Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	authority_n	old_a	testament_n	2,803	5	7.9085	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86417	Philosophicall rudiments concerning government and society. Or, A dissertation concerning man in his severall habitudes and respects, as the member of a society, first secular, and then sacred. Containing the elements of civill politie in the agreement which it hath both with naturall and divine lawes. In which is demonstrated, both what the origine of justice is, and wherein the essence of Christian religion doth consist. Together with the nature, limits, and qualifications both of regiment and subjection. / By Tho: Hobbes.; De cive. English	Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679.; Vaughan, Robert, engraver.	1651 (1651)	Wing H2253; Thomason E1262_1; ESTC R202404	220,568	406

not having any other Gods for in that consists the essence of the Covenant made with Abraham by which God requires nothing else but that he should be his God and the God of his seede Also the Precept of keeping holy the Sabbath for the Sanctification of the seventh day is instituted in memoriall of the six dayes Creation as appeares out of these words Exod. 31. ver 16 17. It is a perpetuall Covenant meaning the Sabbath and a signe betweene me and the Children of Israel for ever for in sixe dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed Of the third kind are the Politique judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes which onely belong'd to the Jewes The lawes of the fi●st and second sort written in Tables of stone to wit the Decalogue was kept in the Ark it selfe The rest written in the volume of the whole Law were laid up in the side of the Arke Deut. 3. ver 26 For these retaining the faith of Abraham might be chang'd those could not XI All Gods Lawes are Gods Word but all Gods Word is not his Law I am the Lord th● God which brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt is the word of God 〈…〉 is no Law Neither is all that which for the better deolaring of Gods Word is pronounc't or written together with it instantly to be taken for Gods Word For Thus saith the Lord is not the voice of God but of the Preacher or Prophet All that and onely that is the word of God which a true Prophet hath declar'd God to have spoken Now the writings of the Prophets comprehendng as well those things which God as which the Prophet himselfe speaks are therefore called the word of God because they containe the word of God Now because all that and that alone is the Word of God which is recommended to us for such by a true Prophet it cannot be knowne what Gods Word is before we know who is the true Prophet nor can we beleeve Gods Word before we beleeve the Prophet Moyses was beleev'd by the People of Israel for two things His Miracles and his Faith for how great and most evident Miracles soever he had wrought yet would they not have trusted him at least he was not to have beene trusted if he had call'd them out of Aegypt to any other worship then the worship of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob their Fathers For it had beene contrary to the Covenant made by themselves with God In like manner two things there are to wit supernaturall Praediction of things to come which is a mighty miracle and Faith in the God of Abraham their deliverer out of Aegypt which God propos'd to all the Jews to be kept for marks of a true Prophet He that wants either of these is no Prophet nor is it to be receiv'd for Gods word which he obtrudes for such If Faith be wanting he is rejectin these words Deut. 13. ver 1 2 3 4 5. If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams and giveth thee a signe or a wonder and the signe or the wonder come to passe whereof he spake unto thee saying Let us goe after other Gods c. That Prophet or that dreamer of dreames shall be put to death If Praediction of events be wanting he is condemn'd by these Deut. 18. ver 21 22. And if thou say in thine heart how shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken When a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord if the thing follow not nor come to passe that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously Now that that is the word of God which is publisht for such by a true Prophet and that he was held to be a true Prophet among the Jewes whose faith was true and to whose praedictions the events answer'd is without controversie but what it is to follow other Gods and whether the events which are affirm'd to answer their praedictions doe truly answer them or not may admit many controversies specially in praedictions which obscurely aenigmatically foretell the Event such as the praedictions of almost all the Prophets are as who saw not God apparently like unto Moyses but in darke speech●s and in figures Numb 12. ver 8. But of these we cannot judge otherwise then by the way of naturall reason because that Judgment depends on the Prophets interpretation and on its proportion with the Event XII The Jewes did hold the booke of the whole Law which was called Deuteronomie for the written word of God and that onely forasmuch as can be collected out of sacred history untill the Captivity for this booke was deliver'd by Moyses himselfe to the Priests to be kept and layd up in the side of the Ark of the Covenant and to be copyed out by the Kings and the same a long time after by the authority of King Josiah acknowledg'd againe for the Word of God 2 Kings 23. ver 2. But it is not manifest when the rest of the books of the Old Testament were first receiv'd into Canon but what concernes the Prophets Isaiah and the rest since they foretold no other things then what were to come to passe either in or after the Captivity their writings could not at that time be held for Prophetique by reason of the Law cited above Deut. 18. ver 21 22. Whereby the Israelites were commanded not to account any man for a true Prophet but him whose Prophecies were answer'd by the events And hence peradventure it is that the Jew● esteem'd the writings of those whom they slew when they Prophesied for Prophetique afterward that is to say for the word of God XIII It being known what Lawes there were under the old Covenant and that Word of God receiv'd from the beginning we must farthermore consider with whom the authority of judging whether the writings of the Prophets arising afterward were to be receiv'd for the Word of God that is to say whether the Events did answer their praedictions or not and with whom also the authority of interpreting the Lawes already receiv'd and the written Word of God did reside which thing is to be trac't through all the times and severall changes of the Commonwealth of Israel But it is manifest that this power during the life of Moyses was intirely in himselfe for if he had not been the Interpreter of the Lawes and Word that office must have belong'd either to every private person or to a congregation or Synagogue of many or to the High-Priest or to other Prophets First that that office belong'd not to private men or any Congregation made of them appeares hence that they were not admitted nay they were prohibited with most heavy threats to heare God speake otherwise then by the means of Moyses for it is written Let not the Priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord lest

submitted themselves to be protected and judged by reason of the great esteem they had of Prophecies The Reason of this thing was because that though penalties were set and Judges appointed in the institution of Gods priestly Kingdome yet the Right of inflicting punishment depended wholly on private judgement and it belonged to a dissolute multitude and each single Person to punish or not to punish according as their private zeale should stirre them up And therefore Moyses by his own command punisht no man with death but when any man was to be put to death one or many stirred up the multitude against him or them by divine authority and saying Thus saith the Lord. Now this was conformable to the nature of Gods peculiar Kingdome For there God reignes indeed where his Lawes are obeyed not for fear of men but for fear of himselfe and truly if men were such as they should be this were an excellent state of civill government but as men are there is a coercive power in which I comprehend both right and might necessary to rule them and therefore also God from the beginning prescribed Lawes by Moyses for the future Kings Deut. 17. vers 14. and Moyses foretold this in his last words to the people saying I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt your selves and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you c. Deut. 31. 29. when therefore according to this prediction there arose another generation who knew not the Lord nor yet the works which he had done for Ispael the children of Israel did evill in the sight of the Lord and served B●laam Iud. 2. 10 11. to wit they cast off Gods government that is to say that of the Priest by whom God ruled and afterward when they were overcome by their enemies and opprest with bondage they looked for Gods will not at the hands of the Priest any more but of the Prophets These therefore actually judged Israel but their obedience was rightly due to the High Priest Although therefore the Priestly Kingdome after the death of Moyses Ioshuah was without power yet was it not without Right Now that the interpretation of Gods word did belong to the same High Priest is manifest by this That God after the Tabernacle the Ark of the Covenant was consecrated spake no more in mount Sinai but in the Tabernacle of the Covenant from the propitiatory which was between the Cherubims whether it was not lawfull for any to aproach except the High Priest If therefore regard be had to the Right of the Kingdome the supreme civill power and the authority of interpreting Gods word were joyned in the High Priest If we consider the fact they were united in the Prophets who judged Israel For as Iudges they had the civill authority as Prophets they interpreted Gods word and thus every way hitherto these two powers continued inseparable XVI Kings being once constituted it s no doubt but the civill authority belonged to them for the Kingdome of God by the way of Priesthood God consenting to the request of the Israelites was ended which Hierom also marks speaking of the books of Samuel Samuel sayes he Eli being dead and Saul slain declares the old Law abolisht Furthermore the Oaths of the new Priesthood and new Soveraignty in Zadok and David do testifie that the Right whereby the Kings did rule was founded in the very concession of the People The Priest could Rightly doe whatsoever every man could rightly doe himselfe for the Israelites granted him a Right to judge of all things and to wage warre for all men in which two are contained all Right whatsoever can be conceived from man to man Our King say they shall judge us and goe out before us and fight our battails 1. Sam. 8. 20. Iudicature therefore belonged to the Kings but to judge is nothing else then by interpreting to apply the facts to the Lawes to them therefore belonged the interpretation of Lawes too and because there was no other written word of God acknowledged beside the Law of Moyses untill the Captivity the authority of interpreting Gods word did also belong to the Kings Nay forasmuch as the word of God must be taken for a Law if there had been another written word beside the Mosaicall Law seeing the interpretation of Lawes belonged to the Kings the interpretation of it must also have belonged to them When the book of Deuteronomie in which the whole Mosaicall Law was contained being a long time lost was found again the Priests indeed asked Counsell of God concerning that book but not by their own authority but by the Commandement of Iosiah and not immediately neither but by the meanes of Holda the Prophetesse whence it appears that the authority of admitting books for the word of God belonged not to the Priest neither yet followes it that that authority belonged to the Prophetesse because others did judge of the Prophets whether they were to be held for true or not for to what end did God give signes and tokens to all the People whereby the true Prophets might be discerned from the false namely the event of predictions and conformity with the Religion ●stablisht by Moyses if they might not use those marks The authority therefore of admitting books for the word of God belonged to the King thus that book of the Law was approved and received again by the authority of King Iosiah as appears by the fourth book of the Kings 22. 23. Chap. where it is reported that he gathered together all the severall degrees of his Kingdome the Elders Priests Prophets and all the people and he read in their cares all the words of the Covenant that is to say he caused that Covenant to be acknowledged for the Mosaicall Covenant● that is to say for the word of God and to be again received and confirmed by the Israclites The civill power therefore and the power of discerning Gods word from the word of men and of interpreting Gods word even in the dayes of the Kings was wholly belonging to themselves Prophets were sent not with authority but in the form and by the Right of Proclaimers and Preachers of whom the hearers did judge and if perhaps these were punisht who did not listen to them plainly teaching easie things it doth not thence follow that the Kings were obliged to follow all things which they in Gods name did declare were to be followed for though Iosiab the good King of Iudah were slain because he obeyed not the word of the Lord from the mouth of Neobo King of Aegypt that is to say because he rejected good Counsell though it seemed to come from an enemy yet no man I hope will say that Iosiah was by any bond either of divine or humane Lawes obliged to beleeve Pharoah Neobo King of Aegypt because he said that God had spoken to him But what some man may object against Kings that for want of learning they are seldome

insomuch as the interpretation we speak of is the same with the power of defining in all manner of controversies to be determined by sacred Scriptures Now we must shew that that power belongs to each Church and depends on his or their authority who have the Supreme command provided that they be Christians for if it depend not on the civill authority it must either depend on the opinion of each private Subject or some forraigne authority but among othe● reasons the inconveniencies that must follow private opinions cannot suffer its dependance on them of which this is the chiefe that not onely all civill obedience would be taken away contrary to Christ his praecept but all humane society and peace would be dissolved contrary to the Lawes of nature for seeing every man is his owne interpretet of Scripture that is to say since every man makes himselfe judge of what is pleasing and displeasing unto God they cannot obey their Princes before that they have judg'd whether their commands be conformable to the Word of God or not And thus either they obey not or they obey for their owne opinions sake that is to say they obey themselves not their Soveraigne civill obedience therefore is lost Againe when every man followes his owne opinion it 's necessary that the controversies which rise among them will become innumerable and indeterminable whence there will breed among men who by their own naturall inclinations doe account all dissention an affront first hatred then brawles and warres and thus all manner of peace and society would vanish We have farthermore for an example that which God under the old Law required to be observed concerning the book of the Law namely that it should be transcribed and publiquely us'd and he would have it to be the Canon of Divine doctrine but the controversies about it not to be determined by private Persons but onely by the Priests Lastly it is our Saviours Prec●pt that if there be any matter of offence between private Persons they should hea●… the Church Wherefore it is the Churches duty to define controversies it therefore belongs not to private men but to the Church to interpret Scriptures But that we may know that the authority of interpreting Gods Word that is to say of determining all questions concerning God and Religion belongs not to any forraign Person whatsoever we must consider first what esteem such a power carries in the mindes of the subjects and their civill actions for no man can be ignorant that the voluntary actions of men by a naturall necessi●y doe follow those opinions which they have concerning good and evill Reward and Punishment whence it happens that necessarily they would chuse rather to obey those by whose judgement they beleeve that they shall be eternally happy or miserable Now by whose judgement it is appointed what Doctrines are necessary to salvation by their judgement doe men expect their eternall blisse or perditidition they will therefore yeeld them obedience in all things Which being thus most manifest it is that those subjects who believe themselves bound to acquiesce to a forraign authority in those Doctrines which are necessary to salvation doe not per se constitute a City but are the subjects of that forraign power Nor therefore although some Soveraign Prince should by writing grant such an authority to any other yet so as he would be understood to have retained the civill power in his own hands shall such a Writing be valid or transferre ought necessary for the retaining o● good administration of his command for by the 2. Chap. 4. art●● no man is said to transferre his Right unlesse be give some proper sign declaring his Will to transferre it but he who hath openly declared his will to keep his Soveraignty cannot have given a sufficient sign of transferring the means necessary for the keeping it This kinde of Writing therefore will not be a sign of Will but of Ignorance in the contractors We must consider ne●t how absurd it is for a City or Soveraign to commit the ruling of his Subjects consciences to an enemy for they are as hath been shewed above in the 5. Chap. 6. artic in an hostile state whosoever have not joyn'd themselves into the unity of one Person Nor contradicts it this truth that they doe not alwayes fight for tr●ces are made between enemies It is sufficient for an hostile minde that there is suspition that the Frontiers of Cities Kingdomes Empires strengthned with Garisons doe with a fighting posture and countenance though they strike not yet as enemies mutually he hold each other Lastly how unequall is it to demand that which by the very reason of your demand you confesse belongs to anothers Right I am the Interpreter of Scriptures to you who are the Subject of anothers Realme Why By what Covenants past between you and me By Divine authority Whence knowne Out of holy Scripture Behold the Book read i●… in vain unlesse I may also interpret the same for my self That interpretation therefore doth by Right belong to me and the rest of my private fellow-subjects which we both deny It remains therefore that in all christian Churches that is to say in all christian Cities the interpretation of sacred Scripture depend on and derive from the authority of that man or Councell which hath the Soveraign power of the City XXVIII Now because there are two kindes of controversies the one about spirituall matters that is to say questions of faith the truth whereof cannot be searcht into by naturall reason such are the questions concerning the nature and office of Christ of rewards and punishments to come of the Sacraments of outward worship and the like the other about questions of humane science whose truth is sought out by naturall reason and Syllogismes drawne from the Covenants of men and definitions that is to say significations received by use and common consent of words such as are all questions of Right and Philosophy for example when in matter of Right it s questioned whether there be a Promise and Covenant or not that is nothing else but to demand whether such words spoken in such a manner be by common use and consent of the Subjects a Promise or Covenant which if they be so called then it is true that a Contract is made if not then it is false that truth therefore depends on the compacts and consents of men In like manner when it is demanded in Philosophy whether the same thing may entirely be in divers places at once the determination of the question depends on the knowledge of the common consent of men about the signification of the word entire for if men when they say a thing is entirely●…somewhere doe signifie by common consent that they understand nothing of the same to be elsewhere it is false that the same thing is in divers places at once that truth therefore depends on the consents of men and by the same reason in all other