First,where the Levites fell upon the people that had made and worshipped the golden calf,and slew three thousand of them,it was by the commandment of Moses from the mouth of God;as is manifest,Exodus,32.27.And when the son of a woman of Israel had blasphemed God,they that heard it did not kill him,but brought him before Moses,who put him under custody,till God should give sentence against him;as appears,Leviticus,24.11,12.Again,when Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi,it was not by right of private zeal:their crime was committed in the sight of the assembly;there needed no witness;the law was known,and he the heir apparent to the sovereignty;and,which is the principal point,the lawfulness of his act depended wholly upon a subsequent ratification by Moses,whereof he had no cause to doubt.And this presumption of a future ratification is sometimes necessary to the safety of a Commonwealth;as in a sudden rebellion any man that can suppress it by his own power in the country where it begins,without express law or commission,may lawfully do it,and provide to have it ratified,or pardoned,whilst it is in doing,or after it is done.Also,it is expressly said,"Whosoever shall kill the murderer shall kill him upon the word of witnesses":but witnesses suppose a formal judicature,and consequently condemn that pretence of jus zelotarum.The Law of Moses concerning him that enticeth to idolatry,that is to say,in the kingdom of God to a renouncing of his allegiance,forbids to conceal him,and commands the accuser to cause him to be put to death,and to cast the first stone at him;but not to kill him before he be condemned.And the process against idolatry is exactly set down:for God there speaketh to the people as Judge,and commandeth them,when a man is accused of idolatry,to enquire diligently of the fact,and finding it true,then to stone him;but still the hand of the witness throweth the first stone.This is not private zeal,but public condemnation.In like manner when a father hath a rebellious son,the law is that he shall bring him before the judges of the town,and all the people of the town shall stone him.Lastly,by pretence of these laws it was that St.Stephen was stoned,and not by pretence of private zeal:for before he was carried away to execution,he had pleaded his cause before the high priest.There is nothing in all this,nor in any other part of the Bible,to countenance executions by private zeal;which,being oftentimes but a conjunction of ignorance and passion,is against both the justice and peace of a Commonwealth.
In the thirty-sixth Chapter I have said that it is not declared in what manner God spoke supernaturally to Moses:not that He spoke not to him sometimes by dreams and visions,and by a supernatural voice,as to other prophets;for the manner how He spoke unto him from the mercy seat is expressly set down in these words,"From that time forward,when Moses entered into Tabernacle of the congregation to speak with God,he heard a voice which spake unto him from over the mercy seat,which is over the Ark of the testimony;from between the cherubims he spake unto him."But it is not declared in what consisted the pre-eminence of the manner of God's speaking to Moses,above that of His speaking to other prophets,as to Samuel and to Abraham,to whom He also spoke by a voice (that is,by vision),unless the difference consist in the clearness of the vision.For "face to face,"and "mouth to mouth,"cannot be literally understood of the infiniteness and incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature.
And as to the whole doctrine,I see not yet,but the principles of it are true and proper,and the ratiocination solid.For I ground the civil right of sovereigns,and both the duty and liberty of subjects,upon the known natural inclinations of mankind,and upon the articles of the law of nature;of which no man,that pretends but reason enough to govern his private family,ought to be ignorant.
And for the power ecclesiastical of the same sovereigns,I ground it on such texts as are both evident in themselves and consonant to the scope of the whole Scripture,and therefore am persuaded that he that shall read it with a purpose only to be informed,shall be informed by it.But for those that by writing or public discourse,or by their eminent actions,have already engaged themselves to the maintaining of contrary opinions,they will not be so easily satisfied.For in such cases,it is natural for men,at one and the same time,both to proceed in reading and to lose their attention in the search of objections to that they had read before:of which,in a time wherein the interests of men are changed (seeing much of that doctrine which serveth to the establishing of a new government must needs be contrary to that which conduced to the dissolution of the old),there cannot choose but be very many.
