that though no Reason can prove yet no Reason can contradict justly because there is nothing in them contrary to the principles of pure Reason They are proposed unto us with such credit and urged upon us as matters of greatest concernment in the world in so much that he cannot be rational that shall refuse either to give assent unto them or make trial of them with the sincere heart which once done he shall find by reall effects in the heart not only that God did reveal them as he believed before by an acquired faith but have an intuitive knowledge that they are Gods testimony because he who spake by the Scriptures and the Ministers hath spoken to him immediately by his spirit working in his heart and then Reason is satisfied and convinced that God hath spoken and thereupon ceaseth to deny and oppose and yields a firm assent And to conclude this point whereof 〈◊〉 had formerly spoken if we will but consider what kind of men have questioned or opposed the divinity of the Scripture we shall find it in that very thing to be much honoured 〈◊〉 and the reason why men do not believe them is not onely the imperfection but the corruption of Reason and mans will For most men love darkness rather then the light and the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ as it declares a deep design of Gods Eternal Wisdom so it s directly contrary to our false notions and base lusts And this is a plain reason why an acquired faith cannot be sufficient to save any man without the powerful sanctification of the Spirit both to prepare the heart and work a Divine Faith which can never take kindly in an heart that is not prepared These Scriptures he pretends to make the rule of his ensuing discourse yet it s but a bare pretence for he followes his own fancies and false notions not the sense and genuine mind of God in them He doth not re ferre sed ferre sensum as grave Hilary saith He doth not conform his notions to the Scripture but wrests it and makes it to speak that which God never intended CAP 2. Of the third part the 33. of the Book of the Number Antiquity Scope Authority and Interpreters of the holy Scripture SEeing he had made the Scripture to be his Rule he thought good to say something of the Scripture in general And 1. Of the number of the Books and seeing herein he follows the Church of England which followed the Ancient Canon I agree with with him in this as I have no reason to the contrary neither will I debate with him in the second point of Antiquity It s the most Ancient writing in the world and the doctrine more ancient then the writing And its remarkable that though it contain the History of 4000. years yet it was written within the space of 2000. 2. That all the Writers of it if Luke be not excepted were of the seed of Abraham by Jacob and of no other Nation all of them according to the flesh kinsmen to our Saviour Christ 3. That the Prophetical part reacheth the end as the Historical did the beginning of the world and this no other book in the world doth 4. That neither Jews nor Mahumetans have any thing good just and rational but that which is contained in these books and retained by them 5. That these Scriptures are found translated into the languages of the most if not all civil Nations of the world The scope of these writings is to direct sinful man unto eternal life And because this eternal life is virtually in God and issues from him as the Fountain and Author thereof therefore in the same is revealed the Eternal Infinite glorious perfection of God in himself and also his glorious works of Creation and Preservation his supreme and universal Dominion his Laws and Judgements and special government of man And because man as sinful and guilty is no ways capable of eternal life in strict justice therefore the Scripture directs him to God as Redeemer in Jesus Christ that by the observation of the Laws of Redemption he may be for ever blessed Christ our Lord Redeemer is the principal subject of that Book of books For Moses and all the Prophets speak of him as well as the writers of the New Testament though not so clearly and the doctrine of his Laws takes up the greatest part of that Revelation though many other things are therein declared yet in reference unto the principal subject and End In a word the end of the Scripture is to teach us to believe and obey God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Creating Redeeming and Sanctifying us if it speak of civil Kingdoms Laws and judgements it s upon the by with reference to the eternal spiritual Kingdom of God Redeemer and Sanctifier This end and scope is both obscurely and confusedly declared by the Author as will more appear hereafter The Authority of the Scripture is Divine and so perfect that it cannot be improved or impaired by all the Laws of all the civil Soveraigns of the world Neither can the Angels in Heaven add any degree of Authority unto it but if any of them should as they cannot contradict it they are by the divine Apostle declared to be accursed That any person or persons do not apprehend it to be Divine that 's accidental and cannot prejudice it Therefore how vain and false is that of Mr. Hobs when he gives the supreme power of making it to be Law and interpreting the same so made unto the Civil Soveraignss There is a two-fold Law the one is Divine and binds the conscience immediately the other is humane and Civil and cannot bind the conscience but per accidens The Doctrine of the Scripture not onely in Morals but in Positives is Divine and the precepts thereof as being the precepts of God do bind the conscience immediately The Laws of Civil Soveraigns may bind their subjects upon peril of civil and temporal punishment to receive them as authentick But Laws they are and binding to obedience and belief though there were no civil government in the world The State and Church may declare them to be Divine but no wayes make them to be such And as our Saviour said of his Doctrine so its true of all the Scripture that if any man will do the will of God declared therein he shall know it to be of God It s not so much the imperfection of our understanding or the difficulty of the thing to be understood as our disobedience which is the cause why we do not see the divinity of these blessed Books These things being so how absurdly and falsly hath he stated the Question concerning the Authority of the Scripture so as to make it depend either upon the civil Soveraign in his Territory or upon the Pope For thus he writes The Question of the Authority of the Scripture is reduced to this Whether Christian Kings and the Soveraign Assemblies in Christian
interpretation of the word Holy is not usual and at all times very Katachrestical For he can instance in no place where it s properly so taken except it be wrested from the intended sense The meaning of the words Sacred and Sacraments are known to children out of ordinary Catechisms and therefore I forbear any further discourse concerning them CAP. V. Of the third part the 36. of the Book Of the word of God and of Prophets T. H. THe word of God or man may be understood sometimes of the speaker sometimes of the subject as the book of Chronicles hath the Title Verba Dierum for the acts done in such times So in the Scriptures many times the word of God is not that which is spoken by God but concerning God c. G. L. This is the substance though not the very words of the Author in the beginning of this Chapter yet we may observe in Scripture according to the Heb e. v and the Greek That Dabar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Raema signifie things as well as words and that the word of God is either verbum Dei or verbum de Deo or both or verbum quod est Deus There is an usual distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inward or outward word An outward word whereby we speak to others or an inward word whereby we speak unto our selves This inward word is either of things or acts out of our selves or of acts or operations in our selves or our own being and essence Now the word of God which is God is his word in himself of himself And this term Word signifying the eternal Son of God and the Messias is taken out of the Chaldee Paraphrast as many expressions of the New Testament are And some learned men have observed that the Chaldee Paraphrast took that term from the Prophet Esay 40.8 The word of our God shall stand for ever as also the Title of Messias from Daniel 9.25 Of this word of God it s written John 1.1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and ver 14. The word was made flesh Yet if we may believe Mr. Hobbs this word is the purpose of God and then the sense is the purpose of God is God and the purpose of God was made flesh and the purpose of God dwelt amongst us and we saw the glory of this purpose as of the onely begotten Son of God This is his cursed and blasphemous gloss upon these blessed Texts of Scripture whereupon depends so much our faith and eternal salvation If any man would give an accurate account of the several significations of the word of God as it s used in Scripture he ought diligently to observe how oft it s used in Scripture consider the Context and drift of those places where it s read examine the originals and find out first the Proper signification secondly the Tropical and also distinguish them The reason why we say the Scripture is the word of God written is 1. Because it was revealed by God and the writers thereof were infallibly directed And this is the most proper signification yet secondly by a Metonymie it s so called because it principally speaks of God and he is the subject of it to which all particulars may be some ways referred or reduced But let no man that loves the truth hearken unto this man least he be seduced For with some truths he mixeth abominable Errours T. H. The name of Prophet in Scripture signifies sometimes a Prolocutor sometimes a Predictor c. G. L. In the rest of this Chapter he informs us 1. Of the several senses and significations of the word Prophet 2. Of the several distinct kinds of them 3. Of Rules how to try Prophets And his end is to make a civil soveraign Christian the supreme and infallible Judge Prophets in Scripture are true or false for false Prophets have the name True are extraordinary ordinary Extraordinary are such as either were Penmen of the Scripture or such only as whose Prophesies are related in Scripture These Prophets he divides into supreme and subordinate Yet the Prophets extraordinary as such can admit of no such distinctions Amongst the supreme he reckons Moses the high Priests Kings Yet the high Priests were neither supreme nor Prophets except very rarely That God did make use of the Priest with the Vrim and Thummim in giving his answers did not make the Priest a Prophet in proper sense That David and Solomon were Prophets seems peculiar to them That some of the Kings also called for the Priest to consult with God according to the ordinary way Instituted by God who promised to give answer so as he did to no people in the world it could neither make Kings or Priests supreme Neither did Solomon take the Priesthood from Abiathar but for his treason suspended him ab offi io That the Christian Soveraign should now be the supreme Prophet in whose Judgement all their subjects must acquiesce is to be derided and rejected as a thing which neither can be proved or approved CAP. VI. Of the third part The 37. of the Book Of Miracles SOmething he hath taught his Reader that had not learned so much before concerning the nature and end of Miracles And in this particular he is more Orthodox then in other points That Miracles are immediate works of God we believe and such as wherein he doth not make use of natural causes for to do them Neither can any created cause reach them These are not ordinary works of God neither are they usually done but seldom and upon some special occasion and for some special end This end in general is the same with that of all his works and that is the manifestation of his glory yet in a more special manner to awaken mens sleepy minds and stir up attention to perswade and confirm the truth of those Doctrines which are above the reach of reason by this perswasion to work faith and conversion These Miracles are works either of judgement or mercy and do really differ and far excell all enchantments strange works done by natural causes delusions of the Devil and such like which seem to be Miracles and are not any such thing And they are never done to confirm an errour or perswade the doing of evil For his Almighty power is the immediate cause of them and is exercised according to the counsel of his will and subservient alwaies and only to his truth and glory CAP. VII Of the third Part. And the 38. of the Book Concerning eternal life hell salvation the world to come and redemption THAT there is eternal life we believe as also that it is an excellent glorious blessed estate and the same to be enjoyed by certain persons c. in some certain place and that there shall be no end either of the persons or estate or the enjoyment we are fully perswaded
the first Scripture alledged by him we read it in Exod. 20.19 To understand these words we must consider 1. That cap. 19.8 That all the people answered together and said All that the Lord hath said that will we do This was an absolute subjection of themselves to God and a promise to obey him 2. That the Lord said unto Moses Lo I come unto thee in a thick cloud that the people may hear when I speak with thee and believe thee for ever Verse 9. This was to procure authority and credit unto Moses as a Messenger between God and Israel 3. That the words of Exod. 20.19 quoted by the Author are expounded Deut. 5.27 For thus there we read Go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak to thee and we will hear it and do it From all which it is apparent 1. That the people had formerly before they spake these words subjected themselves to God and he was their Soveraign not Moses 2. That they promise to obey the words of God declared by Moses not as they were the words and Laws of Moses but of God they will do them 3. That they promise to believe Moses as a Messenger between God and them not obey him as their supreme Lord. It s one thing to believe Moses as a Prophet from God and to yield him absolute obedience as a King Believe him as a Prophet they might obey him as their King they must not God was their King and Moses his Messenger and servant How grosly therefore doth he abuse the place how absurdly and falsly doth he thence infer the peoples promise of absolute obedience to Moses which was only due and promised unto God T. H. Concerning the right of Kings God himself by the mouth of Samuel saith This shall be the right of the King you will have to raign over you he shall take your sons c. 1 Sam. 8.11 12 c. G. L. 1. The translation which he confessed is allowed by his Soveraign and the Church of England is perverted For instead of This will be the manner of the King he turns it This shall be the right of the King There is a great difference between right which is alwaies just and manner or custom which is many times unjust 2. If this be a prerogative of Soveraigns then its a very great misery to be subject to a King and that in two respects 1. Because he will take away from his subjects unjustly that which justly is their own even the best things 2. Because by doing thus he will oppress them so grievously that having no remedy or redress from man they will cry unto God for deliverance from a King as a great and intolerable mischief 3. If it be the right of a King yet it is but the right of heathen Despotical Princes and not of the Kings of Israel But how can it be the right of heathen Kings seeing they had no power to oppress and do wrong 4. It could not be the right of the Kings of Israel for they were bound to act and judge according to the Laws God had made yet these acts here mentioned are directly contrary to those Laws and Rules of Regal Government delivered by God himself For he must have a copy of the Laws and read in it all his life that he may fear God keep his Laws not exalt himself above his Brethren c. Deut. 17.18 19 20. Neither did the Kings of Judah or Israel no not wicked Ahab practise or make use of this power as is evident in the case of Naboths Vineyard 5. To do according to this power pretended in this place is directly contrary to the very end of all Government civil which is to do justice and judgement to preserve to every one his own to protect the good and punish the bad How shall he punish the Oppressor when he is the great Oppressor himself How can he do justice upon thieves when he is the greatest thief in his Kingdom 6. If this should be the right of the Kings of Israel and of all Soveraigns then though the people of Israel were a free people yet if a King was once set over them they were meer slaves neither their Lands nor their goods nor their children nor their servants were their own and also by this reason there can be no subjects in any state under heaven that can have propriety or liberty but all are meer and absolute servants and slaves Kings may have potentiam but not potestatem force and fraud but no just power to oppress their subjects and do such things as are here mentioned Whereas some say That God in this place teacheth us what Kings may do and in Deut. 17.18 19 20. what they ought to do is to little purpose as being more acute then solid For id quisque potest quod jure potest And no man no not the greatest Princes in the world have any power to do that which is unjust 7. It s a question whether they had such a King as they desired For they desired a King which would offend God and oppress them but God gave them such a King as had no power to make Laws but such as were bound to Judge according to the civil or judicial Laws made by himself and even in the time of Kings he reserved the Soveraign Rights in his own hand It seems they understood not well what kind of King they had desired for to maintain the state and pomp of a great Court and an army in constant pay was a vast charge and required such a revenue as could no waies be raised without the great oppression of the people And this they did not consider neither would understand till it was too late and the yoak was upon their necks and the burden pressed them very sore When Princes are trusted with an absolute power to raise men and moneys at their will and pleasure they will not be content with the ordinary Revenue of their Crowns but what they cannot obtain justly by the Laws and the constitution of the State they will force by the sword and so the Government proves military and in the end meerly arbitrary Whereas Mr. Hobbs conceives That to go in and out before them and Judge the people contains as absolute a power of the Militia and Judicature as one man can possibly transfer unto another he is much deceived For both these may be had in a despotical or a Regal way or by Commission The first is absolute the two latter are not so The Kings of Sparta Poland Arraegon might have both these and yet be no absolute Soveraigns T. H. Solomon prayed that God would give him understanding to judge his people and discern between good and evil 1 Kings 3.8 therefore he had the Judicial and Legislative power supreme and absolute G. L. This is his meaning and thus he understands these words
obligativa 4. Not content to give the definition he explains what is right and that is that which is not contrary to the Law and wrong and its that which is contrary But what he means by rule is hard to know If he mean by rule Law it self then its absurd if he intends some antecedent rule of divine wisdom manifesting what is just or unjust before a civil power command it he is obscure Though he undervalue the Philosopher so much as far below him though he was far above him he might with Marsulis of Padua in his Defensor Pacis pars 1. cap. 10. have observed out of him a better definition of a Law given Ethn. ad Nicho. lib. 10. cap. 9. Lex est sententia doctrina seu judicium universale justorum conferentium civilium suorum oppositorum cum praecepto coactivo per poenam aut praemium de ejus observatione in hoc saeculo destribuenda More briefly it s a coactive precept of the Soveraign binding the subject to obedience and upon the same to be rewarded or upon disobedience to be punished in this life where many things are to be observed 1. The matter of this Law is something in it self just and conducing to the publik good yet so that it reacheth to the contrary 2. This must be known and judged to be so by the wisdom and understanding of the Soveraign for all Laws arr made by wisdom Political 3. This judgement of the Law-giver must be made known unto the subject therefore the Philosopher saith its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word And he means not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word not only inwardly conceived in the mind of the Law-giver 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle saith but it must be uttered and made known as the ten Commandements are called the ten words therefore it s said Exodus 20. God spake all these words 4. It must be praeceptum which includes the will of the Soveraign intending to bind the subject and so declaring himself 5. It must be an universal precept binding the whole community of the subject 6. It must be a coactive precept and backt with the sword for to make the Obligation effectual In this respect the Philosopher saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law must have a coactive force And the Apostle saith he beareth not the sword in vain which words imply the Law-giver must have a sword 7. This sword protects and rewards the obedient who observe this Law according to their obligation and it punisheth the disobedient and for these two ends the Law must be co-active and armed with a sword 8. These rewards and punishments are to be conferrd and inflicted in this life for it cannot reach the soul and the life to come and this doth difference the civil Laws of men from the Laws of God which bind men to obedience upon the promise of spiritual and eternal rewards and for defect of obedience unto eternal and spiritual penalties This hath far more of the definition of a Law then his and more fully declares the nature of a Law civil Yet if either he or any other will improve it I shall like it well for I know mine own imperfections From his definition he infers several conclusions the first whereof is T. H. The Legislator in all Common-wealths is the Soveraign Again the Common-wealth is the Legislator by the Representative G. L. That pars imperans is the Legislator in every State must needs be granted but that the Common-wealth should be the Legislator either by or without pars imperans the Soveraign I do not understand For it consists of two parts the Soveraign and the subject and if the whole Common-wealth make Laws then the subject as well as the Soveraign is Legislator In a Republick or free-State there is a difference between the Soveraign and the subject much more in other models and forms Therefore he must needs speak either improperly or untruly when he saith the State is Legislator T. H. Conclusion 2. The Soveraign is not subject to the civil Laws because he hath power to make and repeal them at pleasure G. L. That the Soveraign in divers respects and especially as a Soveraign is not subject unto but above the Laws is a certain truth For Laws do bind the subject not the Soveraign to obey or be punished but the Soveraign doth command as Superiour not obey as inferiour doth punish is not punished The power to make a Law when there is none and to repeal after that it s made is sufficient evidence of his superiority as also dispensations in judgement and pardons be Yet this supreme will Legislative over men is subject to the superiour will of God and must neither make nor repeal Laws but according to wisdom and justice T. H. Conclusion 3. Custom is not Law by long continuance of time but by consent of the Soveraign G. L. This follows from the first Conclusion For if the Soveraign only be the Legislator then continuance of time and practise of the people though universal cannot make a Law The Soveraign must give either an express or tacit consent and this consent is then most evident when he makes the custom a rule in judgement and observes it And the Civilians well observe that besides continuance of time and the Soveraigns consent A third thing is required and that is that the beginning of it be reasonable as the Author here doth note T. H. Conclusion 4. The Law of Nature and the Civil Law contain each other and are of equal extent For the Laws of Nature which consist in equity justice gratitude and other moral vertues on these depending in the condition of meer nature are not properly laws but qualities that dispose men to peace and obedience when a Common-wealth is once actually settled then are they Laws c. G. L. 1. This is no Conclusion from the definition except he mean that the rule of right and wrong be the Law of Nature 2. The Laws of Nature are the Laws of God and not of man and not only subjects but Soveraigns are bound by them 3. Therefore they bind not as commanded by the civil Soveraign but as written by the hand of heaven in the heart of man Neither is that which afterwards he makes the difference between the Law of Nature and the Law of civil Governors any difference at all that the one is written the other not For both are written one by the hand of man though every Civil Law be not written and the other by the hand of God the one in the heart the other upon some other material substance and that which is written in the heart may be written out of it 4. Equity justice gratitude and other moral vertues are not Laws of nature but either habitual or actual conformities unto the Laws of Nature 5. How the Laws of Nature and Laws Civil should be of equal extent and yet contain one