In that part which treateth of a Christian Commonwealth,there are some new doctrines which,it may be,in a state where the contrary were already fully determined,were a fault for a subject without leave to divulge,as being a usurpation of the place of a teacher.But in this time that men call not only for peace,but also for truth,to offer such doctrines as I think true,and that manifestly tend to peace and loyalty,to the consideration of those that are yet in deliberation,is no more but to offer new wine,to be put into new casks,that both may be preserved together.And I suppose that then,when novelty can breed no trouble nor disorder in a state,men are not generally so much inclined to the reverence of antiquity as to prefer ancient errors before new and well-proved truth.
There is nothing I distrust more than my elocution,which nevertheless I am confident (excepting the mischances of the press)is not obscure.That I have neglected the ornament of quoting ancient poets,orators,and philosophers,contrary to the custom of late time,whether I have done well or ill in it,proceedeth from my judgement,grounded on many reasons.For first,all truth of doctrine dependeth either upon reason or upon Scripture;both which give credit to many,but never receive it from any writer.Secondly,the matters in question are not of fact,but of right,wherein there is no place for witnesses.There is scarce any of those old writers that contradicteth not sometimes both himself and others;which makes their testimonies insufficient.Fourthly,such opinions as are taken only upon credit of antiquity are not intrinsically the judgement of those that cite them,but words that pass,like gaping,from mouth to mouth.Fifthly,it is many times with a fraudulent design that men stick their corrupt doctrine with the cloves of other men's wit.
Sixthly,I find not that the ancients they cite took it for an ornament to do the like with those that wrote before them.
Seventhly,it is an argument of indigestion,when Greek and Latin sentences unchewed come up again,as they use to do,unchanged.
Lastly,though I reverence those men of ancient time that either have written truth perspicuously,or set us in a better way to find it out ourselves;yet to the antiquity itself I think nothing due.For if we will reverence the age,the present is the oldest:if the antiquity of the writer,I am not sure that generally they to whom such honour is given,were more ancient when they wrote than I am that am writing:
but if it be well considered,the praise of ancient authors proceeds not from the reverence of the dead,but from the competition and mutual envy of the living.
To conclude,there is nothing in this whole discourse,nor in that Iwrote before of the same subject in Latin,as far as I can perceive,contrary either to the word of God or to good manners;or to the disturbance of the public tranquillity.Therefore I think it may be profitably printed,and more profitably taught in the Universities,in case they also think so,whom the judgement of the same belongeth.For seeing the Universities are the fountains of civil and moral doctrine,from whence the preachers and the gentry,drawing such water as they find,use to sprinkle the same (both from the pulpit and in their conversation)upon the people,there ought certainly to be great care taken,to have it pure,both from the venom of heathen politicians,and from the incantation of deceiving spirits.And by that means the most men,knowing their duties,will be the less subject to serve the ambition of a few discontented persons in their purposes against the state,and be the less grieved with the contributions necessary for their peace and defence;and the governors themselves have the less cause to maintain at the common charge any greater army than is necessary to make good the public liberty against the invasions and encroachments of foreign enemies.
And thus I have brought to an end my discourse of civil and ecclesiastical government,occasioned by the disorders of the present time,without partiality,without application,and without other design than to set before men's eyes the mutual relation between protection and obedience;of which the condition of human nature,and the laws divine,both natural and positive,require an inviolable observation.And though in the revolution of states there can be no very good constellation for truths of this nature to be born under (as having an angry aspect from the dissolvers of an old government,and seeing but the backs of them that erect a new);yet I cannot think it will be condemned at this time,either by the public judge of doctrine,or by any that desires the continuance of public peace.And in this hope I return to my interrupted speculation of bodies natural;wherein,if God give me health to finish it,I hope the novelty will as much please as in the doctrine of this artificial body it useth to offend.For such truth as opposeth no man's profit nor pleasure is to all men welcome.
