glorious, to die for Liberty and a good Cause. To whom can their Death be a Terror? The base ignorant Multitude know not why they suffer; honest men are their Friends, and none but seditious Persons their Enemies; and all but base Sycophants and Flatte­rers, are ready to follow their Example. That Faith and Honesty then may be in greater esteem, than Flattery and Dissi­mulation; that Supreme Magistrates may keep their Power, and not be forced to [Page 448] yield to seditious Persons, Liberty of Judgment ought to be allowed, and men are so to be govern'd, that tho' they be of different and contrary Opinions, they may however live together in peace and amity. Without doubt this way of Go­verning is best, and subject to least In­conveniences, seeing it is most agreeable to Mens Nature: For in Democratical Government (which comes nearest to the State of Nature) all covenant to act, but not to reason and judge by common Consent; my meaning is, because all men cannot think the same things, they have agreed to make that a binding Law which had most Voices, reserving still a Power of repealing that Law, when they thought fit. And therefore where there is least Liberty allow'd of Judging, there men are farthest from their natural State, and the Government is full of Force and Violence. To make it evident, that from this Liberty can arise no Inconve­niences which the Supreme Magistrate may not with ease avoid, and keep men of contrary Opinions from hurting one another, I need not go far for Examples. The City of Amsterdam hath, to the won­der of all the World, and its own great advantage, tasted the Fruits and Benefit of this Liberty; for in that flourishing [Page 449] Commonwealth and famous City, men of all Nations and Religions live together in peace; and when they would trust any man with Goods or Money, they only desire to know whether he be rich or poor, or whether in his Dealing he be a man of his Word, or a cheating Knave; they never enquire of what Religion or Sect he is, neither is that re­garded in any Court of Justice; there is no Sect so odious, but hath the Publick Magistrate's Protection, if they do no man wrong, live honestly, and give eve­ry one his Due. How great a Schism was there occasion'd not long since, by a Controversie in Religion, between the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants? And it appeared by many Examples, that Laws made to take away Disputes con­cerning Religion, did much more pro­voke than pacifie People, and made some take the greater Liberty. Schisms pro­ceed not from the study of Truth, that Fountain of Meekness and Moderation; but from an imperious Humour of pre­scribing to others: And therefore they are rather to be counted Schismaticks, who damn other mens Writings, and stir up the waspish Multitude against them; than those that write to Learned men, and call nothing but Reason to [Page 450] their aid: So that they are truly Distur­bers of the Publick Peace, who in a Free Commonwealth would take away the Liberty of mens Judgments, which ought not to be supprest.

We have now shewn, First, That 'tis impossible to take away mens Liberty of speaking what they think: Secondly, That this Liberty may without prejudice to the Rights of Supreme Power be granted to every man, and that every man may use this Liberty, provided he design no Innovations in the Commonwealth, and act nothing against the known establish'd Laws thereof: Thirdly, That this Liber­ty, which every man may enjoy if he do not break the Publick Peace, can cause no Inconveniences which may not easily be restrained or remedied: Fourth­ly, That all men may make use of this Liberty without being guilty of any Im­piety. Fifthly, That all Laws made con­cerning Opinions and Matters meerly speculative, are useless and unprofitable. Sixthly, and lastly, we have proved, That this Liberty may not only be allow'd, without any Danger to Publick Peace, Piety, and to the Right of Su­preme Power; but ought to be granted for the Preservation of all these: For where there are Endeavours to take away [Page 451] this Liberty, and men are arraigned on­ly for Opinions, without examining whe­ther they have any evil Intentions, there honest men are made Examples, and suf­fer a Martyrdom; which doth not at all terrifie but irritates and moves the Peo­ple to Pity and Revenge. Learning and Arts decay, Faith is corrupted, Flatterers and perfidious Persons are countenanced, Adversaries triumph in having their Will, and prevailing on the Supreme Powers to embrace their Doctrine, which at last inclines them not only to undervalue, but usurp their Authority, boasting they are God's Elect, that their Power is from God, but the Magistrate's Authority only from men, and consequently, the Magi­strate's Power subordinate to theirs; which absolutely destroys the very Being of all Commonwealths; and therefore, as I shew'd in the 18 th. Chapter, a Com­monwealths greatest Safety is to place Religion and Piety in the Practice of Ju­stice and Charity, and to make things Sacred as much subject to Supreme Pow­er, as things Civil, and to take cogni­zance of nothing but mens Actions, suf­fering every man to think what he will, and speak what he thinks.

I have now in this Treatise done what I design'd; and I do again sincerely pro­fess, [Page 452] That I have written nothing which I do not freely submit to the Examinati­on and Judgment of the Supreme Powers of my Country: If they think any thing I have said, be contrary to the Laws or Publick Safety thereof, I recant it. I know my self a man subject to Errors; but my chiefest Care hath been to write nothing but what is consonant to Reason, to the Laws of my Country, and to the Rules of Piety and Good Manners.