The same is manifest by like arguments of the Book of Judges (chap. i. 21, 26; vi. 24 ; x. 4 ; xv. 19; xvii. 6), and Ruth (i. 1); but especially Judges (xviii. 30), where it is said that "Jonathan and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of the land."

That the Books of Samuel were also written after his own time there are the like arguments (1 Sam. v. 5; vii. 13, 15; xxvii. 6, and xxx. 25), where, after David had adjudged equal part of the spoils to them that guarded the ammunition with them that fought, the writer saith, "He made it a statute and an ordinance to Israel to this day." Again, when David, displeased that the Lord had slain Uzzah, for putting out his hand to sustain the ark, called the place Perez-Uzzah, the writer saith (2 Sam. vi. 8), it is called so "to this day:" the time therefore of the writing of that book must be long after the time of the fact; that is, long after the time of David.

As for the two books of the Kings, and the two books of the Chronicles, besides the places which mention such monuments, as the writer saith, remained till his own days; such as are 1 Kings ix. 13; ix. 21; x. 12; xii. 19; 2 Kings ii. 22; viii. 22; x. 27; xiv. 7; xvi. 6; xvii. 23; xvii. 34; xvii. 41; and I Chron. iv. 41; v. 26; it is argument sufficient they were written after the captivity in Babylon, that the history of them is continued till that time. For the facts registered are always more ancient than the register; and much more ancient than such books as make mention of and quote the register; as these books do in divers places, referring the reader to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, to the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, to the Books of the prophet Samuel, of the prophet Nathan, of the prophet Ahijah; to the Vision of Jehdo, to the books of the prophet Serveiah, and of the prophet Addo.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written certainly after their return from captivity; because their return, the re-edification of the walls and houses of Jerusalem, the renovation of the covenant, and ordination of their policy, are therein contained.

The history of Queen Esther is of the time of the captivity; and therefore the writer must have been of the same time, or after it.

The book of Job hath no mark in it of the time wherein it was written; and though it appear sufficiently (Ezekiel xiv. 14, and James v. II) that he was no feigned person; yet the book itself seemeth not to be a history, but a treatise concerning a question in ancient time much disputed, "why wicked men have often prospered in this world, and good men have been afflicted;" and this is the more probable, because from the beginning to the third verse of the third chapter, where the complaint of Job beginneth, the Hebrew is, as St. Jerome testifieth, in prose; and from thence to the sixth verse of the last chapter, in hexameter verses; and the rest of that chapter again in prose. So that the dispute is all in verse; and the prose is added but as a preface in the beginning, and an epilogue in the end. But verse is no usual style of such, as either are themselves in great pain, as Job; or of such as come to comfort them, as his friends; but in philosophy, especially moral philosophy, in ancient time frequent.

The Psalms were written the most part by David, for the use of the quire. To these are added some songs of Moses, and other holy men; and some of them after the return from the captivity, as the 137th and the 126th, whereby it is manifest that the Psalter was compiled, and put into the form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon.

The Proverbs, being a collection of wise and godly sayings, partly of Solomon, partly of Agur, the son of Jakeh, and partly of the mother of king Lemuel; cannot probably be thought to have been collected by Solomon, rather than by Agur or the mother of Lemuel; and that, though

the sentences be theirs, yet the collection or compiling them into this one book was the work of some other godly man that lived after them all.

The books of Ecclesiastes and the Canticles have nothing that was not Solomon's except it be the titles or inscriptions. For The Words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem; and The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's, seem to have been made for distinction's sake, then, when the books of Scriptute were gathered into one body of the law; to the end, that not the doctrine only, but the authors also might be extant.

66

Of the prophets, the most ancient are Zephaniah, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Michah, who lived in the time of Amaziah, and Azariah, otherwise Ozias, kings of Judah. But the book of Jonah is not properly a register of his prophecy; for that is contained in these few words, Forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed;" but a history or narration of his frowardness and disputing God's commandments; so that there is small probability he should be the author, seeing he is the subject of it. But the book of Amos is his prophecy.

Jeremiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk prophesied in the time of Josiah.

Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, and Zechariah, in the captivity.

When Joel and Malachi prophesied, is not evident by their writings. But considering the inscriptions, or titles of their books, it is manifest enough that the whole Scripture of the Old Testament was set forth in the form we have it after the return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon, and before the time of Ptolemæus Philadelphus, that caused it to be translated into Greek by seventy men, which were sent him out of Judea for that purpose. And if the books of Apocrypha, which are recommended to us by the church, though not for canonical, yet for profitable books for our instruction, may in this point be credited, the Scripture was set forth in the form we have it in, by Esdras: as may appear by that which he himself saith, in the second book (chapter xiv. verse 21, 22, &c.), where speaking to God, he saith thus: "Thy law is burnt; therefore no man knoweth the things which thou hast done, or the works that are to begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send down the holy spirit into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world, since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path, and that they which will live in the latter day, may live." And verse 45: "And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written, publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it; but keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people.' And thus much concerning the time of the writing of the books of the Old Testament.

The writers of the New Testament lived all in less than an age after Christ's ascension, and had all of them seen onr Saviour, or been His disciples, except St. Paul and St. Luke; and consequently whatsoever was written by them is as ancient as the time of the apostles. But the time wherein the books of the New Testament were received and acknowledged by the church to be of their writing, is not altogether so ancient. For, as the books of the Old Testament are derived to us, from no other time than that of Esdras, who by the direction of God's spirit retrieved them, when they were lost; those of the New Testament, of which the copies were not many, nor could easily be all in any one private man's hand, cannot be derived from a higher time than that wherein the governors of the church collected, approved, and recommended them to us, as the writings of those apostles and disciples, under whose names they go. The first enumeration

of all the books, both of the Old and New Testament, is in the canons of the apostles supposed to be collected by Clement, the first (after St. Peter) bishop of Rome. But because that is but supposed, and by many questioned, the Council of Laodicea is the first we know that recommended the Bible to the then Christian churches, for the writings of the prophets and apostles and this Council was held in the 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 published them, as no man can excuse himself, by saying he knew not they were His.

He therefore to whom God hath not supernaturally revealed that they are His, nor that those that published them were sent by Him, is not obliged to obey them, by any authority, but his, whose commands have already the force of laws; that is to say, by any other authority than that of the 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

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 aerial substance, which in the body of any living creature gives it life and motion, "vital" and "animal spirits." But for those idols of the brain, which represent bodies to us where they are not, as in a looking-glass, in a dream, or to a distempered brain waking, they are, as the apostle saith generally of all idols, nothing; nothing at all, I say, there where they seem to be; and in the brain itself, nothing but tumult, proceeding either