of all the books, both of the Old and New Testament, is in the canons of the apostles supposed to be collected by Clement, the first (after St. Peter) bishop of Rome. But because that is but supposed, and by many questioned, the Council of Laodicea is the first we know that recommended the Bible to the then Christian churches, for the writings of the prophets and apostles and this Council was held in the 364th year after Christ. At which time, though ambition had so far prevailed on the great doctors of the church as no more to esteem emperors, though Christian, for the shepherds of the people, but for sheep; and emperors not Christian, for wolves; and endeavoured to pass their doctrine, not for counsel and information as preachers, but for laws as absolute governors; and thought such frauds as tended to make the people the more obedient to Christian doctrine, to be pious; yet I am persuaded they did not therefore falsify the Scriptures, though the copies of the books of the New Testament were in the hands only of the ecclesiastics, because if they had had an intention so to do, they would surely have made them more favourable to their power over Christian princes and civil sovereignty than they are. I see not therefore any reason to doubt but that the Old and New Testament, as we have them now, are the true registers of those things which were done and said by the prophets and apostles. And so perhaps are some of those books which are called Apocrypha, and left out of the canon, not for inconformity of doctrine with the rest, but only because they are not found in the Hebrew. For after the conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great, there were few learned Jews that were not perfect in the Greek tongue. For the seventy interpreters that converted the Bible into Greek, were all of them Hebrews; and we have extant the works of Philo and Josephus, both Jews, written by them eloquently in Greek. But it is not the writer, but the authority of the church that maketh the book canonical. And although these books were written by divers men, yet it is manifest the writers were all endued with one and the same spirit, in that they conspire to one and the same end, which is setting forth of the rights of the kingdom of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For the book of Genesis deriveth the genealogy of God's people, from the creation of the world to the going into Egypt; the other four books of Moses contain the election of God for their king, and the laws which He prescribed for their government; the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Samuel, to the time of Saul, describe the acts of God's people, till the time they cast off God's yoke and called for a king, after the manner of their neighbour nations. The rest of the history of the Old Testament derives the succession of the line of David to the captivity, out of which line was to spring the restorer of the kingdom of God, even our blessed Saviour God the Son, whose coming was foretold in the books of the prophets, after whom the Evangelists write His life and actions, and His claim to the kingdom, whilst He lived on earth and lastly, the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, declare the coming of God, the Holy Ghost, and the authority He left with them and their successors for the direction of the Jews, and for the invitation of the Gentiles. In sum, the histories and the prophecies of the Old Testament, and the gospels and epistles of the New Testament, have had one and the same scope to convert men to the obedience of God: 1. in Moses and the Priests; II. in the man Christ; and III. in the Apostles and the successors to apostolical power. For these three at several times did represent the person of God; Moses and his successors, the High Priests, and Kings of Judah, in the Old Testament: Christ himself, in the time He lived on earth; and the Apostles, and their successors, from the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended on them, to this day.

It is a question much disputed between the divers sects of Christian religion, "from whence the Scriptures derive their authority;" which question is also propounded sometimes in other terms, as, "how we know them to be the word of God, or why we believe them to be so:" and the difficulty of resolving it, ariseth chiefly from the improperness of the words - wherein the question itself is couched. For it is believed on all hands, that the first and original "author" of them is God; and consequently the question disputed, is not that. Again, it is manifest, that none can know they are God's word (though all true Christians believe it), but those to whom God himself hath revealed it supernaturally; and therefore the question is not rightly moved, of our "knowledge" of it. Lastly, when the question is propounded of our "belief;" because some are moved to believe for one, and others for other reasons; there can be rendered no one general answer for them all. The question truly stated is, "by what authority they are made law."

As far as they differ not from the laws of Nature there is no doubt but they are the law of God, and carry their authority with them, legible to all men that have the use of natural reason: but this is no other authority, than that of all other moral doctrine consonant to reason; the dictates whereof are laws, not "made," but "eternal."

If they be made law by God himself, they are of the nature of written law, which are laws to them only to whom God hath so sufficiently pub lished them, as no man can excuse himself, by saying he knew not they were His.

He therefore to whom God hath not supernaturally revealed that they are His, nor that those that published them were sent by Him, is not obliged to obey them, by any authority, but his, whose commands have already the force of laws; that is to say, by any other authority than that of the commonwealth, residing in the sovereign, who only has the legislative power. Again, if it be not the legislative authority of the commonwealth, that giveth them the force of laws, it must be some other authority derived from God, either private or public: if private, it obliges only him to whom in particular God hath been pleased to reveal it. For if every man should be obliged to take for God's law what particular men, on pretence of private inspiration or revelation, should obtrude upon him, in such a number of men, that out of pride and ignorance, take their own dreams, and extravagant fancies, and madness, for testimonies of God's spirit ; or out of ambition, pretend to such divine testimonies, falsely, and contrary to their own consciences, it were impossible that any divine law should be acknowledged. If public, it is the authority of the "commonwealth," or of the "church." But the church, if it be one person, is the same thing with a commonwealth of Christians; called a commonwealth," because it consisteth of men united in one person, their sovereign; and a "church," because it consisteth in Christian men, united in one Christian sovereign. But if the church be not one person, then it hath no authority at all: it can neither command, nor do any action at all; nor is capable of having any power, or right to anything: nor has any will, reason nor voice; for all these qualities are personal. Now if the whole number of Christians be not contained in one commonwealth, they are not one person; nor is there an universal church that hath any authority over them; and therefore the Scriptures are not made laws, by the universal church: or if it be one commonwealth, then all Christian monarchs and states are private persons, and subject to be judged, deposed, and punished by an universal sovereign of all Christendom. So that the question of the authority of the Scriptures, is reduced to this, "whether Christian kings, and the sovereign assemblies in Christian commonwealths, be absolute in their own territories, im

66

mediately under God; or subject to one vicar of Christ, constituted of the universal church; to be judged, condemned, deposed, and put to death, as he shall think expedient, or necessary for the common good.

Which question cannot be resolved without a more particular consideration of the Kingdom of God; from whence also we are to judge of the authority of interpreting the Scripture. For whosoever hath a lawful power over any writing, to make it law, hath the power also to approve, or disapprove, the interpretation of the same.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

Of the Signification of Spirit, Angel, and Inspiration in the Books of Holy Scripture.

SEEING the foundation of all true ratiocination is the constant signification of words; which in the doctrine following, dependeth not, as in natural science, on the will of the writer, nor, as in common conversation, on vulgar use, but on the sense they carry in the Scripture; it is necessary, before I proceed any further, to determine, out of the Bible, the meaning of such words, as by their ambiguity may render what I am to infer upon them, obscure or disputable. I will begin with the words "body" and spirit," which in the language of the schools are termed, "substances," "corporeal," and "incorporeal."

The word "body," in the most general acceptation, signifieth that which filleth or occupieth some certain room, or imagined place; and dependeth not on the imagination, but is a real part of that we call the "universe." For the "universe" being the aggregate of all bodies, there is no real part thereof that is not also "body;" nor anything properly a "body," that is not also part of that aggregate of all “bodies," the "universe." The same also, because bodies are subject to change, that is to say, to variety of apparence to the sense of living creatures, is called "substance," that is to say, "subject" to various accidents: as sometimes to be moved; sometimes to stand still; and to seem to our senses sometimes hot, sometimes cold, sometimes of one colour, smell, taste, or sound, sometimes of another. And this diversity of seeming, produced by the diversity of the operation of bodies on the organs of our sense, we attribute to alterations of the bodies that operate, and call them "accidents" of those bodies. And according to this acceptation of the word, "substance" and "body" signify the same thing; and therefore "substance incorporeal " are words, which when they are joined together, destroy one another, as if a man should say an "incorporeal body.'

But in the sense of common people, not all the universe is called body, but only such parts thereof as they can discern by the sense of feeling, to resist their force, or by the sense of their eyes, to hinder them from a farther prospect. Therefore in the common language of men, "air" and "aërial substances," use not to be taken for "bodies," but (as often as men are sensible of their effects) are called "wind," or "breath," or (because the same are called in the Latin spiritus) "spirits; as when they call that aërial substance, which in the body of any living creature gives it life and motion, "vital" and "animal spirits." But for those idols of the brain, which represent bodies to us where they are not, as in a looking-glass, in a dream, or to a distempered brain waking, they are, as the apostle saith generally of all idols, nothing; nothing at all, I say, there where they seem to be; and in the brain itself, nothing but tumult, proceeding either

from the action of the objects, or from the disorderly agitation of the organs of our sense. And men that are otherwise employed than to search into their causes, know not of themselves what to call them; and may therefore easily be persuaded, by those whose knowledge they much reverence, some to call them "bodies," and think them made of air compacted by a power supernatural, because the sight judges them corporeal; and some to call them "spirits," because the sense of touch discerneth nothing in the place where they appear, to resist their fingers: so that the proper signification of "spirit" in common speech, is either a subtle, fluid, and invisible body, or a ghost, or other idol or phantasm of the imagination. But for metaphorical significations, there be many : for sometimes it is taken for disposition or inclination of the mind; as when for the disposition to control the sayings of other men, we say "a spirit of contradiction;" for a disposition to uncleanness, "an unclean spirit;" for perverseness, 66 a froward spirit;" for sullenness, "a dumb spirit;" and for inclination to godliness and God's service, "the Spirit of God:" sometimes for any eminent ability or extraordinary passion, or disease of the mind, as when " great wisdom" is called "the spirit of wisdom;" and "madmen" are said to be "possessed with a spirit."

66

Other significations of "spirit" I find nowhere any; and where none of these can satisfy the sense of that word in Scripture, the place falleth not under human understanding; and our faith therein consisteth not in our opinion, but in our submission; as in all places where God is said to be a Spirit," or where by the "Spirit of God" is meant God himself. For the nature of God is incomprehensible; that is to say, we understand nothing of "what He is," but only "that He is ;" and therefore the attribures we give Him are not to tell one another "what He is," nor to signify our opinion of His nature, but our desire to honour Him with such names as we conceive most honourable amongst ourselves.

But

Gen. i. 2: "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Here if by the "Spirit of God" be meant God himself, then is "motion" attributed to God, and consequently “place,” which are intelligible only of bodies, and not of substances incorporeal; and so the place is above our understanding, that can conceive nothing moved that changes not place, or that has not dimension; and whatsoever has dimension is body. the meaning of those words is best understood by the like place (Gen. viii. 1), where when the earth was covered with waters, as in the beginning, God intending to abate them, and again to discover the dry land, useth the like words, I will bring my Spirit upon the earth, and the waters shall be diminished," in which place, by "Spirit " is understood a wind, that is an air or 66 spirit moved," which might be called, as in the former place, the 'Spirit of God," because it was God's work.

66

Gen. xli. 38: Pharaoh calleth the Wisdom of Joseph, the "Spirit of God." For Joseph having advised him to look out a wise and discreet man, and to set him over the land of Egypt, he saith thus, "Can we find such a man as this is, in whom is the Spirit of God?" And Exod. xxviii. 3: "Thou shalt speak," saith God, "to all the wise-hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, to make Aaron garments, to consecrate him;" where extraordinary understanding, though but in making garments, as being the "gift" of God, is called the " 'Spirit of God." The same is found again, Exod. xxxi. 3, 4, 5, 6; and xxxv. 31. And Isaiah xi. 2, 3, where the prophet, speaking of the Messiah, saith, "The Spirit of the Lord shall abide upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord." Where manifestly is meant, not so many ghosts, but so many eminent graces that God would give him.

In the book of Judges, an extraordinary zeal and courage in the defence of God's people, is called the "Spirit" of God; as when it excited Othniel, Gideon, Jephtha, and Samson to deliver them from servitude: Judges iii. IO; vi. 24; xi. 29; xiii. 25 ; xiv. 6, 19. And of Saul, upon the news of the insolence of the Ammonites towards the men of Jabesh Gilead, it is said (1 Sam. xi. 6) that "the Spirit of God came upon Saul, and his anger,' (or, as it is in the Latin, "his fury") "was kindled greatly." Where it is not probable was meant a ghost, but an extraordinary "zeal" to punish_the cruelty of the Ammonites. In like manner by the " Spirit of God, that came upon Saul, when he was amongst the prophets that praised God in songs and music (1 Sam. xix. 23), is to be understood, not a ghost, but an unexpected and sudden "zeal" to join with them in their devotion.

The false prophet Zedekiah saith to Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 24), which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee?' Which cannot be understood of a ghost; for Micaiah declared before the kings of Israel and Judah the event of the battle, as from a "vision," and not as from a "spirit" speaking in him.

In the same manner it appeareth in the books of the Prophets, that though they spake by the "spirit" of God, that is to say, by a special grace of prediction; yet their knowledge of the future was not by a ghost within them, but by some supernaturnal "dream or vision."

66

66

Gen. ii. 7, it is said, "God made man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils (spiraculum vita) the breath of life, and man was made a living soul.' There the "breath of life" inspired by God signifies no more, but that God gave him life; and (Job xxvii. 3), "as long as the Spirit of God is in my nostrils," is no more than to say, as long as I live." So in Ezek. i. 20, "the spirit of life was in the wheels," is equivalent to, "the wheels were alive." And (Ezek. ii. 2), "the Spirit entered into me, and set me on my feet," that is, "I recovered my vital strength;" not that any ghost or incorporeal substance entered into, and possessed his body.

In the xith chap. of Numbers, v. 17, "I will take," saith God, "of the Spirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall bear the burthen of the people with thee; that is, upon the seventy elders: whereupon two of the seventy are said to prophesy in the camp; of whom some complained, and Joshua desired Moses to forbid them; which Moses would not do. Whereby it appears, that Joshua knew not that they had received authority so to do, and prophesied according to the mind of Moses, that is to say, by a "spirit," or "authority" subordinate to his own. In the like sense we read (Deut. xxxiv. 9), that "Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him : "that is, because he was 66 'ordained" by Moses to prosecute the work he had himself begun, namely, the bringing of God's people into the promised land, but prevented by death, could not finish.

دو

66

In the like sense it is said (Rom. viii. 9), "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His ; not meaning thereby the ghost " of Christ, but a submission to His doctrine. As also (1 John iv. 2), Hereby you shall know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God;" by which is meant the spirit of unfeigned Christianity, or submission," to that main article of Christian faith, that Jesus is the Christ; which cannot be interpreted of a ghost.

66

Likewise these words (Luke iv. 1), "And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost," (that is, as it is expressed, Matt. iv. 1, and Mark i. 12, " of the Holy Spirit,") may be understood for "zeal" to do the work for which He was sent by God the Father; but to interpret it of a ghost, is to say that God himself, for so our Saviour was, was filled with God; which is very im