Thomas Hobbes · Complete work
Part III, Chapter XXXII
Part III, Chapter XXXII of 101. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal 17th-century English
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITIQUES
The Word Of God Delivered By Prophets Is The Main Principle
Of Christian Politiques
I have derived the Rights of Soveraigne Power, and the duty of Subjects hitherto, from the Principles of Nature onely; such as Experience has found true, or Consent (concerning the use of words) has made so; that is to say, from the nature of Men, known to us by Experience, and from Definitions (of such words as are Essentiall to all Politicall reasoning) universally agreed on. But in that I am next to handle, which is the Nature and Rights of a CHRISTIAN COMMON-WEALTH, whereof there dependeth much upon Supernaturall Revelations of the Will of God; the ground of my Discourse must be, not only the Naturall Word of God, but also the Propheticall.
Neverthelesse, we are not to renounce our Senses, and Experience; nor (that which is the undoubted Word of God) our naturall Reason. For they are the talents which he hath put into our hands to negotiate, till the coming again of our blessed Saviour; and therefore not to be folded up in the Napkin of an Implicate Faith, but employed in the purchase of Justice, Peace, and true Religion, For though there be many things in Gods Word above Reason; that is to say, which cannot by naturall reason be either demonstrated, or confuted; yet there is nothing contrary to it; but when it seemeth so, the fault is either in our unskilfull Interpretation, or erroneous Ratiocination.
Therefore, when any thing therein written is too hard for our examination, wee are bidden to captivate our understanding to the Words; and not to labour in sifting out a Philosophicall truth by Logick, of such mysteries as are not comprehensible, nor fall under any rule of naturall science. For it is with the mysteries of our Religion, as with wholsome pills for the sick, which swallowed whole, have the vertue to cure; but chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.
But by the Captivity of our Understanding, is not meant a Submission of the Intellectual faculty, to the Opinion of any other man; but of the Will to Obedience, where obedience is due. For Sense, Memory, Understanding, Reason, and Opinion are not in our power to change; but alwaies, and necessarily such, as the things we see, hear, and consider suggest unto us; and therefore are not effects of our Will, but our Will of them. We then Captivate our Understanding and Reason, when we forbear contradiction; when we so speak, as (by lawfull Authority) we are commanded; and when we live accordingly; which in sum, is Trust, and Faith reposed in him that speaketh, though the mind be incapable of any Notion at all from the words spoken.
When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately; or by mediation of another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately. How God speaketh to a man immediately, may be understood by those well enough, to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another, is hard, if not impossible to know. For if a man pretend to me, that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce, to oblige me to beleeve it. It is true, that if he be my Soveraign, he may oblige me to obedience, so, as not by act or word to declare I beleeve him not; but not to think any otherwise then my reason perswades me. But if one that hath not such authority over me, shall pretend the same, there is nothing that exacteth either beleefe, or obedience.
For to say that God hath spoken to him in the Holy Scripture, is not to say God hath spoken to him immediately, but by mediation of the Prophets, or of the Apostles, or of the Church, in such manner as he speaks to all other Christian men. To say he hath spoken to him in a Dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win beleef from any man, that knows dreams are for the most part naturall, and may proceed from former thoughts; and such dreams as that, from selfe conceit, and foolish arrogance, and false opinion of a mans own godlinesse, or other vertue, by which he thinks he hath merited the favour of extraordinary Revelation. To say he hath seen a Vision, or heard a Voice, is to say, that he hath dreamed between sleeping and waking: for in such manner a man doth many times naturally take his dream for a vision, as not having well observed his own slumbering. To say he speaks by supernaturall Inspiration, is to say he finds an ardent desire to speak, or some strong opinion of himself, for which he can alledge no naturall and sufficient reason. So that though God Almighty can speak to a man, by Dreams, Visions, Voice, and Inspiration; yet he obliges no man to beleeve he hath so done to him that pretends it; who (being a man), may erre, and (which is more) may lie.
How then can he, to whom God hath never revealed his Wil immediately (saving by the way of natural reason) know when he is to obey, or not to obey his Word, delivered by him, that sayes he is a Prophet? (1 Kings 22) Of 400 Prophets, of whom the K. of Israel asked counsel, concerning the warre he made against Ramoth Gilead, only Micaiah was a true one.(1 Kings 13) The Prophet that was sent to prophecy against the Altar set up by Jeroboam, though a true Prophet, and that by two miracles done in his presence appears to be a Prophet sent from God, was yet deceived by another old Prophet, that perswaded him as from the mouth of God, to eat and drink with him. If one Prophet deceive another, what certainty is there of knowing the will of God, by other way than that of Reason? To which I answer out of the Holy Scripture, that there be two marks, by which together, not asunder, a true Prophet is to be known. One is the doing of miracles; the other is the not teaching any other Religion than that which is already established. Asunder (I say) neither of these is sufficient. (Deut. 13 v. 1,2,3,4,5 ) “If a Prophet rise amongst you, or a Dreamer of dreams, and shall pretend the doing of a miracle, and the miracle come to passe; if he say, Let us follow strange Gods, which thou hast not known, thou shalt not hearken to him, &c. But that Prophet and Dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to you to Revolt from the Lord your God.” In which words two things are to be observed, First, that God wil not have miracles alone serve for arguments, to approve the Prophets calling; but (as it is in the third verse) for an experiment of the constancy of our adherence to himself. For the works of the Egyptian Sorcerers, though not so great as those of Moses, yet were great miracles. Secondly, that how great soever the miracle be, yet if it tend to stir up revolt against the King, or him that governeth by the Kings authority, he that doth such miracle, is not to be considered otherwise than as sent to make triall of their allegiance. For these words, “revolt from the Lord your God,” are in this place equivalent to “revolt from your King.” For they had made God their King by pact at the foot of Mount Sinai; who ruled them by Moses only; for he only spake with God, and from time to time declared Gods Commandements to the people. In like manner, after our Saviour Christ had made his Disciples acknowledge him for the Messiah, (that is to say, for Gods anointed, whom the nation of the Jews daily expected for their King, but refused when he came,) he omitted not to advertise them of the danger of miracles. “There shall arise,” (saith he) “false Christs, and false Prophets, and shall doe great wonders and miracles, even to the seducing (if it were possible) of the very Elect.” (Mat. 24. 24) By which it appears, that false Prophets may have the power of miracles; yet are wee not to take their doctrin for Gods Word. St. Paul says further to the Galatians, that “if himself, or an Angell from heaven preach another Gospel to them, than he had preached, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1. 8) That Gospel was, that Christ was King; so that all preaching against the power of the King received, in consequence to these words, is by St. Paul accursed. For his speech is addressed to those, who by his preaching had already received Jesus for the Christ, that is to say, for King of the Jews.
And as Miracles, without preaching that Doctrine which God hath established; so preaching the true Doctrine, without the doing of Miracles, is an unsufficient argument of immediate Revelation. For if a man that teacheth not false Doctrine, should pretend to bee a Prophet without shewing any Miracle, he is never the more to bee regarded for his pretence, as is evident by Deut. 18. v. 21, 22. “If thou say in thy heart, How shall we know that the Word (of the Prophet) is not that which the Lord hath spoken. When the Prophet shall have spoken in the name of the Lord, that which shall not come to passe, that’s the word which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet has spoken it out of the pride of his own heart, fear him not.” But a man may here again ask, When the Prophet hath foretold a thing, how shal we know whether it will come to passe or not? For he may foretel it as a thing to arrive after a certain long time, longer then the time of mans life; or indefinitely, that it will come to passe one time or other: in which case this mark of a Prophet is unusefull; and therefore the miracles that oblige us to beleeve a Prophet, ought to be confirmed by an immediate, or a not long deferr’d event. So that it is manifest, that the teaching of the Religion which God hath established, and the showing of a present 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.
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 want of all other Prophecy; and from which, by wise and careful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge of our duty both to God and man, without Enthusiasme, or supernaturall 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 Supream Govenors on earth, of Christian Common-wealths; and of the duty of Christian Subjects towards their Soveraigns. And to that end, I shall speak in the next Chapter, or 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
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete 1651 English text (introduction, forty-seven chapters, review and conclusion) for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity. Hobbes’s marginal summaries are omitted.
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN POLITICS
The Word of God Delivered by Prophets Is the Main Principle
Of Christian Politics
So far I have derived the rights of Sovereign Power and the duty of subjects solely from the principles of nature: principles found true by experience or made true by agreement about the use of words. That is, I have drawn on human nature as known by experience, and on universally accepted definitions of words essential to all political reasoning. But the subject I take up next, the nature and rights of a CHRISTIAN COMMON-WEALTH, depends in large part on supernatural revelations of God's will. My discourse must therefore rest not only on the natural word of God but also on the prophetic word.
Nevertheless, we must not renounce our senses and experience, nor our natural reason, which is undoubtedly the word of God. These are the talents he has placed in our hands for us to put to work until the return of our blessed Savior. They must not be wrapped in the napkin of an unexamined faith, but used to gain justice, peace, and true religion. For although much in God's word is above reason, meaning that natural reason can neither demonstrate nor refute it, nothing in it is contrary to reason. When it seems otherwise, the fault lies either in our unskillful interpretation or in our faulty reasoning.
Thus, when something written there is too difficult for us to examine, we are told to bring our understanding into submission to the words, rather than sift with logic for a philosophical truth in mysteries we cannot comprehend and that fall under no rule of natural science. The mysteries of our religion are like wholesome pills for the sick: swallowed whole they have the power to heal, but chewed they are generally thrown up again without effect.
But bringing our understanding into submission does not mean subjecting our intellectual faculty to another man's opinion. It means submitting our will in obedience where obedience is due. We have no power to change our senses, memory, understanding, reason, or opinions: they always and necessarily follow what the things we see, hear, and consider suggest to us. They are therefore not effects of our will; rather, our will follows from them. We bring our understanding and reason into submission when we refrain from contradiction, speak as lawful authority commands us to speak, and live accordingly. In short, this is trust and faith placed in the speaker, even when the mind cannot form any notion at all from his words.
When God speaks to a man, he must do so either immediately or through another man to whom he has previously spoken immediately. Those to whom God has spoken immediately may understand well enough how he does so, but it is difficult, if not impossible, for someone else to understand it. If a man claims to me that God has spoken to him supernaturally and immediately, and I doubt him, I cannot readily see what argument he could offer to oblige me to believe him. If he is my sovereign, it is true, he can oblige me to obedience, so that I do not declare by word or act that I disbelieve him; but he cannot oblige me to think otherwise than my reason persuades me. If someone with no such authority over me makes the same claim, nothing requires either belief or obedience from me.
To say that God spoke to him in Holy Scripture is not to say that God spoke to him immediately, but through the prophets, apostles, or Church, as he speaks to all other Christians. To say God spoke to him in a dream is merely to say he dreamed that God spoke to him. This has no force to win belief from anyone who knows that dreams are generally natural and may arise from earlier thoughts; such a dream may come from vanity, foolish arrogance, and a false opinion of one's own godliness or other virtue, through which one imagines oneself worthy of an extraordinary revelation. To say he saw a vision or heard a voice is to say he dreamed while half asleep and half awake. In this state a man often naturally mistakes his dream for a vision because he has not noticed his own drowsiness. To say he speaks through supernatural inspiration is to say he feels an ardent desire to speak or holds some strong opinion about himself for which he can give no natural and sufficient reason. Thus, though God Almighty can speak to a man through dreams, visions, voices, and inspiration, he does not oblige anyone to believe that he has done so to a man who claims it. That claimant, being human, can be mistaken and, moreover, can lie.
How, then, can someone to whom God has never revealed his will immediately—except by natural reason—know when to obey or disobey God's word delivered by one who says he is a prophet? (1 Kings 22) Of the 400 prophets whom the King of Israel consulted about his war against Ramoth Gilead, only Micaiah was a true prophet. (1 Kings 13) The prophet sent to prophesy against the altar set up by Jeroboam was a true prophet, as two miracles performed in his presence showed him to have been sent from God; yet he was deceived by another, older prophet, who persuaded him, claiming to speak for God, to eat and drink with him. If one prophet can deceive another, how can we be certain of God's will except through reason? My answer from Holy Scripture is that a true prophet can be recognized by two marks taken together, not separately: the performance of miracles and the refusal to teach a religion other than the one already established. Neither alone, I say, is enough. (Deut. 13 v. 1,2,3,4,5 ) “If a Prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and claims to perform a miracle, and the miracle comes to pass; if he says, Let us follow strange gods whom you have not known, you shall not listen to him, etc. But that prophet and dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken to you to revolt from the Lord your God.” Two points should be observed here. First, God will not allow miracles alone to prove a prophet's calling; rather, as the third verse says, they test how steadfastly we adhere to God himself. The works of the Egyptian sorcerers, though not as great as those of Moses, were still great miracles. Second, however great a miracle may be, if it tends to incite revolt against the king or someone governing by the king's authority, its worker must be regarded only as someone sent to test the people's allegiance. For “revolt from the Lord your God” here is equivalent to “revolt from your King.” At the foot of Mount Sinai they had made God their King by covenant, and he ruled them only through Moses: Moses alone spoke with God and declared God's commands to the people from time to time. Similarly, after our Savior Christ had made his disciples acknowledge him as the Messiah—that is, God's anointed, whom the Jewish nation expected daily as their King but rejected when he came—he did not fail to warn them of the danger of miracles. “There shall arise,” he says, “false Christs and false Prophets, and shall perform great wonders and miracles, even to seduce, if it were possible, the very elect” (Mat. 24. 24). It is clear from this that false prophets can have the power to work miracles, yet we must not take their doctrine for God's word. St. Paul goes further in writing to the Galatians that “if I myself, or an angel from heaven, preach another Gospel to you than the one I preached, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1. 8). That Gospel was that Christ was King. Consequently, in these words St. Paul curses all preaching against the power of the King already received. For he addresses people who, through his preaching, had already received Jesus as the Christ, that is, as King of the Jews.
Just as miracles without preaching the doctrine established by God are not sufficient, so preaching true doctrine without miracles is not sufficient proof of immediate revelation. If a man who teaches no false doctrine claims to be a prophet but shows no miracle, his claim deserves no more regard, as is clear from Deut. 18. v. 21, 22: “If you say in your heart, How shall we know that the word of the Prophet is not what the Lord has spoken? When the Prophet speaks in the name of the Lord something that does not come to pass, that is a word the Lord has not spoken; the Prophet has spoken it from the pride of his own heart. Do not fear him.” But one might ask again: when a prophet foretells something, how can we know whether it will come to pass? He may predict that it will occur after some long period, longer than a man's lifetime, or indefinitely, at one time or another. In that case this mark of a prophet is useless. The miracles that oblige us to believe a prophet must therefore be confirmed by an immediate event or one not long deferred. Plainly, then, Scripture requires both teaching the religion established by God and showing a present miracle together as the only marks by which a true prophet—that is, immediate revelation—is to be recognized. Neither mark by itself obliges anyone else to heed him.
Since miracles have now ceased, we have no sign left by which to recognize any private man's claimed revelations or inspirations, nor any obligation to heed a doctrine beyond the extent to which it conforms to Holy Scripture. Since the time of our Savior, Scripture has supplied the place of every other form of prophecy. From it, through wise and careful reasoning, we can readily derive all the rules and precepts necessary to know our duty to God and man, without religious frenzy or supernatural inspiration. From this Scripture, then, I shall draw the principles of my discourse on the rights of the supreme governors of Christian Common-wealths on earth and the duty of Christian subjects toward their sovereigns. To that end, in the next chapter I shall discuss 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
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete 1651 English text (introduction, forty-seven chapters, review and conclusion). Hobbes’s marginal summaries are omitted.
Of the Principles of Christian Politics
The Word of God Given Through Prophets Is the Main Principle
Of Christian Politics
So far I have derived the Rights of Sovereign Power and subjects' duties only from principles of nature. These are things experience shows to be true, or agreement about the use of words makes true. They come from human nature as we know it through experience, and from generally accepted definitions of words essential to political reasoning. Next I must discuss the nature and Rights of a Christian Common-wealth. Much of this depends on supernatural revelations of God's will. My argument must therefore rest not only on the natural Word of God but also on the prophetic Word.
Even so, we should not reject our senses and experience, or our natural reason, which is undoubtedly God's Word. These are the resources he has put in our hands to use until our blessed Savior returns. We should not wrap them in the cloth of unquestioning faith and put them away. We should use them to gain justice, peace, and true religion. God's Word contains many things beyond reason, which natural reason can neither prove nor disprove. But nothing in it contradicts reason. If something seems to, the error lies in our poor interpretation or faulty reasoning.
When something in Scripture is too difficult for us to examine, we are told to bring our understanding into obedience to its words. We should not use logic to try to extract philosophical truths from mysteries we cannot grasp and that lie outside the rules of natural science. The mysteries of religion are like wholesome pills given to a sick person. Swallowed whole, they can cure; chewed up, they are usually vomited back up and do no good.
Bringing our understanding into obedience does not mean forcing our intellect to accept another person's opinion. It means choosing to obey where obedience is due. We cannot change our senses, memory, understanding, reason, or opinions at will. They necessarily follow from what we see, hear, and consider. They do not result from our will; rather, our will follows from them. We bring our understanding and reason into obedience when we refrain from arguing, speak as lawful authority orders us to speak, and live accordingly. In short, we place trust and faith in the speaker, even if our minds can form no idea at all from what he says.
When God speaks to someone, he must speak either directly or through another person to whom he previously spoke directly. A person God speaks to directly may understand well enough how it happened. But it is difficult, perhaps impossible, for anyone else to know. Suppose someone tells me God has spoken to him directly and supernaturally, and I doubt him. I cannot readily see what argument he could offer that would require me to believe him. If he is my Sovereign, he can require me to obey and not to declare through word or action that I disbelieve him. But he cannot make me think differently from what my reason tells me. If he has no such authority over me, I am not required to believe or obey him.
Saying that God spoke to him in Holy Scripture does not mean God spoke directly to him. God spoke through prophets, apostles, or the Church, as he does to other Christians. Saying that God spoke to him in a dream means only that he dreamed it. That cannot convince someone who knows most dreams arise naturally from earlier thoughts. A dream like that may come from self-importance, foolish arrogance, or a mistaken belief that one's own holiness or other virtue has earned an extraordinary revelation. Saying he saw a vision or heard a voice means he dreamed while half asleep. People often mistake a dream for a vision when they fail to notice they were dozing. Saying he speaks through supernatural inspiration means he strongly desires to speak, or thinks so highly of himself that he cannot give a sufficient natural reason for it. Almighty God can speak through dreams, visions, voices, and inspiration. But that gives us no obligation to believe someone who claims God spoke to him that way. As a human being, he may be mistaken; worse, he may be lying.
How, then, can a person who has received no direct revelation of God's will, apart from natural reason, know when to obey God's Word as delivered by a self-described prophet? (1 Kings 22) The king of Israel consulted 400 prophets about his war against Ramoth Gilead, but only Micaiah was a true prophet. (1 Kings 13) A true prophet sent to speak against Jeroboam's altar had performed two miracles in his presence, showing that God had sent him. Yet an old prophet tricked him into eating and drinking with him, claiming God's authority. If one prophet can deceive another, how can we know God's will except through reason? Scripture gives two marks that identify a true prophet only when found together. One is performing miracles. The other is teaching no religion other than the one already established. Neither alone is enough. (Deut. 13 v. 1,2,3,4,5 ) “If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and claims he will perform a miracle, and the miracle happens; if he says, Let us follow unfamiliar gods whom you have not known, you must not listen to him, and so on. Instead, that prophet and dreamer of dreams must be put to death, because he has urged you to rebel against the Lord your God.” Notice two things. First, God does not accept miracles alone as proof that he has called a prophet. As the third verse says, they test whether we stay loyal to God. The Egyptian sorcerers worked great miracles, though not as great as Moses's. Second, no matter how great the miracle, if it urges rebellion against the King or someone governing by the King's authority, its performer must be treated as someone sent to test the people's loyalty. Here “rebel against the Lord your God” means the same as “rebel against your King.” At the foot of Mount Sinai they had made God their King by pact. He ruled them solely through Moses, who alone spoke with God and conveyed God's commandments to the people from time to time. In the same way, after our Savior Christ had led his disciples to acknowledge him as the Messiah—God's anointed, whom the Jews expected daily to become their King but rejected when he came—he warned them of the danger posed by miracles. “False Christs and false prophets will arise,” he said, “and perform great wonders and miracles, enough to mislead even the chosen, if that were possible” (Mat. 24. 24). This shows that false prophets may work miracles, yet we must not accept their teaching as God's Word. St. Paul tells the Galatians further that “if I myself or an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel to you from the one I preached, let him be cursed” (Gal. 1. 8). That gospel said Christ was King. It follows from Paul's words that he curses all preaching against the authority of the King they have accepted. He speaks to people who had already accepted Jesus through his preaching as the Christ, or King of the Jews.
Miracles without preaching the doctrine God has established are not enough. Likewise, preaching the true doctrine without miracles is not enough evidence of direct revelation. A person who teaches no false doctrine but claims to be a prophet without showing a miracle deserves no more attention on that account, as Deut. 18. v. 21, 22 shows: “If you say in your heart, How shall we know the word of the prophet is not what the Lord has spoken? When a prophet speaks in the Lord's name and what he says does not happen, the Lord did not speak that word. The prophet spoke it from the pride of his own heart. Do not fear him.” But someone may ask how we can tell whether a prophet's prediction will come true. He may predict something after more time than a human lifetime, or say without naming a date that it will happen someday. Then this way of identifying a prophet is useless. The miracle that requires us to believe a prophet must therefore be confirmed by an event that happens immediately or soon after. Scripture thus clearly requires two things together to identify a true prophet, or direct revelation: teaching the religion God has established, and showing a present miracle. Neither alone requires anyone else to heed him.
Since miracles have now ceased, we have no remaining sign for accepting anyone's claimed private revelations or inspirations. We have no duty to listen to teaching beyond what agrees with Holy Scripture. Since our Savior's time Scripture has taken the place of all other prophecy. Careful, sound reasoning from it can readily produce every rule needed to know our duty to God and to other people, without religious frenzy or supernatural inspiration. I will therefore draw the principles of my account from Scripture: the Rights of those who are the highest governors of Christian Common-wealths on earth, and the duties of Christian subjects toward their Sovereigns. To that end, in the next chapter I will discuss the Bible's books, writers, purpose, and authority.
CHAPTER XXXIII. OF THE NUMBER, AGE, PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, AND INTERPRETERS OF THE BOOKS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE