miracle, joined together, were the only marks whereby the Scripture would have a true prophet, that is to say, immediate revelation, to be acknowledged; neither of them being singly sufficient to oblige any other man to regard what he saith.
[Sidenote: Miracles ceasing, prophets cease, and the Scripture supplies their place.]
Seeing therefore miracles now cease, we have no sign left, whereby to acknowledge the pretended revelations or inspirations of any private man; nor obligation to give ear to any doctrine, farther than it is conformable to the Holy Scriptures, which since the time of our Saviour, supply the place, and sufficiently recompense the want of all other prophecy; and from which, by wise and learned interpretation, and careful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge of our duty both to God and man, without enthusiasm or supernatural inspiration, may easily be deduced. And this Scripture is it, out of which I am to take the principles of my discourse, concerning the rights of those that are the supreme governors on earth of Christian commonwealths; and of the duty of Christian subjects towards their sovereigns. And to that end, I shall speak in the next chapter, of the books, writers, scope and authority of the Bible.
------- CHAPTER XXXIII.
OF THE NUMBER, ANTIQUITY, SCOPE, AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETERS OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
[Sidenote: Of the books of Holy Scripture.]
By the Books of Holy SCRIPTURE, are understood those, which ought to be the _canon_, that is to say, the rules of Christian life.
And because all rules of life, which men are in conscience bound to observe, are laws; the question of the Scripture, is the question of what is law throughout all Christendom, both natural and civil. For though it be not determined in Scripture, what laws every Christian king shall constitute in his own dominions; yet it is determined what laws he shall not constitute. Seeing therefore I have already proved, that sovereigns in their own dominions are the sole legislators; those books only are canonical, that is, law, in every nation, which are established for such by the sovereign authority. It is true, that God is the sovereign of all sovereigns; and therefore, when he speaks to any subject, he ought to be obeyed, whatsoever any earthly potentate command to the contrary. But the question is not of obedience to God, but of _when_ and _what_ God hath said; which to subjects that have no supernatural revelation, cannot be known, but by that natural reason, which guideth them, for the obtaining of peace and justice, to obey the authority of their several commonwealths, that is to say, of their lawful sovereigns. According to this obligation, I can acknowledge no other books of the Old Testament, to be Holy Scripture, but those which have been commanded to be acknowledged for such, by the authority of the Church of England. What books these are, is sufficiently known, without a catalogue of them here; and they are the same that are acknowledged by St. Jerome, who holdeth the rest, namely, the _Wisdom of Solomon_, _Ecclesiasticus_, _Judith_, _Tobias_, the first and the second of _Maccabees_, (though he had seen the first in Hebrew,) and the third and fourth of _Esdras_, for _Apocrypha_. Of the canonical, Josephus, a learned Jew, that wrote in the time of the emperor Domitian, reckoneth _twenty-two_, making the number agree with the Hebrew alphabet. St.
Jerome does the same, though they reckon them in different manner. For Josephus numbers _five_ Books of _Moses_, _thirteen_ of _Prophets_ that writ the history of their own times, (which how it agrees with the prophets’ writings contained in the Bible we shall see hereafter,) and _four_ of _hymns_ and moral precepts. But St. Jerome reckons _five_ books of _Moses_, _eight_ of _Prophets_, and _nine_ of other Holy Writ, which he calls of ἁγιόγραφα. The Septuagint, who were seventy learned men of the Jews, sent for by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to translate the Jewish law out of the Hebrew into the Greek, have left us no other for Holy Scripture in the Greek tongue, but the same that are received in the Church of England.
[Sidenote: Their antiquity.]
As for the Books of the New Testament, they are equally acknowledged for canon by all Christian churches, and by all sects of Christians, that admit any books at all for canonical.
Who were the original writers of the several Books of Holy Scripture, has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other history, which is the only proof of matter of fact; nor can be, by any arguments of natural reason: for reason serves only to convince the truth, not of fact, but, of consequence. The light therefore that must guide us in this question, must be that which is held out unto us from the books themselves: and this light, though it show us not the writer of every book, yet it is not unuseful to give us knowledge of the time, wherein they were written.
[Sidenote: The Pentateuch not written by Moses.]
And first, for the _Pentateuch_, it is not argument enough that they were written by Moses, because they are called the five Books of _Moses_; no more than these titles, the Book of _Joshua_, the Book of _Judges_, the Book of _Ruth_, and the Books of the _Kings_, are arguments sufficient to prove, that they were written by _Joshua_, by the _Judges_, by _Ruth_, and by the _Kings_. For in titles of books, the subject is marked, as often as the writer. The history of Livy, denotes the writer; but the history of Scanderberg, is denominated from the subject. We read in the last chapter of _Deuteronomy_, verse 6th, concerning the sepulchre of Moses, _that no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day_, that is, to to the day wherein those words were written.
It is therefore manifest, that those words were written after his interment. For it were a strange interpretation, to say Moses spake of his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it was not found to that day, wherein he was yet living. But it may perhaps be alleged, that the last chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written by some other man, but the rest not. Let us therefore consider that which we find in the book of Genesis, (xii. 6.) _And Abraham passed through the land to the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh, and the_ Canaanite _was then in the land_; which must needs be the words of one that wrote when the Canaanite was not in the land; and consequently, not of Moses, who died before he came into it. Likewise _Numbers_, xxi. 14, the writer citeth another more ancient book, entitled, _The Book of the Wars of the Lord_, wherein were registered the acts of Moses, at the Red Sea, and at the brook of Arnon. It is therefore sufficiently evident, that the five Books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after it be not so manifest.
But though Moses did not compile those books entirely, and in the form we have them; yet he wrote all that which he is there said to have written: as for example, the Volume of the Law, which is contained, as it seemeth, in the xith. of _Deuteronomy_, and the following chapters to the xxviith. which was also commanded to be written on stones, in their entry into the land of Canaan. And this also did Moses himself write, (_Deut._ xxxi. 9, 10) and delivered to the priests and elders of Israel, to be read every seventh year to all Israel, at their assembling in the Feast of Tabernacles. And this is that law which God commanded, that their kings, when they should have established that form of government, should take a copy of from the priests and Levites: and which Moses commanded the priests and Levites to lay in the side of the ark, (_Deut._ xxxi. 26); and the same which having been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah, and sent to king Josias (_2 Kings_ xxii.
8) who causing it to be read to the people, (_2 Kings_ xxiii. 1, 2, 3) renewed the covenant between God and them.
[Sidenote: The book of Joshua written after his time.]
That the book of _Joshua_ was also written long after the time of Joshua, may be gathered out of many places of the book itself. Joshua had set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan, for a monument of their passage; of which the writer saith thus, _They are there unto this day_ (_Josh._ iv. 9); for _unto this day_, is a phrase that signifieth a time past, beyond the memory of man. In like manner, upon the saying of the Lord, that he had rolled off from the people the reproach of Egypt, the writer saith, _The place is called Gilgal unto this day_ (_Josh._ v. 9); which to have said in the time of Joshua had been improper. So also the name of the valley of Achor, from the trouble that Achan raised in the camp, the writer saith, _remaineth unto this day_ (_Josh._ vii. 26); which must needs be therefore long after the time of Joshua. Arguments of this kind there be many other; as _Josh._ viii. 29, xiii. 13, xiv.
14, xv. 63.
[Sidenote: The books of Judges and Ruth written long after the captivity.]
The same is manifest by like arguments of the book of _Judges_, chap. i.
_Judg._ 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_.
[Sidenote: The like of the books of Samuel.]
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.
[Sidenote: The books of the Kings, and the Chronicles.]
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, 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.
[Sidenote: Ezra and Nehemiah.]
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.
[Sidenote: Esther.]
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.
[Sidenote: Job.]
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. 11) 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 testifies, 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.
[Sidenote: The Psalter.]
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.
[Sidenote: The Proverbs.]
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.
[Sidenote: Ecclesiastes and the Canticles.]
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 Scripture were gathered into one body of the law; to the end, that not the doctrine only, but the authors also might be extant.
[Sidenote: Prophets.]
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 Niniveh 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 prophecied in the time of Josiah.
Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, and Zechariah, in the captivity.
When Joel and Malachi prophecied, 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 Ptolomæus 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.
[Sidenote: The New Testament.]
The writers of the New Testament lived all in less than an age after Christ’s ascension, and had all of them seen our 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.
[Sidenote: Their scope.] 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 indued 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; I., 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.
[Sidenote: The question of the authority of the Scriptures stated.]
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_.
[Sidenote: Their authority and interpretation.]
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, immediately 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.
[Sidenote: Body and spirit how taken in the 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_.
[Sidenote: Body and spirit how taken in the Scripture.]
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 any thing 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, 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 _aerial 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 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 controul the sayings of other men, we say, _a spirit of contradiction_; for _a disposition to uncleanness_, _an unclean spirit_; for _perverseness_, _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_.
Other signification 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 attributes 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.
[Sidenote: The spirit of God taken in the Scripture sometimes for a wind, or breath.]
_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.
But 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 _spirit moved_, which might be called, as in the former place, the _Spirit of God_, because it was God’s work.
[Sidenote: Secondly, for extraordinary gifts of the understanding.]
Gen. xli. 38, Pharoah 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 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.
[Sidenote: Thirdly, for extraordinary affections.]
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 Sampson to deliver them from servitude, _Judges_, iii. 10, vi. 34, 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.
[Sidenote: Fourthly, for the gift of prediction by dreams and visions.]
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 can not 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 supernatural _dream_ or _vision_.
[Sidenote: Fifthly, for life.]
_Gen._ ii. 7, it is said, _God made man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils_ (spiraculum vitæ) _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