Review and Conclusion, 2

First, when the Levites fell upon the people who had made and worshipped the golden calf, and killed three thousand of them, they acted on the command of Moses, received from the mouth of God, as is clear from Exod. 32.27. And when the son of an Israelite woman blasphemed God, those who heard him did not kill him, but brought him before Moses, who held him in custody until God should pronounce sentence against him, as appears in Levit. 25.11, 12. Again, when Phinehas killed Zimri and Cosbi (Numbers 25.6, 7.), he did not do so by a right of private zeal. Their crime was committed in sight of the assembly; no witness was needed; the law was known; and he was heir apparent to the sovereignty. Most importantly, the lawfulness of his act depended entirely on its subsequent ratification by Moses, of which he had no reason to doubt. Such an expectation of future ratification is sometimes necessary for the safety of a Commonwealth: in a sudden rebellion, for instance, anyone able to suppress it by his own power in the region where it begins may lawfully do so, and arrange to have his action ratified or pardoned while it is being done or after it is done. Also, Numb. 35.30. expressly says, “Whoever shall kill the murderer shall kill him on the testimony of witnesses.” But witnesses presuppose a formal court, and therefore rule out this claim of Jus Zelotarum. The law of Moses concerning someone who entices others to idolatry—that is, in the Kingdom of God, to renounce their allegiance—(Deut. 13.8.) forbids concealing 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 is condemned. And in Deut. 17. ver.4, 5, 6. the procedure against idolatry is laid out precisely: God there speaks to the people as judge, commanding them, when a man is accused of idolatry, to inquire diligently into the deed and, if they find the charge true, then to stone him; still, the witness's hand casts the first stone. This is not private zeal but public condemnation. Likewise, when a father has a rebellious son, the law (Deut. 21. 18.) requires him to bring the son before the town's judges, and all the people of the town to stone him. Lastly, it was under a claim based on these laws that St. Stephen was stoned, not under a claim of private zeal: before he was led away to execution, he had pleaded his cause before the high priest. Nothing here, nor anywhere else in the Bible, lends support to executions by private zeal, which is often no more than ignorance joined to passion, and is opposed alike to the justice and the peace of a Commonwealth.

In the 36th Chapter I said that it is not declared in what manner God spoke supernaturally to Moses. I did not mean that he never spoke to him by dreams and visions, or by a supernatural voice, as he did to other prophets. For the manner in which he spoke to him from the mercy seat is expressly described (Numbers 7.89.) in these words: “From that time onward, when Moses entered the Tabernacle of the Congregation to speak with God, he heard a voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat, which is above the Ark of the Testimony; from between the cherubim he spoke to him.” What is not declared is in what way the manner of God's speech to Moses excelled his speech to other prophets, such as Samuel and Abraham, to whom he also spoke by a voice (that is, by a vision), unless the difference lay in the clarity of the vision. For “face to face” and “mouth to mouth” cannot be understood literally of the infinite and incomprehensible divine nature.

As for the whole doctrine, I still see no reason to doubt that its principles are true and fitting, and its reasoning sound. For I ground the civil right of sovereigns, and both the duty and the liberty of subjects, on the known natural inclinations of mankind and on the articles of the Law of Nature, of which no one who claims enough reason to govern his own family ought to be ignorant. And as for the ecclesiastical power of those same sovereigns, I ground it on texts both evident in themselves and consistent with the purpose of the whole Scripture. I am therefore persuaded that anyone who reads it solely in order to be informed will be informed by it. But those who, by writing or public discourse or their prominent actions, have already committed themselves to maintaining contrary opinions will not be so readily satisfied. For in such cases it is natural for people, even as they continue reading, to lose their attention in searching for objections to what they have read before. And in a time when people's interests are changing—since much of the doctrine that serves to establish a new government must be contrary to what contributed to the dissolution of the old—there cannot fail to be very many such objections.

In the part that treats of a Christian Commonwealth there are some new doctrines which, perhaps, in a state where the contrary had already been fully settled, it would be a fault for a subject to publish without permission, as an usurpation of the teacher's place. But at this time, when people call not only for peace but also for truth, to offer doctrines I believe to be true and plainly conducive to peace and loyalty for the consideration of those still deliberating is merely to offer new wine for new casks, so that both may be preserved together. And I suppose that, when novelty can breed no trouble or disorder in a state, people are not generally so devoted to revering antiquity that they would prefer ancient errors to new and well-proven truth.

There is nothing I distrust more than my expression; yet I am confident that, barring accidents of the press, it is not obscure. My neglect of the ornament of quoting ancient poets, orators, and philosophers, contrary to the custom of recent times—whether I have done well or badly in this—proceeds from my considered judgment, based on many reasons. First, the truth of any doctrine depends either on reason or on Scripture; these confer authority on many writers but receive it from none. Secondly, the matters at issue are not matters of fact but of right, for which witnesses have no place. There is scarcely one of those old writers who does not sometimes contradict both himself and others, rendering their testimony insufficient. Fourthly, opinions accepted solely on the authority of antiquity are not truly the judgments of those who cite them, but words passed from mouth to mouth like a yawn. Fifthly, men often pursue a fraudulent design when they stud their corrupt doctrine with the cloves of other men's wit. Sixthly, I do not find that the ancients they cite considered it an ornament to do the same with those who wrote before them. Seventhly, it is a sign of indigestion when unchewed Greek and Latin sentences come up again, as they commonly do, unchanged. Lastly, though I revere those people of ancient times who either wrote the truth clearly or set us on a better path to discover it for ourselves, I think nothing is owed to antiquity itself. For if it is age we are to revere, the present is the oldest. If it is the age of the writer, I am not sure that those generally accorded such honor were older when they wrote than I am as I write. But considered carefully, the praise of ancient authors springs not from reverence for the dead, but from the rivalry and mutual envy of the living.

To conclude, as far as I can perceive, there is nothing in this entire discourse, or in what I wrote earlier on the same subject in Latin, contrary to the Word of God, to good morals, or to public tranquility. Therefore I think it may profitably be printed, and still more profitably taught in the universities, if those to whom such judgment belongs think so too. For the universities are the fountains of civil and moral doctrine. Preachers and the gentry draw whatever water they find there and sprinkle it on the people, both from the pulpit and in conversation; surely great care must therefore be taken to keep it pure of both the venom of heathen politicians and the enchantments of deceiving spirits. In this way most people, knowing their duties, will be less inclined to serve the ambition of a few discontented persons in their designs against the state; they will resent less the contributions necessary for their peace and defense; and governors themselves will have less cause to maintain at public expense an army any larger than is necessary to secure the public liberty against the invasions and encroachments of foreign enemies.

And thus I bring to an end my discourse on civil and ecclesiastical government, prompted by the disorders of the present time, without partiality, without personal application, and with no design other than to set before people's eyes the mutual relation between protection and obedience. Both the condition of human nature and the laws of God, natural and positive alike, require that relation to be inviolably observed. And though, amid the revolutions of states, truths of this kind can scarcely be born under a favorable constellation—facing the angry gaze of those who dissolve an old government and seeing only the backs of those who establish a new one—I cannot believe that this work will now be condemned either by the public judge of doctrine or by anyone who desires the continuance of public peace. In this hope I return to my interrupted study of natural bodies; and there, if God grants me the health to finish it, I hope novelty will please as much as it commonly offends in the doctrine of this artificial body. For truth that opposes no one's profit or pleasure is welcome to all.

THE END

First, consider when the Levites attacked the people who had made and worshiped the golden calf and killed three thousand of them. They acted on Moses's command, which came from God, as Exod. 32.27 makes clear. When the son of an Israelite woman blasphemed God, the people who heard him did not kill him. They brought him to Moses, who kept him in custody until God gave a sentence against him, as Levit. 25.11, 12 shows. Again, when Phinehas killed Zimri and Cosbi (Numbers 25.6, 7.), he did not act under a private right of religious zeal. Their offense took place before the assembly, so no witness was needed. The law was known, and Phinehas was the heir apparent to sovereign power. Most importantly, his act was lawful only because Moses later ratified it, something Phinehas had no reason to doubt would happen. Sometimes the expectation of later ratification is necessary for a Commonwealth's safety. During a sudden rebellion, for example, anyone who can put it down with his own forces in the area where it begins may lawfully do so, and seek ratification or a pardon either during the action or afterward. Also, Numb. 35.30. expressly says, “Whoever kills the murderer must kill him on the word of witnesses.” But witnesses imply a formal court process. This rules out the claimed right of zealots to execute people. The law of Moses concerning someone who urges another person to worship idols—that is, to renounce allegiance in the kingdom of God—says (Deut. 13.8.) not to conceal that person. It commands the accuser to see that the person is put to death and to throw the first stone, but not to kill the person before a conviction. And Deut. 17. ver.4, 5, 6. lays out the procedure for an accusation of idolatry precisely. There God addresses the people as a judge and commands them to investigate the charge carefully. If they find it true, they must stone the accused, with the witness throwing the first stone. This is public condemnation, not private zeal. Similarly, if a father has a rebellious son, the law (Deut. 21. 18.) tells him to bring the son before the town judges, after which all the townspeople must stone him. Finally, St. Steven was stoned on the pretext of these laws, not on a claim of private zeal. Before he was taken away for execution, he had argued his case before the high priest. Nothing here, or anywhere else in the Bible, supports executions driven by private zeal. That zeal often combines ignorance with passion and threatens both justice and peace in a Commonwealth.

In the 36th Chapter I said that Scripture does not tell us exactly how God spoke supernaturally to Moses. I did not mean that God never spoke to him in dreams, visions, or a supernatural voice, as he spoke to other prophets. The way God spoke to Moses from the mercy seat is stated expressly in Numbers 7.89.: “From that time on, when Moses entered the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with God, he heard a voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat, which is above the ark of the testimony. From between the cherubim, God spoke to him.” But Scripture does not say what made God's way of speaking to Moses superior to his way of speaking to other prophets, such as Samuel and Abraham. God also spoke to them by a voice, that is, through a vision. Perhaps the difference was simply that Moses's vision was clearer. We cannot understand “face to face” and “mouth to mouth” literally, because God's nature is infinite and beyond human understanding.

As for the teaching of this whole work, I still see no reason to doubt that its principles are true and appropriate or that its reasoning is sound. I base the civil rights of sovereigns, and both the duties and freedoms of subjects, on the familiar natural inclinations of human beings and on the provisions of the law of nature. Anyone who claims enough reason to govern his own family should understand these things. I base those same sovereigns' authority in church matters on scriptural passages that are clear in themselves and agree with the purpose of Scripture as a whole. So I believe that anyone who reads this book simply to learn will learn from it. But those who have already committed themselves to opposing views, through their writing, public speeches, or prominent actions, will not be so easily convinced. While reading, people in that position naturally start searching for objections to what they have just read and stop paying attention to what comes next. There are bound to be many such objections at a time when people's interests are changing. Much of the teaching that helps establish a new government must conflict with what helped dissolve the old one.

The part about a Christian Commonwealth contains some new teachings. In a state that has already formally settled on the opposite views, a subject who publishes them without permission might be at fault for taking on the role of a teacher. But now people are calling not only for peace but also for truth. Offering teachings that I think are true and that plainly support peace and loyalty to people who are still deciding what to believe is like offering new wine for new casks, so that both can be preserved. I assume that when something new cannot cause trouble or disorder in a state, people are not generally so devoted to the past that they would prefer old errors to new, well-proven truths.

What I distrust most is my writing style. Still, I believe it is clear, apart from any printing mistakes. I have left out the decorative quotations from ancient poets, speakers, and philosophers that have lately become customary. Whether this was right or wrong, I made the choice for several reasons. First, the truth of any teaching rests either on reason or on Scripture. Both can give authority to many writers, but neither gets its own authority from a writer. Second, these questions concern what is right, not what happened, so witnesses have no place in deciding them. Third, hardly any of those ancient writers avoids contradicting either himself or others at some point, which makes their testimony inadequate. Fourth, when people accept opinions solely because they are ancient, those opinions are not really their own judgments. They are words passed from mouth to mouth like a yawn. Fifth, people often have a dishonest purpose when they dress up corrupt teachings with clever phrases from other writers, like food studded with cloves. Sixth, as far as I can see, the ancient writers people quote did not consider it a mark of good style to do the same with earlier writers. Seventh, when people bring up Greek and Latin sentences unchanged, without having digested them, it shows that they have not thought them through. Finally, I respect ancient people who clearly wrote the truth or helped us find it for ourselves. But I think mere age deserves no respect. If we respect what is oldest, the present is the oldest age. If we mean the writer's own age, I doubt that the people who receive this honor were generally older when they wrote than I am as I write. On closer examination, praise for ancient authors comes not from respect for the dead but from rivalry and mutual envy among the living.

In conclusion, as far as I can tell, nothing in this entire work, or in what I previously wrote in Latin on the same subject, conflicts with God's word or with good conduct, or disturbs the public peace. So I think this book can usefully be printed and, more usefully still, taught in universities, if the people authorized to decide that question agree. Universities are the sources of teaching about civil and moral life. Preachers and members of the upper classes draw from them whatever they find and spread it among the people, both from the pulpit and in everyday conversation. We must therefore take great care to keep that teaching free of the poison of pagan political writers and the spells of deceiving spirits. Then most people will know their duties and be less likely to help a few discontented people pursue their ambitions against the state. They will also resent the payments needed for their peace and defense less. And rulers will have less reason to maintain, at public expense, an army larger than needed to protect public freedom against invasion and encroachment by foreign enemies.

This brings my discussion of civil and church government to an end. The troubles of the present time prompted me to write it, without favoritism, without directing it at particular people, and with no aim other than to show the mutual relationship between protection and obedience. Human nature and divine laws, both natural and positive, require that relationship to be observed without exception. When states are changing, truths like these are not born under favorable stars: those dismantling an old government look on them angrily, while those building a new one turn their backs on them. Even so, I do not think this work will now be condemned either by the public authority that judges teaching or by anyone who wants public peace to last. With that hope, I return to my interrupted study of natural bodies. If God gives me the health to finish it, I hope its new ideas will please people as much as new ideas about this artificial body, the Commonwealth, tend to offend them. Everyone welcomes a truth that threatens no one's advantage or pleasure.

The End