



Produced by Joseph B. Yesselman.  HTML version by Al Haines.








Sentence Numbers, shown thus (1), have been added by volunteer.





A Theologico-Political Treatise

Part 1 - Chapters I to V

Baruch Spinoza





A Theologico-Political Treatise

Part 1 - Chapters I to V


TABLE OF CONTENTS:


PREFACE.

Origin and consequences of superstition.

Causes that have led the author to write.

Course of his investigation.

For what readers the treatise is designed. Submission of author
to the rulers of his country.



CHAPTER I - Of Prophecy.

Definition of prophecy.

Distinction between revelation to Moses and to the other prophets.

Between Christ and other recipients of revelation.

Ambiguity of the word "Spirit."

The different senses in which things may be referred to God.

Different senses of "Spirit of God."

Prophets perceived revelation by imagination.



CHAPTER II - Of Prophets.

A mistake to suppose that prophecy can give knowledge of phenomena

Certainty of prophecy based on:
(1) Vividness of imagination,
(2) A Sign,
(3) Goodness of the Prophet.

Variation of prophecy with the temperament and opinions of the individual.



CHAPTER III - Of the Vocation of the Hebrews, and whether the Gift of
Prophecy was peculiar to them.

Happiness of Hebrews did not consist in the inferiority of the Gentile.

Nor in philosophic knowledge or virtue.

But in their conduct of affairs of state and escape from political dangers.

Even this Distinction did not exist in the time of Abraham.

Testimony from the Old Testament itself to the share of the Gentiles
in the law and favour of God.

Explanation of apparent discrepancy of the Epistle to the Romans.

Answer to the arguments for the eternal election of the Jews.



CHAPTER IV - Of the Divine Law.

Laws either depend on natural necessity or on human decree.  The existence
of the latter not inconsistent with the former class of laws.

Divine law a kind of law founded on human decree:
called Divine from its object.

Divine law:
(1) universal;
(2) independent of the truth of any historical narrative;
(3) independent of rites and ceremonies;
(4) its own reward.

Reason does not present God as a law-giver for men.

Such a conception a proof of ignorance - in Adam - in the Israelites -
in Christians.

Testimony of the Scriptures in favour of reason and the
rational view of the Divine.



CHAPTER V - Of the Ceremonial Law.

Ceremonial law of the Old Testament no part of the Divine universal law,
but partial and temporary. Testimony of the prophets themselves to this
Testimony of the New Testament.

How the ceremonial law tended to preserve the Hebrew kingdom.

Christian rites on a similar footing.

What part of the Scripture narratives is one bound to believe?



Authors Endnotes to the Treatise.



A Theologico-Political Treatise

Part 1 - Chapters I to V




PREFACE.

(1)Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their
circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by fortune: but
being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being
often kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty
of fortune's greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most
part, very prone to credulity. (2) The human mind is readily swayed this way
or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for
the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over - confident, and vain.

(3) This as a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe,
know their own nature; no one can have lived in the world without observing
that most people, when in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom
(however inexperienced they may be), that they take every offer of advice as
a personal insult, whereas in adversity they know not where to turn, but beg
and pray for counsel from every passer-by. (4) No plan is then too futile,
too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes
will raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair - if anything happens
during their fright which reminds them of some past good or ill, they think
it portends a happy or unhappy issue, and therefore (though it may have
proved abortive a hundred times before) style it a lucky or unlucky omen.
(5) Anything which excites their astonishment they believe to be a portent
signifying the anger of the gods or of the Supreme Being, and, mistaking
superstition for religion, account it impious not to avert the evil with
prayer and sacrifice. (6) Signs and wonders of this sort they conjure up
perpetually, till one might think Nature as mad as themselves, they
interpret her so fantastically.

(7) Thus it is brought prominently before us, that superstition's chief
victims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages; they it
is, who (especially when they are in danger, and cannot help themselves) are
wont with Prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God: upbraiding
Reason as blind, because she cannot show a sure path to the shadows they
pursue, and rejecting human wisdom as vain; but believing the phantoms of
imagination, dreams, and other childish absurdities, to be the very oracles
of Heaven. (8) As though God had turned away from the wise, and written His
decrees, not in the mind of man but in the entrails of beasts, or left them
to be proclaimed by the inspiration and instinct of fools, madmen, and
birds. Such is the unreason to which terror can drive mankind!

(9) Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear. If
anyone desire an example, let him take Alexander, who only began
superstitiously to seek guidance from seers, when he first learnt to fear
fortune in the passes of Sysis (Curtius, v. 4); whereas after he had
conquered Darius he consulted prophets no more, till a second time
frightened by reverses. (10) When the Scythians were provoking a battle, the
Bactrians had deserted, and he himself was lying sick of his wounds, "he
once more turned to superstition, the mockery of human wisdom, and bade
Aristander, to whom he confided his credulity, inquire the issue of affairs
with sacrificed victims." (11) Very numerous examples of a like nature might
be cited, clearly showing the fact, that only while under the dominion of
fear do men fall a prey to superstition; that all the portents ever invested
with the reverence of misguided religion are mere phantoms of dejected and
fearful minds; and lastly, that prophets have most power among the people,
and are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state
is in most peril. (12) I think this is sufficiently plain to all, and will
therefore say no more on the subject.

(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason for
the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to
a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it
is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and
emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,
hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely
from the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to
every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at
about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but
is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.

(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars
and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has
no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the plea of
religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and
abjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense pains have therefore
been taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or
false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may rise superior to every
shock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people--a
system which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they
consider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic
formulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt
with.

(18) But if, in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery be to
hoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them clown, with
the specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for slavery
as for safety, and count it not shame but highest honour to risk their blood
and their lives for the vainglory of a tyrant; yet in a free state no more
mischievous expedient could be planned or attempted. (19) Wholly repugnant
to the general freedom are such devices as enthralling men's minds with
prejudices, forcing their judgment, or employing any of the weapons of
quasi-religious sedition; indeed, such seditions only spring up, when law
enters the domain of speculative thought, and opinions are put on trial and
condemned on the same footing as crimes, while those who defend and follow
them are sacrificed, not to public safety, but to their opponents'
hatred and cruelty. (20) If deeds only could be made the grounds of
criminal charges, and words were always allowed to pass free, such seditions
would be divested of every semblance of justification, and would be
separated from mere controversies by a hard and fast line.

(20) Now, seeing that we have the rare happiness of living in a republic,
where everyone's judgment is free and unshackled, where each may worship God
as his conscience dictates, and where freedom is esteemed before all things
dear and precious, I have believed that I should be undertaking no
ungrateful or unprofitable task, in demonstrating that not only can
such freedom be granted without prejudice to the public peace, but also,
that without such freedom, piety cannot flourish nor the public peace be
secure.

(21) Such is the chief conclusion I seek to establish in this treatise; but,
in order to reach it, I must first point out the misconceptions which, like
scars of our former bondage, still disfigure our notion of religion, and
must expose the false views about the civil authority which many have most
impudently advocated, endeavouring to turn the mind of the people, still
prone to heathen superstition, away from its legitimate rulers, and so bring
us again into slavery. (22) As to the order of my treatise I will speak
presently, but first I will recount the causes which led me to write.

(23) I have often wondered, that persons who make a boast of professing the
Christian religion, namely, love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all
men, should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and display daily towards
one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues they
claim, is the readiest criterion of their faith. (24) Matters have long
since come to such a pass, that one can only pronounce a man Christian,
Turk, Jew, or Heathen, by his general appearance and attire, by his
frequenting this or that place of worship, or employing the phraseology of a
particular sect - as for manner of life, it is in all cases the same. (25)
Inquiry into the cause of this anomaly leads me unhesitatingly to ascribe it
to the fact, that the ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses
merely as dignities, her offices as posts of emolument - in short, popular
religion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics. (26) The spread of
this misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire to
enter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing God's religion degenerated
into sordid avarice and ambition. (27) Every church became a theatre, where
orators, instead of church teachers, harangued, caring not to instruct the
people, but striving to attract admiration, to bring opponents to public
scorn, and to preach only novelties and paradoxes, such as would tickle
the ears of their congregation. (28) This state of things necessarily
stirred up an amount of controversy, envy, and hatred, which no lapse of
time could appease; so that we can scarcely wonder that of the old religion
nothing survives but its outward forms (even these, in the mouth of the
multitude, seem rather adulation than adoration of the Deity), and that
faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices - aye,
prejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which
completely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which seem,
in fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last spark
of reason! (29) Piety, great God! and religion are become a tissue of
ridiculous mysteries; men, who flatly despise reason, who reject and turn
away from understanding as naturally corrupt, these, I say, these of all
men, are thought, 0 lie most horrible! to possess light from on High. (30)
Verily, if they had but one spark of light from on High, they would not
insolently rave, but would learn to worship God more wisely, and would be as
marked among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if they
were concerned for their opponents' souls, instead of for their own
reputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be filled
with pity and compassion.

(31) Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would appear from
their doctrine. (32) I grant that they are never tired of professing their
wonder at the profound mysteries of Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that
they teach anything but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to
which (in order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy
Writ conform; not content to rave with the Greeks themselves, they want to
make the prophets rave also; showing conclusively, that never even in sleep
have they caught a glimpse of Scripture's Divine nature. (33) The very
vehemence of their admiration for the mysteries plainly attests, that
their belief in the Bible is a formal assent rather than a living faith: and
the fact is made still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a
foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle
that it is in every passage true and divine. (34) Such a doctrine should be
reached only after strict scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred
Books (which would teach it much better, for they stand in need no human
factions), and not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.

(35) As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason is not only
despised, but by many even execrated as a source of impiety, that human
commentaries are accepted as divine records, and that credulity is extolled
as faith; as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in
Church and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready
instruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine
the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no
assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do
not find clearly therein set down. (36) With these precautions I constructed
a method of Scriptural interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to
inquire - what is prophecy? (37) In what sense did God reveal himself to the
prophets, and why were these particular men - chosen by him? (38) Was it on
account of the sublimity of their thoughts about the Deity and nature, or
was it solely on account of their piety? (39) These questions being
answered, I was easily able to conclude, that the authority of the prophets
has weight only in matters of morality, and that their speculative doctrines
affect us little.

(40) Next I inquired, why the Hebrews were called God's chosen people, and
discovering that it was only because God had chosen for them a certain strip
of territory, where they might live peaceably and at ease, I learnt that the
Law revealed by God to Moses was merely the law of the individual Hebrew
state, therefore that it was binding on none but Hebrews, and not even
on Hebrews after the downfall of their nation. (41) Further, in order to
ascertain, whether it could be concluded from Scripture, that the human
understanding standing is naturally corrupt, I inquired whether the
Universal Religion, the Divine Law revealed through the Prophets and
Apostles to the whole human race, differs from that which is taught by the
light of natural reason, whether miracles can take place in violation of the
laws of nature, and if so, whether they imply the existence of God more
surely and clearly than events, which we understand plainly and distinctly
through their immediate natural causes.

(42) Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found nothing taught
expressly by Scripture, which does not agree with our understanding, or
which is repugnant thereto, and as I saw that the prophets taught nothing,
which is not very simple and easily to be grasped by all, and further, that
they clothed their leaching in the style, and confirmed it with the reasons,
which would most deeply move the mind of the masses to devotion towards God,
I became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible leaves reason absolutely free,
that it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and
Philosophy stand on different footings. In order to set this forth
categorically and exhaust the whole question, I point out the way in which
the Bible should be interpreted, and show that all of spiritual questions
should be sought from it alone, and not from the objects of ordinary
knowledge. (43) Thence I pass on to indicate the false notions, which have
from the fact that the multitude - ever prone to superstition, and caring
more for the shreds of antiquity for eternal truths - pays homage to the
Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God. (44) I show that the
Word of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books, was
displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the mind, namely, obedience to
God in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity; and
I further point out, that this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in
accordance with the opinions and understandings of those, among whom the
Apostles and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it
willingly, and with their whole heart.

(45) Having thus laid bare the bases of belief, I draw the conclusion that
Revelation has obedience for its sole object, therefore, in purpose no less
than in foundation and method, stands entirely aloof from ordinary
knowledge; each has its separate province, neither can be called the
handmaid of the other.

(46) Furthermore, as men's habits of mind differ, so that some more readily
embrace one form of faith, some another, for what moves one to pray may move
another only to scoff, I conclude, in accordance with what has gone before,
that everyone should be free to choose for himself the foundations of his
creed, and that faith should be judged only by its fruits; each would then
obey God freely with his whole heart, while nothing would be publicly
honoured save justice and charity.

(47) Having thus drawn attention to the liberty conceded to everyone by the
revealed law of God, I pass on to another part of my subject, and prove that
this same liberty can and should be accorded with safety to the state and
the magisterial authority - in fact, that it cannot be withheld without
great danger to peace and detriment to the community.

(48) In order to establish my point, I start from the natural rights of the
individual, which are co-extensive with his desires and power, and from the
fact that no one is bound to live as another pleases, but is the guardian of
his own liberty. (49) I show that these rights can only be transferred to
those whom we depute to defend us, who acquire with the duties of defence
the power of ordering our lives, and I thence infer that rulers possess
rights only limited by their power, that they are the sole guardians of
justice and liberty, and that their subjects should act in all things as
they dictate: nevertheless, since no one can so utterly abdicate his own
power of self-defence as to cease to be a man, I conclude that no one can be
deprived of his natural rights absolutely, but that subjects, either by
tacit agreement, or by social contract, retain a certain number, which
cannot be taken from them without great danger to the state.

(50) From these considerations I pass on to the Hebrew State, which I
describe at some length, in order to trace the manner in which Religion
acquired the force of law, and to touch on other noteworthy points. (51) I
then prove, that the holders of sovereign power are the depositories and
interpreters of religious no less than of civil ordinances, and that they
alone have the right to decide what is just or unjust, pious or impious;
lastly, I conclude by showing, that they best retain this right and secure
safety to their state by allowing every man to think what he likes, and say
what he thinks.

(52) Such, Philosophical Reader, are the questions I submit to your notice,
counting on your approval, for the subject matter of the whole book and of
the several chapters is important and profitable. (53) I would say more, but
I do not want my preface to extend to a volume, especially as I know that
its leading propositions are to Philosophers but common places. (54) To the
rest of mankind I care not to commend my treatise, for I cannot expect that
it contains anything to please them: I know how deeply rooted are the
prejudices embraced under the name of religion; I am aware that in the mind
of the masses superstition is no less deeply rooted than fear; I recognize
that their constancy is mere obstinacy, and that they are led to praise or
blame by impulse rather than reason. (55) Therefore the multitude, and those
of like passions with the multitude, I ask not to read my book; nay, I would
rather that they should utterly neglect it, than that they should
misinterpret it after their wont. (56) They would gain no good themselves,
and might prove a stumbling-block to others, whose philosophy is hampered by
the belief that Reason is a mere handmaid to Theology, and whom I seek in
this work especially to benefit. (57) But as there will be many who have
neither the leisure, nor, perhaps, the inclination to read through all I
have written, I feel bound here, as at the end of my treatise, to declare
that I have written nothing, which I do not most willingly submit to the
examination and judgment of my country's rulers, and that I am ready to
retract anything, which they shall decide to be repugnant to the laws or
prejudicial to the public good. (58) I know that I am a man and, as a
man, liable to error, but against error I have taken scrupulous care, and
striven to keep in entire accordance with the laws of my country, with
loyalty, and with morality.




CHAPTER I. - Of Prophecy

(1) Prophecy, or revelation is sure knowledge revealed by God to man. (2) A
prophet is one who interprets the revelations of God {insights} to those who
are unable to attain to sure knowledge of the matters revealed, and
therefore can only apprehend them by simple faith.

(3) The Hebrew word for prophet is "naw-vee'", Strong:5030, [Endnote 1]
i.e. speaker or interpreter, but in Scripture its meaning is restricted to
interpreter of God, as we may learn from Exodus vii:1, where God says to
Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall
be thy prophet;" implying that, since in interpreting Moses' words to
Pharaoh, Aaron acted the part of a prophet, Moses would be to Pharaoh as a
god, or in the attitude of a god.

(4) Prophets I will treat of in the next chapter, and at present consider
prophecy.

(5) Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that prophecy really
includes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge which we acquire by our
natural faculties depends on knowledge of God and His eternal laws; but
ordinary knowledge is common to all men as men, and rests on foundations
which all share, whereas the multitude always strains after rarities
and exceptions, and thinks little of the gifts of nature; so that, when
prophecy is talked of, ordinary knowledge is not supposed to be included.
(6) Nevertheless it has as much right as any other to be called Divine, for
God's nature, in so far as we share therein, and God's laws, dictate it to
us; nor does it suffer from that to which we give the preeminence, except in
so far as the latter transcends its limits and cannot be accounted for by
natural laws taken in themselves. (7) In respect to the certainty it
involves, and the source from which it is derived, i.e. God, ordinary,
knowledge is no whit inferior to prophetic, unless indeed we believe, or
rather dream, that the prophets had human bodies but superhuman minds, and
therefore that their sensations and consciousness were entirely different
from our own.

(8) But, although ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors cannot be
called prophets [Endnote 2], for they teach what the rest of mankind could
perceive and apprehend, not merely by simple faith, but as surely and
honourably as themselves.

(9) Seeing then that our mind subjectively contains in itself and partakes
of the nature of God, and solely from this cause is enabled to form notions
explaining natural phenomena and inculcating morality, it follows that we
may rightly assert the nature of the human mind (in so far as it is thus
conceived) to be a primary cause of Divine revelation. (10) All that we
clearly and distinctly understand is dictated to us, as I have just pointed
out, by the idea and nature of God; not indeed through words, but in a way
far more excellent and agreeing perfectly with the nature of the mind, as
all who have enjoyed intellectual certainty will doubtless attest. (11)
Here, however, my chief purpose is to speak of matters having reference to
Scripture, so these few words on the light of reason will suffice.

(12) I will now pass on to, and treat more fully, the other ways and means
by which God makes revelations to mankind, both of that which transcends
ordinary knowledge, and of that within its scope; for there is no reason why
God should not employ other means to communicate what we know already by the
power of reason.

(13) Our conclusions on the subject must be drawn solely from Scripture; for
what can we affirm about matters transcending our knowledge except what is
told us by the words or writings of prophets? (14) And since there are, so
far as I know, no prophets now alive, we have no alternative but to read the
books of prophets departed, taking care the while not to reason from
metaphor or to ascribe anything to our authors which they do not themselves
distinctly state. (15) I must further premise that the Jews never make any
mention or account of secondary, or particular causes, but in a spirit of
religion, piety, and what is commonly called godliness, refer all things
directly to the Deity. (16) For instance if they make money by a
transaction, they say God gave it to them; if they desire anything, they say
God has disposed their hearts towards it; if they think anything, they say
God told them. (17) Hence we must not suppose that everything is prophecy or
revelation which is described in Scripture as told by God to anyone, but
only such things as are expressly announced as prophecy or revelation, or
are plainly pointed to as such by the context.

(18) A perusal of the sacred books will show us that all God's revelations
to the prophets were made through words or appearances, or a combination of
the two. (19) These words and appearances were of two kinds; 1.- real when
external to the mind of the prophet who heard or saw them, 2.- imaginary
when the imagination of the prophet was in a state which led him distinctly
to suppose that he heard or saw them.

(20) With a real voice God revealed to Moses the laws which He wished to be
transmitted to the Hebrews, as we may see from Exodus xxv:22, where God
says, "And there I will meet with thee and I will commune with thee from the
mercy seat which is between the Cherubim." (21) Some sort of real voice must
necessarily have been employed, for Moses found God ready to commune with
him at any time. This, as I shall shortly show, is the only instance of a
real voice.

(22) We might, perhaps, suppose that the voice with which God called Samuel
was real, for in 1 Sam. iii:21, we read, "And the Lord appeared again in
Shiloh, for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the
Lord;" implying that the appearance of the Lord consisted in His making
Himself known to Samuel through a voice; in other words, that Samuel heard
the Lord speaking. (23) But we are compelled to distinguish between the
prophecies of Moses and those of other prophets, and therefore must decide
that this voice was imaginary, a conclusion further supported by the voice's
resemblance to the voice of Eli, which Samuel was in the habit of hearing,
and therefore might easily imagine; when thrice called by the Lord, Samuel
supposed it to have been Eli.

(24) The voice which Abimelech heard was imaginary, for it is written,
Gen. xx:6, "And God said unto him in a dream." (25) So that the will of God
was manifest to him, not in waking, but only, in sleep, that is, when the
imagination is most active and uncontrolled. (26) Some of the Jews believe
that the actual words of the Decalogue were not spoken by God, but that the
Israelites heard a noise only, without any distinct words, and during its
continuance apprehended the Ten Commandments by pure intuition; to this
opinion I myself once inclined, seeing that the words of the Decalogue in
Exodus are different from the words of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, for the
discrepancy seemed to imply (since God only spoke once) that the Ten
Commandments were not intended to convey the actual words of the Lord, but
only His meaning. (27) However, unless we would do violence to Scripture, we
must certainly admit that the Israelites heard a real voice, for Scripture
expressly says, Deut. v:4, "God spake with you face to face," i.e. as two
men ordinarily interchange ideas through the instrumentality of their two
bodies; and therefore it seems more consonant with Holy Writ to suppose that
God really did create a voice of some kind with which the Decalogue was
revealed. (28) The discrepancy of the two versions is treated of in
Chap. VIII.

(29) Yet not even thus is all difficulty removed, for it seems scarcely
reasonable to affirm that a created thing, depending on God in the same
manner as other created things, would be able to express or explain the
nature of God either verbally or really by means of its individual
organism: for instance, by declaring in the first person, "I am the Lord
your God."

(30) Certainly when anyone says with his mouth, "I understand," we do not
attribute the understanding to the mouth, but to the mind of the speaker;
yet this is because the mouth is the natural organ of a man speaking, and
the hearer, knowing what understanding is, easily comprehends, by a
comparison with himself, that the speaker's mind is meant; but if we knew
nothing of God beyond the mere name and wished to commune with Him, and be
assured of His existence, I fail to see how our wish would be satisfied by
the declaration of a created thing (depending on God neither more nor less
than ourselves), "I am the Lord." (31) If God contorted the lips of Moses,
or, I will not say Moses, but some beast, till they pronounced the words,
"I am the Lord," should we apprehend the Lord's existence therefrom?

(32) Scripture seems clearly to point to the belief that God spoke Himself,
having descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for the purpose - and not only
that the Israelites heard Him speaking, but that their chief men beheld Him
(Ex:xxiv.) (33) Further the law of Moses, which might neither be added to
nor curtailed, and which was set up as a national standard of right, nowhere
prescribed the belief that God is without body, or even without form or
figure, but only ordained that the Jews should believe in His existence and
worship Him alone: it forbade them to invent or fashion any likeness of the
Deity, but this was to insure purity of service; because, never having seen
God, they could not by means of images recall the likeness of God, but only
the likeness of some created thing which might thus gradually take the place
of God as the object of their adoration. (34) Nevertheless, the Bible
clearly implies that God has a form, and that Moses when he heard God
speaking was permitted to behold it, or at least its hinder parts.

(35) Doubtless some mystery lurks in this question which we will discuss
more fully below. (36) For the present I will call attention to the passages
in Scripture indicating the means by which God has revealed His laws to man.

(37) Revelation may be through figures only, as in I Chron:xxii., where God
displays his anger to David by means of an angel bearing a sword, and also
in the story of Balaam.

(38) Maimonides and others do indeed maintain that these and every other
instance of angelic apparitions (e.g. to Manoah and to Abraham offering up
Isaac) occurred during sleep, for that no one with his eyes open ever could
see an angel, but this is mere nonsense. (39) The sole object of such
commentators seems to be to extort from Scripture confirmations of
Aristotelian quibbles and their own inventions, a proceeding which I regard
as the acme of absurdity.

(40) In figures, not real but existing only in the prophet's imagination,
God revealed to Joseph his future lordship, and in words and figures He
revealed to Joshua that He would fight for the Hebrews, causing to appear an
angel, as it were the Captain of the Lord's host, bearing a sword, and by
this means communicating verbally. (41) The forsaking of Israel by
Providence was portrayed to Isaiah by a vision of the Lord, the thrice Holy,
sitting on a very lofty throne, and the Hebrews, stained with the mire of
their sins, sunk as it were in uncleanness, and thus as far as possible
distant from God. (42) The wretchedness of the people at the time was thus
revealed, while future calamities were foretold in words. I could cite from
Holy Writ many similar examples, but I think they are sufficiently well
known already.

(43) However, we get a still more clear confirmation of our position in Num
xii:6,7, as follows: "If there be any prophet among you, I the Lord will
make myself known unto him in a vision" (i.e. by appearances and signs, for
God says of the prophecy of Moses that it was a vision without signs), "and
will speak unto him in a dream" (i.e. not with actual words and an actual
voice). (44) "My servant Moses is not so; with him will I speak mouth to
mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the
Lord he shall behold," i.e. looking on me as a friend and not afraid, he
speaks with me (cf. Ex xxxiii:17).

(45) This makes it indisputable that the other prophets did not hear a real
voice, and we gather as much from Deut. xxiv:10: "And there arose not a
prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face,"
which must mean that the Lord spoke with none other; for not even Moses saw
the Lord's face. (46) These are the only media of communication between
God and man which I find mentioned in Scripture, and therefore the only ones
which may be supposed or invented. (47) We may be able quite to comprehend
that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention
of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who
can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor
deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily
possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe
that any have been so endowed save Christ. (48) To Him the ordinances of God
leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so
that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He
formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. (49) In this sense the
voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice
of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than
human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way
of salvation. (50) I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines
which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor
deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them. (51) What I have
just stated I gather from Scripture, where I never read that God appeared to
Christ, or spoke to Christ, but that God was revealed to the Apostles
through Christ; that Christ was the Way of Life, and that the old law was
given through an angel, and not immediately by God; whence it follows that
if Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with his friend (i.e.
by means of their two bodies) Christ communed with God mind to mind.

(52) Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the revelations
of God without the aid of imagination, whether in words or vision. (53)
Therefore the power of prophecy implies not a peculiarly perfect mind, but a
peculiarly vivid imagination, as I will show more clearly in the next
chapter. (54) We will now inquire what is meant in the Bible by the
Spirit of God breathed into the prophets, or by the prophets speaking with
the Spirit of God; to that end we must determine the exact signification of
the Hebrew word roo'-akh, Strong:7307, commonly translated spirit.

(55) The word roo'-akh, Strong:7307, literally means a wind, e..q. the south
wind, but it is frequently employed in other derivative significations.

It is used as equivalent to,

(56) (1.) Breath: "Neither is there any spirit in his mouth," Ps. cxxxv:17.

(57) (2.) Life, or breathing: "And his spirit returned to him"
          1 Sam. xxx:12; i.e. he breathed again.

(58) (3.) Courage and strength: "Neither did there remain any more spirit
          in any man," Josh. ii:11; "And the spirit entered into me, and
          made me stand on my feet," Ezek. ii:2.

(59) (4.) Virtue and fitness: "Days should speak, and multitudes of years
          should teach wisdom; but there is a spirit in man," Job xxxii:7;
          i.e. wisdom is not always found among old men for I now discover
          that it depends on individual virtue and capacity. So, "A man in
          whom is the Spirit," Numbers xxvii:18.

(60) (5.) Habit of mind: "Because he had another spirit with him,"
          Numbers xiv:24; i.e. another habit of mind. "Behold I will pour
          out My Spirit unto you," Prov. i:23.

(61) (6.) Will, purpose, desire, impulse: "Whither the spirit was to go,
          they went," Ezek. 1:12; "That cover with a covering, but not of My
          Spirit," Is. xxx:1; "For the Lord hath poured out on you the
          spirit of deep sleep," Is. xxix:10; "Then was their spirit
          softened," Judges viii:3; "He that ruleth his spirit, is better
          than he that taketh a city," Prov. xvi:32; "He that hath no ru
          over his own spirit," Prov. xxv:28; "Your spirit as fire shall
          devour you," Isaiah xxxiii:1.

From the meaning of disposition we get -

(62) (7.) Passions and faculties. A lofty spirit means pride, a lowly spirit
          humility, an evil spirit hatred and melancholy. So, too, the
          expressions spirits of jealousy, fornication, wisdom, counsel,
          bravery, stand for a jealous, lascivious, wise, prudent, or brave
          mind (for we Hebrews use substantives in preference to
          adjectives), or these various qualities.

(63) (8.) The mind itself, or the life: "Yea, they have all one spirit,"
          Eccles. iii:19 "The spirit shall return to God Who gave it."

(64) (9.) The quarters of the world (from the winds which blow thence), or
          even the side of anything turned towards a particular quarter -
          Ezek. xxxvii:9; xlii:16, 17, 18, 19, &c.

(65) I have already alluded to the way in which things are referred to God,
and said to be of God.

(66) (1.) As belonging to His nature, and being, as it were, part of Him;
          e.g. the power of God, the eyes of God.

(67) (2.) As under His dominion, and depending on His pleasure; thus the
          heavens are called the heavens of the Lord, as being His chariot
          and habitation. So Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God,
          Assyria the scourge of God, &c.

(68) (3.) As dedicated to Him, e.g. the Temple of God, a Nazarene of God,
          the Bread of God.

(69) (4.) As revealed through the prophets and not through our natural
          faculties. In this sense the Mosaic law is called the law of God.

(70) (5.) As being in the superlative degree. Very high mountains are styled
          the mountains of God, a very deep sleep, the sleep of God, &c. In
          this sense we must explain Amos iv:11: "I have overthrown you as
          the overthrow of the Lord came upon Sodom and Gomorrah," i.e. that
          memorable overthrow, for since God Himself is the Speaker, the
          passage cannot well be taken otherwise. The wisdom of Solomon is
          called the wisdom of God, or extraordinary. The size of the cedars
          of Lebanon is alluded to in the Psalmist's expression, "the cedars
          of the Lord."

(71) Similarly, if the Jews were at a loss to understand any phenomenon, or
were ignorant of its cause, they referred it to God. (72) Thus a storm was
termed the chiding of God, thunder and lightning the arrows of God, for it
was thought that God kept the winds confined in caves, His treasuries; thus
differing merely in name from the Greek wind-god Eolus. (73) In like manner
miracles were called works of God, as being especially marvellous; though in
reality, of course, all natural events are the works of God, and take place
solely by His power. (74) The Psalmist calls the miracles in Egypt the works
of God, because the Hebrews found in them a way of safety which they had not
looked for, and therefore especially marvelled at.

(75) As, then, unusual natural phenomena are called works of God, and trees
of unusual size are called trees of God, we cannot wonder that very strong
and tall men, though impious robbers and whoremongers, are in Genesis called
sons of God.

(76) This reference of things wonderful to God was not peculiar to the Jews.

(77) Pharaoh, on hearing the interpretation of his dream, exclaimed that the
mind of the gods was in Joseph. (78) Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel that he
possessed the mind of the holy gods; so also in Latin anything well made is
often said to be wrought with Divine hands, which is equivalent to the
Hebrew phrase, wrought with the hand of God.

(80) We can now very easily understand and explain those passages of
Scripture which speak of the Spirit of God. (81) In some places the
expression merely means a very strong, dry, and deadly wind, as in
Isaiah xl:7, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of
the Lord bloweth upon it." (82) Similarly in Gen. i:2: "The Spirit of the
Lord moved over the face of the waters." (83) At other times it is used as
equivalent to a high courage, thus the spirit of Gideon and of Samson is
called the Spirit of the Lord, as being very bold, and prepared for any
emergency. (84) Any unusual virtue or power is called the Spirit or Virtue
of the Lord, Ex. xxxi:3: "I will fill him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of the
Lord," i.e., as the Bible itself explains, with talent above man's usual
endowment. (85) So Isa. xi:2: "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon
him," is explained afterwards in the text to mean the spirit of wisdom and
understanding, of counsel and might.

(86) The melancholy of Saul is called the melancholy of the Lord, or a very
deep melancholy, the persons who applied the term showing that they
understood by it nothing supernatural, in that they sent for a musician to
assuage it by harp-playing. (87) Again, the "Spirit of the Lord" is used
as equivalent to the mind of man, for instance, Job xxvii:3: "And the Spirit
of the Lord in my nostrils," the allusion being to Gen. ii:7: "And God
breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life." (88) Ezekiel also,
prophesying to the dead, says (xxvii:14), "And I will give to you My Spirit,
and ye shall live;" i.e. I will restore you to life. (89) In Job xxxiv:14,
we read: "If He gather unto Himself His Spirit and breath;" in Gen. vi:3:
"My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh,"
i.e. since man acts on the dictates of his body, and not the spirit which I
gave him to discern the good, I will let him alone. (90) So, too, Ps. li:12:
"Create in me a clean heart, 0 God, and renew a right spirit within me; cast
me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me." (91)
It was supposed that sin originated only from the body, and that good
impulses come from the mind; therefore the Psalmist invokes the aid of God
against the bodily appetites, but prays that the spirit which the Lord, the
Holy One, had given him might be renewed. (92) Again, inasmuch as the Bible,
in concession to popular ignorance, describes God as having a mind, a heart,
emotions - nay, even a body and breath - the expression Spirit of the Lord
is used for God's mind, disposition, emotion, strength, or breath.
(93) Thus, Isa. xl:13: "Who hath disposed the Spirit of the Lord?" i.e. who,
save Himself, hath caused the mind of the Lord to will anything,? and
Isa. lxiii:10: "But they rebelled, and vexed the Holy Spirit."

(94) The phrase comes to be used of the law of Moses, which in a sense
expounds God's will, Is. lxiii. 11, "Where is He that put His Holy Spirit
within him?" meaning, as we clearly gather from the context, the law of
Moses. (95) Nehemiah, speaking of the giving of the law, says, i:20,
"Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them." (96) This is referred
to in Deut. iv:6, "This is your wisdom and understanding," and in
Ps. cxliii:10, "Thy good Spirit will lead me into the land of uprightness."
(97) The Spirit of the Lord may mean the breath of the Lord, for breath, no
less than a mind, a heart, and a body are attributed to God in Scripture, as
in Ps. xxxiii:6. (98) Hence it gets to mean the power, strength, or faculty
of God, as in Job xxxiii:4, "The Spirit of the Lord made me," i.e. the
power, or, if you prefer, the decree of the Lord. (99) So the Psalmist in
poetic language declares, xxxiii:6, "By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth," i.e. by
a mandate issued, as it were, in one breath. (100) Also Ps. cxxxix:7,
"Wither shall I go from Thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy
presence?" i.e. whither shall I go so as to be beyond Thy power and Thy
presence?

(101) Lastly, the Spirit of the Lord is used in Scripture to express the
emotions of God, e.g. His kindness and mercy, Micah ii:7, "Is the Spirit
[i.e. the mercy] of the Lord straitened? (102) Are these cruelties His
doings?" (103) Zech. iv:6, "Not by might or by power, but My Spirit [i.e.
mercy], saith the Lord of hosts." (104) The twelfth verse of the seventh
chapter of the same prophet must, I think, be interpreted in like manner:
"Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the
law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in His Spirit [i.e. in
His mercy] by the former prophets." (105) So also Haggai ii:5: "So My Spirit
remaineth among you: fear not."

(106) The passage in Isaiah xlviii:16, "And now the Lord and His Spirit hath
sent me," may be taken to refer to God's mercy or His revealed law; for the
prophet says, "From the beginning" (i.e. from the time when I first came to
you, to preach God's anger and His sentence forth against you) "I spoke not
in secret; from the time that it was, there am I," and now I am sent by
the mercy of God as a joyful messenger to preach your restoration. (107) Or
we may understand him to mean by the revealed law that he had before come to
warn them by the command of the law (Levit. xix:17) in the same manner under
the same conditions as Moses had warned them, that now, like Moses, he ends
by preaching their restoration. (108) But the first explanation seems to me
the best.

(109) Returning, then, to the main object of our discussion, we find that
the Scriptural phrases, "The Spirit of the Lord was upon a prophet," "The
Lord breathed His Spirit into men," "Men were filled with the Spirit of God,
with the Holy Spirit," &c., are quite clear to us, and mean that prophets
were endowed with a peculiar and extraordinary power, and devoted themselves
to piety with especial constancy(3); that thus they perceived the mind or
the thought of God, for we have shown that God's Spirit signifies in Hebrew
God's mind or thought, and that the law which shows His mind and thought is
called His Spirit; hence that the imagination of the prophets, inasmuch as
through it were revealed the decrees of God, may equally be called the mind
of God, and the prophets be said to have possessed the mind of God. (110) On
our minds also the mind of God and His eternal thoughts are impressed; but
this being the same for all men is less taken into account, especially by
the Hebrews, who claimed a pre-eminence, and despised other men and other
men's knowledge.

(111) Lastly, the prophets were said to possess the Spirit of God because
men knew not the cause of prophetic knowledge, and in their wonder referred
it with other marvels directly to the Deity, styling it Divine knowledge.

(112) We need no longer scruple to affirm that the prophets only
perceived God's revelation by the aid of imagination, that is, by words and
figures either real or imaginary. (113) We find no other means mentioned in
Scripture, and therefore must not invent any. (114) As to the particular law
of Nature by which the communications took place, I confess my ignorance.
(115) I might, indeed, say as others do, that they took place by the power
of God; but this would be mere trifling, and no better than explaining some
unique specimen by a transcendental term. (116) Everything takes place by
the power of God. (117) Nature herself is the power of God under another
name, and our ignorance of the power of God is co-extensive with our
ignorance of Nature. (118) It is absolute folly, therefore, to ascribe an
event to the power of God when we know not its natural cause, which is the
power of God.

(119) However, we are not now inquiring into the causes of prophetic
knowledge. (120) We are only attempting, as I have said, to examine the
Scriptural documents, and to draw our conclusions from them as from ultimate
natural facts; the causes of the documents do not concern us.

(121) As the prophets perceived the revelations of God by the aid of
imagination, they could indisputably perceive much that is beyond the
boundary of the intellect, for many more ideas can be constructed from words
and figures than from the principles and notions on which the whole fabric
of reasoned knowledge is reared.

(122) Thus we have a clue to the fact that the prophets perceived nearly
everything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual truths in
bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. (122) We need no
longer wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and
obscurely of God's Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers xi:17, 1 Kings xxii:21, &c.),
that the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting, by Daniel as an old man clothed
in white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that the Holy Spirit appeared to those with
Christ as a descending dove, to the apostles as fiery tongues, to Paul on
his conversion as a great light. (124) All these expressions are plainly in
harmony with the current ideas of God and spirits.

(125) Inasmuch as imagination is fleeting and inconstant, we find that the
power of prophecy did not remain with a prophet for long, nor manifest
itself frequently, but was very rare; manifesting itself only in a few men,
and in them not often.

(126) We must necessarily inquire how the prophets became assured of the
truth of what they perceived by imagination, and not by sure mental laws;
but our investigation must be confined to Scripture, for the subject is one
on which we cannot acquire certain knowledge, and which we cannot explain by
the immediate causes. (127) Scripture teaching about the assurance of
prophets I will treat of in the next chapter.




CHAPTER II. - OF PROPHETS.

(1) It follows from the last chapter that, as I have said, the prophets were
endowed with unusually vivid imaginations, and not with unusually, perfect
minds. (2) This conclusion is amply sustained by Scripture, for we are told
that Solomon was the wisest of men, but had no special faculty of prophecy.
(3) Heman, Calcol, and Dara, though men of great talent, were not prophets,
whereas uneducated countrymen, nay, even women, such as Hagar, Abraham's
handmaid, were thus gifted. (4) Nor is this contrary to ordinary experience
and reason. (5) Men of great imaginative power are less fitted for abstract
reasoning, whereas those who excel in intellect and its use keep their
imagination more restrained and controlled, holding it in subjection, so to
speak, lest it should usurp the place of reason.

(6) Thus to suppose that knowledge of natural and spiritual phenomena can be
gained from the prophetic books, is an utter mistake, which I shall
endeavour to expose, as I think philosophy, the age, and the question itself
demand. (7) I care not for the girdings of superstition, for superstition is
the bitter enemy, of all true knowledge and true morality. (8) Yes; it has
come to this! (9) Men who openly confess that they can form no idea of God,
and only know Him through created things, of which they know not the causes,
can unblushingly, accuse philosophers of Atheism. (10) Treating the question
methodically, I will show that prophecies varied, not only according to
the imagination and physical temperament of the prophet, but also according
to his particular opinions; and further that prophecy never rendered the
prophet wiser than he was before. (11) But I will first discuss the
assurance of truth which the prophets received, for this is akin to the
subject-matter of the chapter, and will serve to elucidate somewhat our
present point.

(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires
some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation
by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he
did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who
made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:
"Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou
that talkest with me." (14) God also says to Moses: "And let this be a
sign that I have sent thee." (15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah
to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he
predicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason
Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the
prediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect, prophetic knowledge
is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies
certitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. (18) Moses lays
down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even
though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he
says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." (19) And
Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20)
Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives
men with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of
the prophets of Ahab.

(21) Although these instances go to prove that revelation is open to doubt,
it nevertheless contains, as we have said, a considerable element of
certainty, for God never deceives the good, nor His chosen, but (according
to the ancient proverb, and as appears in the history of Abigail and her
speech), God uses the good as instruments of goodness, and the wicked as
means to execute His wrath. (22) This may be seen from the case of Micaiah
above quoted; for although God had determined to deceive Ahab, through
prophets, He made use of lying prophets; to the good prophet He revealed the
truth, and did not forbid his proclaiming it.

(23) Still the certitude of prophecy, remains, as I have said, merely,
moral; for no one can justify himself before God, nor boast that he is an
instrument for God's goodness. (24) Scripture itself teaches and shows that
God led away David to number the people, though it bears ample
witness to David's piety.

(25) The whole question of the certitude of prophecy, was based on these
three considerations:

   1. That the things revealed were imagined very vividly, affecting the
      prophets in the same way as things seen when awake;

   2. The presence of a sign;

   3. Lastly, and chiefly, that the mind of the prophet was given wholly,
      to what was right and  good.

(26) Although Scripture does not always make mention of a sign, we must
nevertheless suppose that a sign was always vouchsafed; for Scripture does
not always relate every condition and circumstance (as many, have
remarked), but rather takes them for granted. (27) We may, however, admit
that no sign was needed when the prophecy declared nothing that was not
already contained in the law of Moses, because it was confirmed by that law.
(28) For instance, Jeremiah's prophecy, of the destruction of Jerusalem was
confirmed by the prophecies of other prophets, and by the threats in the
law, and, therefore, it needed no sign; whereas Hananiah, who, contrary to
all the prophets, foretold the speedy restoration of the state, stood in
need of a sign, or he would have been in doubt as to the truth of his
prophecy, until it was confirmed by facts. (29) "The prophet which
prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to
pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him."

(30) As, then, the certitude afforded to the prophet by signs was not
mathematical (i.e. did not necessarily follow from the perception of the
thing perceived or seen), but only moral, and as the signs were only given
to convince the prophet, it follows that such signs were given according to
the opinions and capacity of each prophet, so that a sign which
convince one prophet would fall far short of convincing another who was
imbued with different opinions. (31) Therefore the signs varied according to
the individual prophet.

(32) So also did the revelation vary, as we have stated, according to
individual disposition and temperament, and according to the opinions
previously held.

(33) It varied according to disposition, in this way: if a prophet was
cheerful, victories, peace, and events which make men glad, were revealed to
him; in that he was naturally more likely to imagine such things. (34) If,
on the contrary, he was melancholy, wars, massacres, and calamities were
revealed; and so, according as a prophet was merciful, gentle, quick to
anger, or severe, he was more fitted for one kind of revelation than
another. (35) It varied according to the temper of imagination in this way:
if a prophet was cultivated he perceived the mind of God in a cultivated
way, if he was confused he perceived it confusedly. (36) And so with
revelations perceived through visions. (37) If a prophet was a countryman he
saw visions of oxen, cows, and the like; if he was a soldier, he saw
generals and armies; if a courtier, a royal throne, and so on.

(38) Lastly, prophecy varied according to the opinions held by the prophets;
for instance, to the Magi, who believed in the follies of astrology, the
birth of Christ was revealed through the vision of a star in the East. (39)
To the augurs of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was revealed
through entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from oracles and the
direction of arrows which he shot into the air. (40) To prophets who
believed that man acts from free choice and by his own power, God was
revealed as standing apart from and ignorant of future human actions. (41)
All of which we will illustrate from Scripture.

(42) The first point is proved from the case of Elisha, who, in order to
prophecy to Jehoram, asked for a harp, and was unable to perceive the Divine
purpose till he had been recreated by its music; then, indeed, he prophesied
to Jehoram and to his allies glad tidings, which previously he had been
unable to attain to because he was angry with the king, and these who are
angry with anyone can imagine evil of him, but not good. (43) The theory
that God does not reveal Himself to the angry or the sad, is a mere dream:
for God revealed to Moses while angry, the terrible slaughter of the
firstborn, and did so without the intervention of a harp. (44) To Cain in
his rage, God was revealed, and to Ezekiel, impatient with anger, was
revealed the contumacy and wretchedness of the Jews. (45) Jeremiah,
miserable and weary of life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews, so
that Josiah would not consult him, but inquired of a woman, inasmuch as it
was more in accordance with womanly nature that God should reveal His mercy
thereto. (46) So, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab, though other true
prophets had done so, but invariably evil. (46) Thus we see that individual
prophets were by temperament more fitted for one sort of revelation than
another.

(47) The style of the prophecy also varied according to the eloquence of the
individual prophet. (48) The prophecies of Ezekiel and Amos are not written
in a cultivated style like those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more rudely. (49)
Any Hebrew scholar who wishes to inquire into this point more closely, and
compares chapters of the different prophets treating of the same subject,
will find great dissimilarity of style. (50) Compare, for instance, chap. i.
of the courtly Isaiah, verse 11 to verse 20, with chap. v. of the countryman
Amos, verses 21-24. (51) Compare also the order and reasoning of the
prophecies of Jeremiah, written in Idumaea (chap. xlix.), with the order and
reasoning of Obadiah. (52) Compare, lastly, Isa. xl:19, 20, and xliv:8, with
Hosea viii:6, and xiii:2. And so on.

(53) A due consideration of these passage will clearly show us that God has
no particular style in speaking, but, according to the learning and capacity
of the prophet, is cultivated, compressed, severe, untutored, prolix, or
obscure.

(54) There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions vouchsafed to
the prophets, and in the symbols by which they expressed them, for Isaiah
saw the glory of the Lord departing from the Temple in a different form from
that presented to Ezekiel. (55) The Rabbis, indeed, maintain that both
visions were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a countryman, was
above measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth in full detail;
but unless there is a trustworthy tradition on the subject, which I do not
for a moment believe, this theory is plainly an invention. Isaiah saw
seraphim with six wings, Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah saw God
clothed and sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the likeness of a
fire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he usually imagined
Him.

(56) Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in details; for the
revelations of Zechariah were too obscure to be understood by the prophet
without explanation, as appears from his narration of them; the visions of
Daniel could not be understood by him even after they had been explained,
and this obscurity did not arise from the difficulty of the matter revealed
(for being merely human affairs, these only transcended human capacity in
being future), but solely in the fact that Daniel's imagination was not so
capable for prophecy while he was awake as while he was asleep; and this is
further evident from the fact that at the very beginning of the vision he
was so terrified that he almost despaired of his strength. (57) Thus, on
account of the inadequacy of his imagination and his strength, the things
revealed were so obscure to him that he could not understand them even after
they had been explained. (58) Here we may note that the words heard by
Daniel, were, as we have shown above, simply imaginary, so that it is hardly
wonderful that in his frightened state he imagined them so confusedly and
obscurely that afterwards he could make nothing of them. (59) Those who say
that God did not wish to make a clear revelation, do not seem to have read
the words of the angel, who expressly says that he came to make the prophet
understand what should befall his people in the latter days (Dan. x:14).

(60) The revelation remained obscure because no one was found, at that time,
with imagination sufficiently strong to conceive it more clearly. (61)
Lastly, the prophets, to whom it was revealed that God would take away
Elijah, wished to persuade Elisha that he had been taken somewhere where
they would find him; showing sufficiently clearly that they had not
understood God's revelation aright.

(62) There is no need to set this out more amply, for nothing is more plain
in the Bible than that God endowed some prophets with far greater gifts of
prophecy than others. (63) But I will show in greater detail and length, for
I consider the point more important, that the prophecies varied according to
the opinions previously embraced by the prophets, and that the prophets held
diverse and even contrary opinions and prejudices. (64) (I speak, be it
understood, solely of matters speculative, for in regard to uprightness and
morality the case is widely different.) (65) From thence I shall conclude
that prophecy never rendered the prophets more learned, but left them with
their former opinions, and that we are, therefore, not at all bound to
trust them in matters of intellect.

(66) Everyone has been strangely hasty in affirming that the prophets knew
everything within the scope of human intellect; and, although certain
passages of Scripture plainly affirm that the prophets were in certain
respects ignorant, such persons would rather say that they do not
understand the passages than admit that there was anything which the
prophets did not know; or else they try to wrest the Scriptural words away
from their evident meaning.

(67) If either of these proceedings is allowable we may as well shut our
Bibles, for vainly shall we attempt to prove anything from them if their
plainest passages may be classed among obscure and impenetrable mysteries,
or if we may put any interpretation on them which we fancy. (68) For
instance, nothing is more clear in the Bible than that Joshua, and perhaps
also the author who wrote his history, thought that the sun revolves round
the earth, and that the earth is fixed, and further that the sun for a
certain period remained still. (69) Many, who will not admit any movement in
the heavenly bodies, explain away the passage till it seems to mean
something quite different; others, who have learned to philosophize more
correctly, and understand that the earth moves while the sun is still, or at
any rate does not revolve round the earth, try with all their might to wrest
this meaning from Scripture, though plainly nothing of the sort is
intended. (70) Such quibblers excite my wonder! (71) Are we, forsooth, bound
to believe that Joshua the Soldier was a learned astronomer? or that a
miracle could not be revealed to him, or that the light of the sun could not
remain longer than usual above the horizon, without his knowing the cause?
(72) To me both alternatives appear ridiculous, and therefore I would
rather say, that Joshua was ignorant of the true cause of the lengthened
day, and that he and the whole host with him thought that the sun moved
round the earth every day, and that on that particular occasion it stood
still for a time, thus causing the light to remain longer; and I would
say, that they did not conjecture that, from the amount of snow in the air
(see Josh. x:11), the refraction may have been greater than usual, or that
there may have been some other cause which we will not now inquire into.

(73) So also the sign of the shadow going back was revealed to Isaiah
according to his understanding; that is, as proceeding from a going
backwards of the sun; for he, too, thought that the sun moves and that the
earth is still; of parhelia he perhaps never even dreamed. (74) We may
arrive at this conclusion without any, scruple, for the sign could really
have come to pass, and have been predicted by Isaiah to the king, without
the prophet being aware of the real cause.

(75) With regard to the building of the Temple by Solomon, if it was really
dictate by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely, that all the
measurements were revealed according to the opinions and understanding of
the king; for as we are not bound to believe that Solomon was a
mathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant of the true ratio between
the circumference and the diameter of a circle, and that, like the
generality of workmen, he thought that it was as three to one. (76) But if
it is allowable to declare that we do not understand the passage, in good
sooth I know nothing in the Bible that we can understand; for the process of
building is there narrated simply and as a mere matter of history. (77) If,
again, it is permitted to pretend that the passage has another meaning, and
was written as it is from some reason unknown to us, this is no less than a
complete subversal of the Bible; for every absurd and evil invention of
human perversity could thus, without detriment to Scriptural authority, be
defended and fostered. (78) Our conclusion is in no wise impious, for though
Solomon, Isaiah, Joshua, &c. were prophets, they were none the less men, and
as such not exempt from human shortcomings.

(79) According to the understanding of Noah it was revealed to him that God
as about to destroy the whole human race, for Noah thought that beyond the
limits of Palestine the world was not inhabited.

(80) Not only in matters of this kind, but in others more important, the
about the Divine attributes, but held quite ordinary notions about God, and
to these notions their revelations were adapted, as I will
demonstrate by ample Scriptural testimony; from all which one may easily see
that they were praised and commended, not so much for the sublimity and
eminence of their intellect as for their piety and faithfulness.

(81) Adam, the first man to whom God was revealed, did not know that He is
omnipotent and omniscient; for he hid himself from Him, and attempted to
make excuses for his fault before God, as though he had had to do with a
man; therefore to him also was God revealed according to his understanding -
that is, as being unaware of his situation or his sin, for Adam
heard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walling, in the garden, calling him and
asking him where he was; and then, on seeing his shamefacedness, asking him
whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit. (82) Adam evidently only knew
the Deity as the Creator of all things. (83) To Cain also God was revealed,
according to his understanding, as ignorant of human affairs, nor was a
higher conception of the Deity required for repentance of his sin.

(83) To Laban the Lord revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, because Laban
believed that each nation had its own special divinity (see Gen. xxxi:29).
(84) Abraham also knew not that God is omnipresent, and has foreknowledge of
all things; for when he heard the sentence against the inhabitants of Sodom,
he prayed that the Lord should not execute it till He had ascertained
whether they all merited such punishment; for he said (see Gen. xviii:24),
"Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city," and in accordance
with this belief God was revealed to him; as Abraham imagined, He spake
thus: "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether
according to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and, if not, I will know."
(85) Further, the Divine testimony concerning Abraham asserts nothing but
that he was obedient, and that he "commanded his household after him that
they should keep the way of the Lord" (Gen. xviii:19); it does not state
that he held sublime conceptions of the Deity.

(86) Moses, also, was not sufficiently aware that God is omniscient, and
directs human actions by His sole decree, for although God Himself says that
the Israelites should hearken to Him, Moses still considered the matter
doubtful and repeated, "But if they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my
voice." (87) To him in like manner God was revealed as taking no part in,
and as being ignorant of, future human actions: the Lord gave him two signs
and said, "And it shall come to pass that if they will not believe thee,
neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the
voice of the latter sign; but if not, thou shalt take of the water of the
river," &c. (88) Indeed, if any one considers without prejudice the recorded
opinions of Moses, he will plainly see that Moses conceived the Deity as a
Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for
this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these
three phases of existence: as to His nature, Moses only taught that He is
merciful, gracious, and exceeding jealous, as appears from many passages in
the Pentateuch. (89) Lastly, he believed and taught that this Being was so
different from all other beings, that He could not be expressed by the image
of any visible thing; also, that He could not be looked upon, and that not
so much from inherent impossibility as from human infirmity; further, that
by reason of His power He was without equal and unique. (90) Moses admitted,
indeed, that there were beings (doubtless by the plan and command of the
Lord) who acted as God's vicegerents - that is, beings to whom God had given
the right, authority, and power to direct nations, and to provide and care
for them; but he taught that this Being Whom they were bound to obey was
the highest and Supreme God, or (to use the Hebrew phrase) God of gods, and
thus in the song (Exod. xv:11) he exclaims, "Who is like unto Thee, 0 Lord,
among the gods?" and Jethro says (Exod. xviii:11), "Now I know that the Lord
is greater than all gods." (91) That is to say, "I am at length compelled to
admit to Moses that Jehovah is greater than all gods, and that His power
is unrivalled." (92) We must remain in doubt whether Moses thought that
these beings who acted as God's vicegerents were created by Him, for he
has stated nothing, so far as we know, about their creation and origin. (93)
He further taught that this Being had brought the visible world into order
from Chaos, and had given Nature her germs, and therefore that He
possesses supreme right and power over all things; further, that by reason
of this supreme right and power He had chosen for Himself alone the Hebrew
nation and a certain strip of territory, and had handed over to the care of
other gods substituted by Himself the rest of the nations and territories,
and that therefore He was called the God of Israel and the God of Jerusalem,
whereas the other gods were called the gods of the Gentiles. (94) For this
reason the Jews believed that the strip of territory which God had chosen
for Himself, demanded a Divine worship quite apart and different from the
worship which obtained elsewhere, and that the Lord would not suffer the
worship of other gods adapted to other countries. (95) Thus they thought
that the people whom the king of Assyria had brought into Judaea were torn
in pieces by lions because they knew not the worship of the National
Divinity (2 Kings xvii:25).

(96) Jacob, according to Aben Ezra's opinion, therefore admonished his sons
when he wished them to seek out a new country, that they should prepare
themselves for a new worship, and lay aside the worship of strange, gods -
that is, of the gods of the land where they were (Gen. xxxv:2, 3).

(97) David, in telling Saul that he was compelled by the king's persecution
to live away from his country, said that he was driven out from the heritage
of the Lord, and sent to worship other gods (1 Sam. xxvi:19). (98) Lastly,
he believed that this Being or Deity had His habitation in the heavens
(Deut. xxxiii:27), an opinion very common among the Gentiles.

(99) If we now examine the revelations to Moses, we shall find that they
were accommodated to these opinions; as he believed that the Divine Nature
was subject to the conditions of mercy, graciousness, &c., so God was
revealed to him in accordance with his idea and under these attributes (see
Exodus xxxiv:6, 7, and the second commandment). (100) Further it is related
(Ex. xxxiii:18) that Moses asked of God that he might behold Him, but as
Moses (as we have said) had formed no mental image of God, and God (as I
have shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in accordance with the
disposition of their imagination, He did not reveal Himself in any form.
(101) This, I repeat, was because the imagination of Moses was unsuitable,
for other prophets bear witness that they saw the Lord; for instance,
Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, &c. (102) For this reason God answered Moses, "Thou
canst not see My face;" and inasmuch as Moses believed that God can be
looked upon - that is, that no contradiction of the Divine nature is therein
involved (for otherwise he would never have preferred his request) - it is
added, "For no one shall look on Me and live," thus giving a reason in
accordance with Moses' idea, for it is not stated that a contradiction of
the Divine nature would be involved, as was really the case, but that the
thing would not come to pass because of human infirmity.

(103) When God would reveal to Moses that the Israelites, because they
worshipped the calf, were to be placed in the same category as other
nations, He said (ch. xxxiii:2, 3), that He would send an angel (that is, a
being who should have charge of the Israelites, instead of the Supreme
Being), and that He Himself would no longer remain among them; thus leaving
Moses no ground for supposing that the Israelites were more beloved by God
than the other nations whose guardianship He had entrusted to other beings
or angels (vide verse 16).

(104) Lastly, as Moses believed that God dwelt in the heavens, God was
revealed to him as coming down from heaven on to a mountain, and in order to
talk with the Lord Moses went up the mountain, which he certainly need not
have done if he could have conceived of God as omnipresent.

(105) The Israelites knew scarcely anything of God, although He was revealed
to them; and this is abundantly evident from their transferring, a few days
afterwards, the honour and worship due to Him to a calf, which they believed
to be the god who had brought them out of Egypt. (106) In truth, it is
hardly likely that men accustomed to the superstitions of Egypt,
uncultivated and sunk in most abject slavery, should have held any sound
notions about the Deity, or that Moses should have taught them anything
beyond a rule of right living; inculcating it not like a philosopher, as the
result of freedom, but like a lawgiver compelling them to be moral by
legal authority. (107) Thus the rule of right living, the worship and love
of God, was to them rather a bondage than the true liberty, the gift and
grace of the Deity. (108) Moses bid them love God and keep His law, because
they had in the past received benefits from Him (such as the
deliverance from slavery in Egypt), and further terrified them with threats
if they transgressed His commands, holding out many promises of good if they
should observe them; thus treating them as parents treat irrational
children. It is, therefore, certain that they knew not the excellence of
virtue and the true happiness.

(109) Jonah thought that he was fleeing from the sight of God, which seems
to show that he too held that God had entrusted the care of the nations
outside Judaea to other substituted powers. (110) No one in the whole of the
Old Testament speaks more rationally of God than Solomon, who in fact
surpassed all the men of his time in natural ability. (111) Yet he
considered himself above the law (esteeming it only to have been given for
men without reasonable and intellectual grounds for their actions), and made
small account of the laws concerning kings, which are mainly three: nay, he
openly violated them (in this he did wrong, and acted in a manner unworthy
of a philosopher, by indulging in sensual pleasure), and taught that all
Fortune's favours to mankind are vanity, that humanity has no nobler gift
than wisdom, and no greater punishment than folly.
(112) See Proverbs xvi:22, 23.

(113) But let us return to the prophets whose conflicting opinions we have
undertaken to note. (114) The expressed ideas of Ezekiel seemed so diverse
from those of Moses to the Rabbis who have left us the extant prophetic
books (as is told in the treatise of Sabbathus, i:13, 2), that they had
serious thoughts of omitting his prophecy from the canon, and would
doubtless have thus excluded it if a certain Hananiah had not undertaken to
explain it; a task which (as is there narrated) he with great zeal and
labour accomplished. (115) How he did so does not sufficiently appear,
whether it was by writing a commentary which has now perished, or by
altering Ezekiel's words and audaciously - striking out phrases according to
his fancy. (116) However this may be, chapter xviii. certainly does not seem
to agree with Exodus xxxiv:7, Jeremiah xxxii:18, &c.

(117 ) Samuel believed that the Lord never repented of anything He had
decreed (1 Sam. xv:29), for when Saul was sorry for his sin, and wished to
worship God and ask for forgiveness, Samuel said that the Lord would not go
back from his decree.

(118) To Jeremiah, on the other hand, it was revealed that, "If that nation
against whom I (the Lord) have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will
repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. (119) If it do evil in my
sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I
said I would benefit them" (Jer. xviii:8-10). (120) Joel (ii:13) taught that
the Lord repented Him only of evil. (121) Lastly, it is clear from Gen iv: 7
that a man can overcome the temptations of sin, and act righteously; for
this doctrine is told to Cain, though, as we learn from Josephus and the
Scriptures, he never did so overcome them. (122) And this agrees with the
chapter of Jeremiah just cited, for it is there said that the Lord repents
of the good or the evil pronounced, if the men in question change their ways
and manner of life. (123) But, on the other hand, Paul (Rom.ix:10) teaches
as plainly as possible that men have no control over the temptations of the
flesh save by the special vocation and grace of God. (124) And when
(Rom. iii:5 and vi:19) he attributes righteousness to man, he corrects
himself as speaking merely humanly and through the infirmity of the flesh.

(125) We have now more than sufficiently proved our point, that God adapted
revelations to the understanding and opinions of the prophets, and that in
matters of theory without bearing on charity or morality the prophets could
be, and, in fact, were, ignorant, and held conflicting opinions. (126) It
therefore follows that we must by no means go to the prophets for knowledge,
either of natural or of spiritual phenomena.

(127) We have determined, then, that we are only bound to believe in the
prophetic writings, the object and substance of the revelation; with regard
to the details, every one may believe or not, as he likes.

(128) For instance, the revelation to Cain only teaches us that God
admonished him to lead the true life, for such alone is the object and
substance of the revelation, not doctrines concerning free will and
philosophy. (129) Hence, though the freedom of the will is clearly implied
in the words of the admonition, we are at liberty to hold a contrary
opinion, since the words and reasons were adapted to the understanding of
Cain.

(130) So, too, the revelation to Micaiah would only teach that God revealed
to him the true issue of the battle between Ahab and Aram; and this is all
we are bound to believe. (131) Whatever else is contained in the revelation
concerning the true and the false Spirit of God, the army of heaven standing
on the right hand and on the left, and all the other details, does not
affect us at all. (132) Everyone may believe as much of it as his reason
allows.

(132) The reasonings by which the Lord displayed His power to Job (if they
really were a revelation, and the author of the history is narrating, and
not merely, as some suppose, rhetorically adorning his own conceptions),
would come under the same category - that is, they were adapted to Job's
understanding, for the purpose of convincing him, and are not universal,
or for the convincing of all men.

(133) We can come to no different conclusion with respect to the reasonings
of Christ, by which He convicted the Pharisees of pride and ignorance, and
exhorted His disciples to lead the true life. (134) He adapted them to each
man's opinions and principles. (135) For instance, when He said to the
Pharisees (Matt. xii:26), "And if Satan cast out devils, his house is
divided against itself, how then shall his kingdom stand? (136) "He only
wished to convince the Pharisees according, to their own principles, not to
teach that there are devils, or any kingdom of devils. (137) So, too,
when He said to His disciples (Matt. viii:10), "See that ye despise not one
of these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels," &c., He merely
desired to warn them against pride and despising any of their fellows, not
to insist on the actual reason given, which was simply adopted in order to
persuade them more easily.

(138) Lastly, we should say, exactly the same of the apostolic signs and
reasonings, but there is no need to go further into the subject. (139) If I
were to enumerate all the passages of Scripture addressed only to
individuals, or to a particular man's understanding, and which cannot,
without great danger to philosophy, be defended as Divine doctrines, I
should go far beyond the brevity at which I aim. (140) Let it suffice, then,
to have indicated a few instances of general application, and let the
curious reader consider others by himself. (141) Although the points we
have just raised concerning prophets and prophecy are the only ones which
have any direct bearing on the end in view, namely, the separation of
Philosophy from Theology, still, as I have touched on the general question,
I may here inquire whether the gift of prophecy was peculiar to the Hebrews,
or whether it was common to all nations. (142) I must then come to a
conclusion about the vocation of the Hebrews, all of which I shall do in the
ensuing chapter.





CHAPTER III.  OF THE VOCATION OF THE HEBREWS, AND
WHETHER THE GIFT OF PROPHECY WAS PECULIAR TO THEM.

(1) Every man's true happiness and blessedness consist solely in the
enjoyment of what is good, not in the pride that he alone is enjoying it, to
the exclusion of others. (2) He who thinks himself the more blessed because
he is enjoying benefits which others are not, or because he is more blessed
or more fortunate than his fellows, is ignorant of true happiness and
blessedness, and the joy which he feels is either childish or envious and
malicious. (3) For instance, a man's true happiness consists only in wisdom,
and the knowledge of the truth, not at all in the fact that he is wiser than
others, or that others lack such knowledge: such considerations do not
increase his wisdom or true happiness.

(4) Whoever, therefore, rejoices for such reasons, rejoices in another's
misfortune, and is, so far, malicious and bad, knowing neither true
happiness nor the peace of the true life.

(5) When Scripture, therefore, in exhorting the Hebrews to obey the law,
says that the Lord has chosen them for Himself before other nations
(Deut. x:15); that He is near them, but not near others (Deut. iv:7); that
to them alone He has given just laws (Deut. iv:8); and, lastly, that He has
marked them out before others (Deut. iv:32); it speaks only according to the
understanding of its hearers, who, as we have shown in the last chapter, and
as Moses also testifies (Deut. ix:6, 7), knew not true blessedness. (6) For
in good sooth they would have been no less blessed if God had called all men
equally to salvation, nor would God have been less present to them for being
equally present to others; their laws, would have been no less just if they
had been ordained for all, and they themselves would have been no less wise.
(7) The miracles would have shown God's power no less by being wrought for
other nations also; lastly, the Hebrews would have been just as much bound
to worship God if He had bestowed all these gifts equally on all men.

(8) When God tells Solomon (1 Kings iii:12) that no one shall be as wise as
he in time to come, it seems to be only a manner of expressing surpassing
wisdom; it is little to be believed that God would have promised Solomon,
for his greater happiness, that He would never endow anyone with so much
wisdom in time to come; this would in no wise have increased Solomon's
intellect, and the wise king would have given equal thanks to the Lord if
everyone had been gifted with the same faculties.

(9) Still, though we assert that Moses, in the passages of the Pentateuch
just cited, spoke only according to the understanding of the Hebrews, we
have no wish to deny that God ordained the Mosaic law for them alone, nor
that He spoke to them alone, nor that they witnessed marvels beyond those
which happened to any other nation; but we wish to emphasize that
Moses desired to admonish the Hebrews in such a manner, and with such
reasonings as would appeal most forcibly to their childish understanding,
and constrain them to worship the Deity. (10) Further, we wished to show
that the Hebrews did not surpass other nations in knowledge, or in piety,
but evidently in some attribute different from these; or (to speak like the
Scriptures, according to their understanding), that the Hebrews were not
chosen by God before others for the sake of the true life and sublime ideas,
though they were often thereto admonished, but with some other object. (11)
What that object was, I will duly show.

(12) But before I begin, I wish in a few words to explain what I mean by the
guidance of God, by the help of God, external and inward, and, lastly, what
I understand by fortune.

(13) By the help of God, I mean the fixed and unchangeable order of nature
or the chain of natural events: for I have said before and shown elsewhere
that the universal laws of nature, according to which all things exist and
are determined, are only another name for the eternal decrees of God, which
always involve eternal truth and necessity.

(14) So that to say that everything happens according to natural laws, and
to say that everything is ordained by the decree and ordinance of God, is
the same thing. (15) Now since the power in nature is identical with the
power of God, by which alone all things happen and are determined, it
follows that whatsoever man, as a part of nature, provides himself with to
aid and preserve his existence, or whatsoever nature affords him without his
help, is given to him solely by the Divine power, acting either through
human nature or through external circumstance. (16) So whatever human nature
can furnish itself with by its own efforts to preserve its existence, may
be fitly called the inward aid of God, whereas whatever else accrues to
man's profit from outward causes may be called the external aid of God.

(17) We can now easily understand what is meant by the election of God. (18)
For since no one can do anything save by the predetermined order of nature,
that is by God's eternal ordinance and decree, it follows that no one can
choose a plan of life for himself, or accomplish any work save by God's
vocation choosing him for the work or the plan of life in question, rather
than any other. (19) Lastly, by fortune, I mean the ordinance of God in so
far as it directs human life through external and unexpected means. (20)
With these preliminaries I return to my purpose of discovering the reason
why the Hebrews were said to be elected by God before other nations, and
with the demonstration I thus proceed.

(21) All objects of legitimate desire fall, generally speaking, under one
of these three categories:

    1. The knowledge of things through their primary causes.
    2. The government of the passions, or the acquirement of the habit of
       virtue.
    3. Secure and healthy life.

(22) The means which most directly conduce towards the first two of these
ends, and which may be considered their proximate and efficient causes are
contained in human nature itself, so that their acquisition hinges only on
our own power, and on the laws of human nature. (23) It may be concluded
that these gifts are not peculiar to any nation, but have always been shared
by the whole human race, unless, indeed, we would indulge the dream that
nature formerly created men of different kinds. (24) But the means which
conduce to security and health are chiefly in external circumstance, and are
called the gifts of fortune because they depend chiefly on objective causes
of which we are ignorant; for a fool may be almost as liable to happiness
or unhappiness as a wise man. (25) Nevertheless, human management and
watchfulness can greatly assist towards living in security and warding off
the injuries of our fellow-men, and even of beasts. (26) Reason and
experience show no more certain means of attaining this object than
the formation of a society with fixed laws, the occupation of a strip of
territory and the concentration of all forces, as it were, into one body,
that is the social body. (27) Now for forming and preserving a society, no
ordinary ability and care is required: that society will be most
secure, most stable, and least liable to reverses, which is founded and
directed by far-seeing and careful men; while, on the other hand, a society
constituted by men without trained skill, depends in a great measure on
fortune, and is less constant. (28) If, in spite of all, such a society
lasts a long time, it is owing to some other directing influence than its
own; if it overcomes great perils and its affairs prosper, it will perforce
marvel at and adore the guiding Spirit of God (in so far, that is, as God
works through hidden means, and not through the nature and mind of man),
for everything happens to it unexpectedly and contrary to anticipation, it
may even be said and thought to be by miracle. (29) Nations, then, are
distinguished from one another in respect to the social organization and the
laws under which they live and are governed; the Hebrew nation was not
chosen by God in respect to its wisdom nor its tranquillity of mind, but in
respect to its social organization and the good fortune with which it
obtained supremacy and kept it so many years. (30) This is abundantly clear
from Scripture. Even a cursory perusal will show us that the only respects
in which the Hebrews surpassed other nations, are in their successful
conduct of matters relating to government, and in their surmounting great
perils solely by God's external aid; in other ways they were on a par with
their fellows, and God was equally gracious to all. (31) For in respect to
intellect (as we have shown in the last chapter) they held very ordinary
ideas about God and nature, so that they cannot have been God's chosen in
this respect; nor were they so chosen in respect of virtue and the true
life, for here again they, with the exception of a very few elect, were on
an equality with other nations: therefore their choice and vocation
consisted only in the temporal happiness and advantages of independent rule.
(32) In fact, we do not see that God promised anything beyond this to the
patriarchs [Endnote 4] or their successors; in the law no other reward is
offered for obedience than the continual happiness of an independent
commonwealth and other goods of this life; while, on the other hand, against
contumacy and the breaking of the covenant is threatened the downfall of the
commonwealth and great hardships. (33) Nor is this to be wondered at; for
the ends of every social organization and commonwealth are (as appears from
what we have said, and as we will explain more at length hereafter) security
and comfort; a commonwealth can only exist by the laws being binding on all.
(34) If all the members of a state wish to disregard the law, by that very
fact they dissolve the state and destroy the commonwealth. (35) Thus, the
only reward which could be promised to the Hebrews for continued obedience
to the law was security [Endnote 5] and its attendant advantages, while no
surer punishment could be threatened for disobedience, than the ruin of the
state and the evils which generally follow therefrom, in addition to such
further consequences as might accrue to the Jews in particular from the ruin
of their especial state. (36) But there is no need here to go into this
point at more length. (37) I will only add that the laws of the Old
Testament were revealed and ordained to the Jews only, for as God chose them
in respect to the special constitution of their society and government, they
must, of course, have had special laws. (38) Whether God ordained special
laws for other nations also, and revealed Himself to their lawgivers
prophetically, that is, under the attributes by which the latter were
accustomed to imagine Him, I cannot sufficiently determine. (39) It is
evident from Scripture itself that other nations acquired supremacy and
particular laws by the external aid of God; witness only the two following
passages:

(40) In Genesis xiv:18, 19, 20, it is related that Melchisedek was king of
Jerusalem and priest of the Most High God, that in exercise of his priestly
functions he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham the beloved of the Lord gave
to this priest of God a tithe of all his spoils. (41) This sufficiently
shows that before He founded the Israelitish nation God constituted kings
and priests in Jerusalem, and ordained for them rites and laws. (42) Whether
He did so prophetically is, as I have said, not sufficiently clear; but I am
sure of this, that Abraham, whilst he sojourned in the city, lived
scrupulously according to these laws, for Abraham had received no special
rites from God; and yet it is stated (Gen. xxvi:5), that he observed the
worship, the precepts, the statutes, and the laws of God, which must be
interpreted to mean the worship, the statutes, the precepts, and the laws of
king Melchisedek. (43) Malachi chides the Jews as follows (i:10-11.): "Who
is there among you that will shut the doors? [of the Temple]; neither do ye
kindle fire on mine altar for nought. (44) I have no pleasure in you, saith
the Lord of Hosts. (45) For from the rising of the sun, even until the going
down of the same My Name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every
place incense shall be offered in My Name, and a pure offering; for My Name
is great among the heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts." (46) These words,
which, unless we do violence to them, could only refer to the current
period, abundantly testify that the Jews of that time were not more beloved
by God than other nations, that God then favoured other nations with more
miracles than He vouchsafed to the Jews, who had then partly recovered their
empire without miraculous aid; and, lastly, that the Gentiles possessed
rites and ceremonies acceptable to God. (47) But I pass over these points
lightly: it is enough for my purpose to have shown that the election of the
Jews had regard to nothing but temporal physical happiness and freedom, in
other words, autonomous government, and to the manner and means by which
they obtained it; consequently to the laws in so far as they were
necessary to the preservation of that special government; and, lastly, to
the manner in which they were revealed. In regard to other matters, wherein
man's true happiness consists, they were on a par with the rest of the
nations.

(48) When, therefore, it is said in Scripture (Deut. iv:7) that the Lord is
not so nigh to any other nation as He is to the Jews, reference is only made
to their government, and to the period when so many miracles happened to
them, for in respect of intellect and virtue - that is, in respect of
blessedness - God was, as we have said already, and are now demonstrating,
equally gracious to all. (49) Scripture itself bears testimony to this fact,
for the Psalmist says (cxlv:18), "The Lord is near unto all them that call
upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth." (50) So in the same Psalm,
verse 9, "The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all
His works." In Ps. xxxiii:16, it is clearly stated that God has granted to
all men the same intellect, in these words, He fashioneth their hearts
alike." The heart was considered by the Hebrews, as I suppose everyone
knows, to be the seat of the soul and the intellect.

(51) Lastly, from Job xxxviii:28, it is plain that God had ordained for the
whole human race the law to reverence God, to keep from evil doing, or to do
well, and that Job, although a Gentile, was of all men most acceptable to
God, because he exceeded all in piety and religion. (52) Lastly, from Jonah
iv:2, it is very evident that, not only to the Jews but to all men, God was
gracious, merciful, long- suffering, and of great goodness, and repented Him
of the evil, for Jonah says: "Therefore I determined to flee before unto
Tarshish, for I know that Thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to
anger, and of great kindness," &c., and that, therefore, God would pardon
the Ninevites. (53) We conclude, therefore (inasmuch as God is to all men
equally gracious, and the Hebrews were only, chosen by him in respect to
their social organization and government), that the individual Jew, taken
apart from his social organization and government, possessed no
gift of God above other men, and that there was no difference between Jew
and Gentile. (54) As it is a fact that God is equally gracious, merciful,
and the rest, to all men; and as the function of the prophet was to teach
men not so much the laws of their country, as true virtue, and to exhort
them thereto, it is not to be doubted that all nations possessed prophets,
and that the prophetic gift was not peculiar to the Jews. (55) Indeed,
history, both profane and sacred, bears witness to the fact. (56) Although,
from the sacred histories of the Old Testament, it is not evident that the
other nations had as many prophets as the Hebrews, or that any Gentile
prophet was expressly sent by God to the nations, this does not affect the
question, for the Hebrews were careful to record their own affairs, not
those of other nations. (57) It suffices, then, that we find in the Old
Testament Gentiles, and uncircumcised, as Noah, Enoch, Abimelech,
Balaam, &c., exercising prophetic gifts; further, that Hebrew prophets were
sent by God, not only to their own nation but to many others also. (58)
Ezekiel prophesied to all the nations then known; Obadiah to none, that we
are aware of, save the Idumeans; and Jonah was chiefly the prophet to the
Ninevites. (59) Isaiah bewails and predicts the calamities, and hails the
restoration not only of the Jews but also of other nations, for he says
(chap. xvi:9), "Therefore I will bewail Jazer with weeping;" and in chap.
xix. he foretells first the calamities and then the restoration of
the Egyptians (see verses 19, 20, 21, 25), saying that God shall send them a
Saviour to free them, that the Lord shall be known in Egypt, and, further,
that the Egyptians shall worship God with sacrifice and oblation; and, at
last, he calls that nation the blessed Egyptian people of God; all of which
particulars are specially noteworthy.

(60) Jeremiah is called, not the prophet of the Hebrew nation, but simply
the prophet of the nations (see Jer:i.5). (61) He also mournfully foretells
the calamities of the nations, and predicts their restoration, for he says
(xlviii:31) of the Moabites, "Therefore will I howl for Moab, and I will
cry out for all Moab" (verse 36), "and therefore mine heart shall sound
for Moab like pipes;" in the end he prophesies their restoration, as also
the restoration of the Egyptians, Ammonites, and Elamites. (62) Wherefore it
is beyond doubt that other nations also, like the Jews, had their
prophets, who prophesied to them.

(63) Although Scripture only, makes mention of one man, Balaam, to whom the
future of the Jews and the other nations was revealed, we must not suppose
that Balaam prophesied only once, for from the narrative itself it is
abundantly clear that he had long previously been famous for prophesy and
other Divine gifts. (64) For when Balak bade him to come to him, he said
(Num. xxii:6), "For I know that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he
whom thou cursest is cursed." (65) Thus we see that he possessed the gift
which God had bestowed on Abraham. Further, as accustomed to prophesy,
Balaam bade the messengers wait for him till the will of the Lord was
revealed to him. (66) When he prophesied, that is, when he interpreted
the true mind of God, he was wont to say this of himself: "He hath said,
which heard the words of God and knew the knowledge of the Most High, which
saw the vision of the Almighty falling into a trance, but having his eyes
open." (67) Further, after he had blessed the Hebrews by the command of God,
he began (as was his custom) to prophesy to other nations, and to predict
their future; all of which abundantly shows that he had always been a
prophet, or had often prophesied, and (as we may also remark here) possessed
that which afforded the chief certainty to prophets of the truth of their
prophecy, namely, a mind turned wholly to what is right and good, for he did
not bless those whom he wished to bless, nor curse those whom he wished to
curse, as Balak supposed, but only those whom God wished to be blessed or
cursed. (68) Thus he answered Balak: "If Balak should give me his house full
of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord to do
either good or bad of my own mind; but what the Lord saith, that will I
speak." (69) As for God being angry with him in the way, the same happened
to Moses when he set out to Egypt by the command of the Lord; and as to his
receiving money for prophesying, Samuel did the same (1 Sam. ix:7, 8); if in
anyway he sinned, "there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and
sinneth not," Eccles. vii:20. (Vide 2 Epist. Peter ii:15, 16, and
Jude 5:11.)

(70) His speeches must certainly have had much weight with God, and His
power for cursing must assuredly have been very great from the number of
times that we find stated in Scripture, in proof of God's great mercy to the
Jews, that God would not hear Balaam, and that He changed the cursing to
blessing (see Deut. xxiii:6, Josh. xxiv:10, Neh. xiii:2). (71) Wherefore he
was without doubt most acceptable to God, for the speeches and cursings of
the wicked move God not at all. (72) As then he was a true prophet, and
nevertheless Joshua calls him a soothsayer or augur, it is certain that this
title had an honourable signification, and that those whom the Gentiles
called augurs and soothsayers were true prophets, while those whom Scripture
often accuses and condemns were false soothsayers, who deceived the
Gentiles as false prophets deceived the Jews; indeed, this is made evident
from other passages in the Bible, whence we conclude that the gift of
prophecy was not peculiar to the Jews, but common to all nations. (73) The
Pharisees, however, vehemently contend that this Divine gift was peculiar to
their nation, and that the other nations foretold the future (what will
superstition invent next?) by some unexplained diabolical faculty. (74) The
principal passage of Scripture which they cite, by way of confirming their
theory with its authority, is Exodus xxxiii:16, where Moses says to God,
"For wherein shall it be known here that I and Thy people have found grace
in Thy sight? is it not in that Thou goest with us? so shall we be
separated, I and Thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of
the earth." (75) From this they would infer that Moses asked of God that He
should be present to the Jews, and should reveal Himself to them
prophetically; further, that He should grant this favour to no other nation.
(76) It is surely absurd that Moses should have been jealous of God's
presence among the Gentiles, or that he should have dared to ask any such
thing. (77) The act is, as Moses knew that the disposition and spirit of his
nation was rebellious, he clearly saw that they could not carry out what
they had begun without very great miracles and special external aid from
God; nay, that without such aid they must necessarily perish: as it was
evident that God wished them to be preserved, he asked for this special
external aid. (78) Thus he says (Ex. xxxiv:9), "If now I have found grace in
Thy sight, 0 Lord, let my Lord, I pray Thee, go among us; for it is a
stiffnecked people." (79) The reason, therefore, for his seeking special
external aid from God was the stiffneckedness of the people, and it is made
still more plain, that he asked for nothing beyond this special external aid
by God's answer - for God answered at once (verse 10 of the same chapter) -
"Behold, I make a covenant: before all Thy people I will do marvels, such as
have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation." (80) Therefore
Moses had in view nothing beyond the special election of the Jews, as I have
explained it, and made no other request to God. (81) I confess that in
Paul's Epistle to the Romans, I find another text which carries more weight,
namely, where Paul seems to teach a different doctrine from that here set
down, for he there says (Rom. iii:1): "What advantage then hath the Jew? or
what profit is there of circumcision? (82) Much every way: chiefly, because
that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

(83) But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired to teach,
we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the contrary,
his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (Rom. iii:29) "that God is the
God of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and" (ch. ii:25, 26) "But,

if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
(84) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,
shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?" (85) Further, in
chap. iv:verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were under sin,
and that without commandment and law there is no sin. (86) Wherefore it is
most evident that to all men absolutely was revealed the law under which all
lived - namely, the law which has regard only to true virtue, not the law
established in respect to, and in the formation of a particular state and
adapted to the disposition of a particular people. (87) Lastly, Paul
concludes that since God is the God of all nations, that is, is equally
gracious to all, and since all men equally live under the law and under sin,
so also to all nations did God send His Christ, to free all men equally from
the bondage of the law, that they should no more do right by the
command of the law, but by the constant determination of their hearts. (88)
So that Paul teaches exactly the same as ourselves. (89) When, therefore, he
says "To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of God," we must either
understand that to them only were the laws entrusted in writing, while they
were given to other nations merely in revelation and conception, or else (as
none but Jews would object to the doctrine he desired to advance) that Paul
was answering only in accordance with the understanding and current ideas of
the Jews, for in respect to teaching things which he had partly seen, partly
heard, he was to the Greeks a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.

(90) It now only remains to us to answer the arguments of those who would
persuade themselves that the election of the Jews was not temporal, and
merely in respect of their commonwealth, but eternal; for, they say, we see
the Jews after the loss of their commonwealth, and after being scattered so
many years and separated from all other nations, still surviving, which is
without parallel among other peoples, and further the Scriptures seem to
teach that God has chosen for Himself the Jews for ever, so that though they
have lost their commonwealth, they still nevertheless remain God's elect.

(91) The passages which they think teach most clearly this eternal election, are chiefly:
(1.) Jer. xxxi:36, where the prophet testifies that the seed of Israel
shall for ever remain the nation of God, comparing them with the
stability of the heavens and nature;

(2.) Ezek. xx:32, where the prophet seems to intend that though the Jews
wanted after the help afforded them to turn their backs on the worship of
the Lord, that God would nevertheless gather them together again from all
the lands in which they were dispersed, and lead them to the wilderness of
the peoples - as He had led their fathers to the wilderness of the land of
Egypt - and would at length, after purging out from among them the rebels
and transgressors, bring them thence to his Holy mountain, where the whole
house of Israel should worship Him. Other passages are also cited,
especially by the Pharisees, but I think I shall satisfy everyone if I
answer these two, and this I shall easily accomplish after showing from
Scripture itself that God chose not the Hebrews for ever, but only on the
condition under which He had formerly chosen the Canaanites, for these last,
as we have shown, had priests who religiously worshipped God, and whom God
at length rejected because of their luxury, pride, and corrupt worship.

(92) Moses (Lev. xviii:27) warned the Israelites that they be not polluted
with whoredoms, lest the land spue them out as it had spued out the nations
who had dwelt there before, and in Deut. viii:19, 20, in the plainest terms
He threatens their total ruin, for He says, "I testify against you that ye
shall surely perish. (93) As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before
your face, so shall ye perish." In like manner many other passages are found
in the law which expressly show that God chose the Hebrews neither
absolutely nor for ever. (94) If, then, the prophets foretold for them a new
covenant of the knowledge of God, love, and grace, such a promise is easily
proved to be only made to the elect, for Ezekiel in the chapter which we
have just quoted expressly says that God will separate from them the
rebellious and transgressors, and Zephaniah (iii:12, 13), says that "God
will take away the proud from the midst of them, and leave the poor." (95)
Now, inasmuch as their election has regard to true virtue, it is not to be
thought that it was promised to the Jews alone to the exclusion of others,
but we must evidently believe that the true Gentile prophets (and every
nation, as we have shown, possessed such) promised the same to the faithful
of their own people, who were thereby comforted. (96) Wherefore this eternal
covenant of the knowledge of God and love is universal, as is clear,
moreover, from Zeph. iii:10, 11: no difference in this respect can be
admitted between Jew and Gentile, nor did the former enjoy any special
election beyond that which we have pointed out.

(97) When the prophets, in speaking of this election which regards only true
virtue, mixed up much concerning sacrifices and ceremonies, and the
rebuilding of the temple and city, they wished by such figurative
expressions, after the manner and nature of prophecy, to expound matters
spiritual, so as at the same time to show to the Jews, whose prophets they
were, the true restoration of the state and of the temple to be expected
about the time of Cyrus.

(98) At the present time, therefore, there is absolutely nothing which the
Jews can arrogate to themselves beyond other people.

(99) As to their continuance so long after dispersion and the loss of
empire, there is nothing marvellous in it, for they so separated themselves
from every other nation as to draw down upon themselves universal hate, not
only by their outward rites, rites conflicting with those of other nations,
but also by the sign of circumcision which they most scrupulously observe.

(100) That they have been preserved in great measure by Gentile hatred,
experience demonstrates. (101) When the king of Spain formerly
compelled the Jews to embrace the State religion or to go into exile, a
large number of Jews accepted Catholicism. (102) Now, as these renegades
were admitted to all the native privileges of Spaniards, and deemed worthy
of filling all honourable offices, it came to pass that they straightway
became so intermingled with the Spaniards as to leave of themselves no relic
or remembrance. (103) But exactly the opposite happened to those whom the
king of Portugal compelled to become Christians, for they always, though
converted, lived apart, inasmuch as they were considered unworthy of any
civic honours.

(104) The sign of circumcision is, as I think, so important, that I could
persuade myself that it alone would preserve the nation for ever. (105) Nay,
I would go so far as to believe that if the foundations of their religion
have not emasculated their minds they may even, if occasion offers, so
changeable are human affairs, raise up their empire afresh, and that God may
a second time elect them.

(106) Of such a possibility we have a very famous example in the Chinese.
(107) They, too, have some distinctive mark on their heads which they most
scrupulously observe, and by which they keep themselves apart from everyone
else, and have thus kept themselves during so many thousand years that they
far surpass all other nations in antiquity. (108) They have not always
retained empire, but they have recovered it when lost, and doubtless will do
so again after the spirit of the Tartars becomes relaxed through the luxury
of riches and pride.

(109) Lastly, if any one wishes to maintain that the Jews, from this or from
any other cause, have been chosen by God for ever, I will not gainsay him if
he will admit that this choice, whether temporary or eternal, has no regard,
in so far as it is peculiar to the Jews, to aught but dominion and physical
advantages (for by such alone can one nation be distinguished from
another), whereas in regard to intellect and true virtue, every nation is on
a par with the rest, and God has not in these respects chosen one people
rather than another.





CHAPTER IV. - OF THE DIVINE LAW.

(1) The word law, taken in the abstract, means that by which an individual,
or all things, or as many things as belong to a particular species, act in
one and the same fixed and definite manner, which manner depends either on
natural necessity or on human decree. (2) A law which depends on natural
necessity is one which necessarily follows from the nature, or from the
definition of the thing in question; a law which depends on human decree,
and which is more correctly called an ordinance, is one which men have laid
down for themselves and others in order to live more safely or conveniently,
or from some similar reason.

(3) For example, the law that all bodies impinging on lesser bodies, lose as
much of their own motion as they communicate to the latter is a universal
law of all bodies, and depends on natural necessity. (4) So, too, the law
that a man in remembering one thing, straightway remembers another either
like it, or which he had perceived simultaneously with it, is a law which
necessarily follows from the nature of man. (5) But the law that men must
yield, or be compelled to yield, somewhat of their natural right, and that
they bind themselves to live in a certain way, depends on human decree. (6)
Now, though I freely admit that all things are predetermined by universal
natural laws to exist and operate in a given, fixed, and definite
manner, I still assert that the laws I have just mentioned depend on human
decree.

(1.) (7) Because man, in so far as he is a part of nature, constitutes a
part of the power of nature. (8) Whatever, therefore, follows necessarily
from the necessity of human nature (that is, from nature herself, in so far
as we conceive of her as acting through man) follows, even though it be
necessarily, from human power. (9) Hence the sanction of such laws may very
well be said to depend on man's decree, for it principally depends on the
power of the human mind; so that the human mind in respect to its perception
of things as true and false, can readily be conceived as without such laws,
but not without necessary law as we have just defined it.

(2.) (10) I have stated that these laws depend on human decree because it is
well to define and explain things by their proximate causes. (11) The
general consideration of fate and the concatenation of causes would aid us
very little in forming and arranging our ideas concerning particular
questions. (12) Let us add that as to the actual coordination and
concatenation of things, that is how things are ordained and linked
together, we are obviously ignorant; therefore, it is more profitable for
right living, nay, it is necessary for us to consider things as contingent.
(13) So much about law in the abstract.

(14) Now the word law seems to be only applied to natural phenomena by
analogy, and is commonly taken to signify a command which men can either
obey or neglect, inasmuch as it restrains human nature within certain
originally exceeded limits, and therefore lays down no rule beyond human
strength. (15) Thus it is expedient to define law more particularly as a
plan of life laid down by man for himself or others with a certain object.

(16) However, as the true object of legislation is only perceived by a few,
and most men are almost incapable of grasping it, though they live under its
conditions, legislators, with a view to exacting general obedience, have
wisely put forward another object, very different from that which
necessarily follows from the nature of law: they promise to the observers of
the law that which the masses chiefly desire, and threaten its violators
with that which they chiefly fear: thus endeavouring to restrain the masses,
as far as may be, like a horse with a curb; whence it follows that the word
law is chiefly applied to the modes of life enjoined on men by the sway of
others; hence those who obey the law are said to live under it and to be
under compulsion. (17) In truth, a man who renders everyone their due
because he fears the gallows, acts under the sway and compulsion of others,
and cannot be called just. (18) But a man who does the same from a knowledge
of the true reason for laws and their necessity, acts from a firm purpose
and of his own accord, and is therefore properly called just. (19) This, I
take it, is Paul's meaning when he says, that those who live under the law
cannot be justified through the law, for justice, as commonly defined, is
the constant and perpetual will to render every man his due. (20) Thus
Solomon says (Prov. xxi:15), "It is a joy to the just to do judgment," but
the wicked fear.

(21) Law, then, being a plan of living which men have for a certain object
laid down for themselves or others, may, as it seems, be divided into human
law and Divine law. {But both are opposite sides of the same coin}

(22) By human law I mean a plan of living which serves only to render life
and the state secure. (23) By Divine law I mean that which only regards the
highest good, in other words, the true knowledge of God and love.

(24) I call this law Divine because of the nature of the highest good, which
I will here shortly explain as clearly as I can.

(25) Inasmuch as the intellect is the best part of our being, it is evident
that we should make every effort to perfect it as far as possible if we
desire to search for what is really profitable to us. (26) For in
intellectual perfection the highest good should consist. (27) Now, since all
our knowledge, and the certainty which removes every doubt, depend solely on
the knowledge of God;- firstly, because without God nothing can exist or be
conceived; secondly, because so long as we have no clear and distinct idea
of God we may remain in universal doubt - it follows that our highest good
and perfection also depend solely on the knowledge of God. (28) Further,
since without God nothing can exist or be conceived, it is evident that all
natural phenomena involve and express the conception of God as far as their
essence and perfection extend, so that we have greater and more perfect
knowledge of God in proportion to our knowledge of natural phenomena:
conversely (since the knowledge of an effect through its cause is the same
thing as the knowledge of a particular property of a cause) the greater our
knowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the
essence of God (which is the cause of all things). (29) So, then, our
highest good not only depends on the knowledge of God, but wholly consists
therein; and it further follows that man is perfect or the reverse in
proportion to the nature and perfection of the object of his special desire;
hence the most perfect and the chief sharer in the highest blessedness is he
who prizes above all else, and takes especial delight in, the intellectual
knowledge of God, the most perfect Being.

(30) Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim -
namely, to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded by
this aim of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as the idea of him
is in us, may be called the commands of God, because they proceed, as it
were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists in our minds, and the plan of
life which has regard to this aim may be fitly called the law of God.

(31) The nature of the means, and the plan of life which this aim demands,
how the foundations of the best states follow its lines, and how men's life
is conducted, are questions pertaining to general ethics. (32) Here I only
proceed to treat of the Divine law in a particular application.

(33) As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the
ultimate end and aim of all human actions, it follows that he alone lives by
the Divine law who loves God not from fear of punishment, or from love of
any other object, such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely
because he has knowledge of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love
of God is the highest good. (34) The sum and chief precept, then, of the
Divine law is to love God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not
from fear of any pains and penalties, or from the love of any other object
in which we desire to take pleasure. (35) The idea of God lays down
the rule that God is our highest good - in other words, that the knowledge
and love of God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions should be
directed. (36) The worldling cannot understand these things, they appear
foolishness to him, because he has too meager a knowledge of God, and also
because in this highest good he can discover nothing which he can handle or
eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he chiefly delights, for
it consists solely in thought and the pure reason. (37) They, on the other
hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than intellect and sound
reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without question.

(38) We have now explained that wherein the Divine law chiefly consists, and
what are human laws, namely, all those which have a different aim
unless they have been ratified by revelation, for in this respect also
things are referred to God (as we have shown above) and in this sense the
law of Moses, although it was not universal, but entirely adapted to the
disposition and particular preservation of a single people, may yet be
called a law of God or Divine law, inasmuch as we believe that it was
ratified by prophetic insight. (39) If we consider the nature of natural
Divine law as we have just explained it, we shall see:

(40) I.- That it is universal or common to all men, for we have deduced it
from universal human nature.

(41) II. That it does not depend on the truth of any historical narrative
whatsoever, for inasmuch as this natural Divine law is comprehended solely
by the consideration of human nature, it is plain that we can conceive it as
existing as well in Adam as in any other man, as well in a man living among
his fellows, as in a man who lives by himself.

(42) The truth of a historical narrative, however assured, cannot give us
the knowledge nor consequently the love of God, for love of God springs from
knowledge of Him, and knowledge of Him should be derived from general ideas,
in themselves certain and known, so that the truth of a historical narrative
is very far from being a necessary requisite for our attaining our highest
good.

(43) Still, though the truth of histories cannot give us the knowledge and
love of God, I do not deny that reading them is very useful with a view to
life in the world, for the more we have observed and known of men's customs
and circumstances, which are best revealed by their actions, the more warily
we shall be able to order our lives among them, and so far as reason
dictates to adapt our actions to their dispositions.

(44) III. We see that this natural Divine law does not demand the
performance of ceremonies - that is, actions in themselves indifferent,
which are called good from the fact of their institution, or actions
symbolizing something profitable for salvation, or (if one prefers this
definition) actions of which the meaning surpasses human understanding. (45)
The natural light of reason does not demand anything which it is itself
unable to supply, but only such as it can very clearly show to be good, or a
means to our blessedness. (46) Such things as are good simply because they
have been commanded or instituted, or as being symbols of something good,
are mere shadows which cannot be reckoned among actions that are the
offsprings as it were, or fruit of a sound mind and of intellect. (47) There
is no need for me to go into this now in more detail.

(48) IV. Lastly, we see that the highest reward of the Divine law is the law
itself, namely, to know God and to love Him of our free choice, and with an
undivided and fruitful spirit; while its penalty is the absence of these
things, and being in bondage to the flesh - that is, having an inconstant
and wavering spirit.

(49) These points being noted, I must now inquire:

(50) I. Whether by the natural light of reason we can conceive of
        God as a law-giver or potentate ordaining laws for men?

(51) II. What is the teaching of Holy Writ concerning this
         natural light of reason and natural law?

(52) III. With what objects were ceremonies formerly instituted?

(53) IV. Lastly, what is the good gained by knowing the
         sacred histories and believing them?

(54) Of the first two I will treat in this chapter, of the remaining two
in the following one.

(55) Our conclusion about the first is easily deduced from the nature of
God's will, which is only distinguished from His understanding in relation
to our intellect - that is, the will and the understanding of God are in
reality one and the same, and are only distinguished in relation to
our thoughts which we form concerning God's understanding. (56) For
instance, if we are only looking to the fact that the nature of a triangle
is from eternity contained in the Divine nature as an eternal verity, we say
that God possesses the idea of a triangle, or that He understands the
nature of a triangle; but if afterwards we look to the fact that the nature
of a triangle is thus contained in the Divine nature, solely by the
necessity of the Divine nature, and not by the necessity of the nature and
essence of a triangle - in fact, that the necessity of a triangle's essence
and nature, in so far as they are conceived of as eternal verities, depends
solely on the necessity of the Divine nature and intellect, we then style
God's will or decree, that which before we styled His intellect. (57)
Wherefore we make one and the same affirmation concerning God when we say
that He has from eternity decreed that three angles of a triangle are equal
to two right angles, as when we say that He has understood it.

(58) Hence the affirmations and the negations of God always involve
necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did
not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have
involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and
would therefore have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the
Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. (59) But
since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to
Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say
that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should
eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity
come to pass. (60) Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an
eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by
gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed,
but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the
revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through
his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and
potentate. (61) From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the
Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law, for since they knew not the
existence of God as an eternal truth, they must have taken as a law that
which was revealed to them in the Decalogue, namely, that God exists, and
that God only should be worshipped. (62) But if God had spoken to them
without the intervention of any bodily means, immediately they would have
perceived it not as a law, but as an eternal truth.

(63) What we have said about the Israelites and Adam, applies also to all
the prophets who wrote laws in God's name - they did not adequately conceive
God's decrees as eternal truths. (64) For instance, we must say of Moses
that from revelation, from the basis of what was revealed to him, he
perceived the method by which the Israelitish nation could best be united in
a particular territory, and could form a body politic or state, and further
that he perceived the method by which that nation could best be constrained
to obedience; but he did not perceive, nor was it revealed to him, that this
method was absolutely the best, nor that the obedience of the people in a
certain strip of territory would necessarily imply the end he had in view.
(65) Wherefore he perceived these things not as eternal truths, but as
precepts and ordinances, and he ordained them as laws of God, and thus it
came to be that he conceived God as a ruler, a legislator, a king, as
merciful, just, &c., whereas such qualities are simply attributes of human
nature, and utterly alien from the nature of the Deity. (66)Thus much we may
affirm of the prophets who wrote laws in the name of God; but we must not
affirm it of Christ, for Christ, although He too seems to have written laws
in the name of God, must be taken to have had a clear and adequate
perception, for Christ was not so much a prophet as the mouthpiece of God.
(67) For God made revelations to mankind through Christ as He had before
done through angels - that is, a created voice, visions, &c. (68) It would
be as unreasonable to say that God had accommodated his revelations to the
opinions of Christ as that He had before accommodated them to the opinions
of angels (that is, of a created voice or visions) as matters to be revealed
to the prophets, a wholly absurd hypothesis. (69) Moreover, Christ was sent
to teach not only the Jews but the whole human race, and therefore it was
not enough that His mind should be accommodated to the opinions the Jews
alone, but also to the opinion and fundamental teaching common to the whole
human race - in other words, to ideas universal and true. (70) Inasmuch as
God revealed Himself to Christ, or to Christ's mind immediately, and not as
to the prophets through words and symbols, we must needs suppose that Christ
perceived truly what was revealed, in other words, He understood it, for a
matter is understood when it is perceived simply by the mind without words
or symbols.

(71) Christ, then, perceived (truly and adequately) what was revealed, and
if He ever proclaimed such revelations as laws, He did so because of the
ignorance and obstinacy of the people, acting in this respect the part of
God; inasmuch as He accommodated Himself to the comprehension of the
people, and though He spoke somewhat more clearly than the other prophets,
yet He taught what was revealed obscurely, and generally through parables,
especially when He was speaking to those to whom it was not yet given to
understand the kingdom of heaven. (See Matt. xiii:10, &c.) (72) To those to
whom it was given to understand the mysteries of heaven, He doubtless taught
His doctrines as eternal truths, and did not lay them down as laws, thus
freeing the minds of His hearers from the bondage of that law which He
further confirmed and established. (73) Paul apparently points to this more
than once (e.g. Rom. vii:6, and iii:28), though he never himself seems to
wish to speak openly, but, to quote his own words (Rom. iii:6, and vi:19),
"merely humanly." (74) This he expressly states when he calls God just, and
it was doubtless in concession to human weakness that he attributes mercy,
grace, anger, and similar qualities to God, adapting his language to the
popular mind, or, as he puts it (1 Cor. iii:1, 2), to carnal men. (75) In
Rom. ix:18, he teaches undisguisedly that God's auger and mercy depend not
on the actions of men, but on God's own nature or will; further, that no
one is justified by the works of the law, but only by faith, which he seems
to identify with the full assent of the soul; lastly, that no one is blessed
unless he have in him the mind of Christ (Rom. viii:9), whereby he perceives
the laws of God as eternal truths. (76) We conclude, therefore, that God is
described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, &c., merely in
concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular
knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the
necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions
are eternal truths, and always involve necessity. (77) So much for the first
point which I wished to explain and demonstrate.

(78) Passing on to the second point, let us search the sacred pages for
their teaching concerning the light of nature and this Divine law. (79) The
first doctrine we find in the history of the first man, where it is narrated
that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil; this seems to mean that God commanded Adam to do
and to seek after righteousness because it was good, not because the
contrary was evil: that is, to seek the good for its own sake, not from fear
of evil. (80) We have seen that he who acts rightly from the true knowledge
and love of right, acts with freedom and constancy, whereas he who acts from
fear of evil, is under the constraint of evil, and acts in bondage under
external control. (81) So that this commandment of God to Adam comprehends
the whole Divine natural law, and absolutely agrees with the dictates of the
light of nature; nay, it would be easy to explain on this basis the whole
history or allegory of the first man. (82) But I prefer to pass over the
subject in silence, because, in the first place, I cannot be absolutely
certain that my explanation would be in accordance with the intention of the
sacred writer; and, secondly, because many do not admit that this history is
an allegory, maintaining it to be a simple narrative of facts. (83) It will
be better, therefore, to adduce other passages of Scripture, especially such
as were written by him, who speaks with all the strength of his natural
understanding, in which he surpassed all his contemporaries, and whose
sayings are accepted by the people as of equal weight with
those of the prophets. (84) I mean Solomon, whose prudence and wisdom are
commended in Scripture rather than his piety and gift of prophecy. (85) Life
being taken to mean the true life (as is evident from Deut. xxx:19), the
fruit of the understanding consists only in the true life, and its
absence constitutes punishment. (86) All this absolutely agrees with what
was set out in our fourth point concerning natural law. (87) Moreover our
position that it is the well-spring of life, and that the intellect alone
lays down laws for the wise, is plainly taught by, the sage, for he says
(Prov. xiii:14): "The law of the wise is a fountain of life" - that is, as
we gather from the preceding text, the understanding. (88) In chap. iii:13,
he expressly teaches that the understanding renders man blessed and happy,
and gives him true peace of mind. "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and
the man that getteth understanding," for "Wisdom gives length of days, and
riches and honour; her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths
peace" (xiiii:6, 17). (89) According to Solomon, therefore, it is only,
the wise who live in peace and equanimity, not like the wicked whose minds
drift hither and thither, and (as Isaiah says, chap. lvii:20) "are like the
troubled sea, for them there is no peace."

(90) Lastly, we should especially note the passage in chap. ii. of Solomon's
proverbs which most clearly confirms our contention: "If thou criest after
knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding . . . then shalt thou
understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God; for the Lord
giveth wisdom; out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding."
(91) These words clearly enunciate (1), that wisdom or intellect alone
teaches us to fear God wisely - that is, to worship Him truly; (2), that
wisdom and knowledge flow from God's mouth, and that God bestows on us this
gift; this we have already shown in proving that our understanding and our
knowledge depend on, spring from, and are perfected by the idea or
knowledge of God, and nothing else. (92) Solomon goes on to say in so many
words that this knowledge contains and involves the true principles of
ethics and politics: "When wisdom entereth into thy heart, and knowledge is
pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall
keep thee, then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and
equity, yea every good path." (93) All of which is in obvious agreement with
natural knowledge: for after we have come to the understanding of things,
and have tasted the excellence of knowledge, she teaches us ethics and true
virtue.

(94) Thus the happiness and the peace of him who cultivates his natural
understanding lies, according to Solomon also, not so much under the
dominion of fortune (or God's external aid) as in inward personal virtue (or
God's internal aid), for the latter can to a great extent be preserved by
vigilance, right action, and thought.

(95) Lastly, we must by no means pass over the passage in Paul's Epistle to
the Romans, i:20, in which he says: "For the invisible things of God from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse, because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither
were they thankful." (96) These words clearly show that everyone can by the
light of nature clearly understand the goodness and the eternal divinity of
God, and can thence know and deduce what they should seek for and what
avoid; wherefore the Apostle says that they are without excuse and cannot
plead ignorance, as they certainly might if it were a question of
supernatural light and the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ.
(97) "Wherefore," he goes on to say (ib. 24), "God gave them up to
uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts;" and so on, through the
rest of the chapter, he describes the vices of ignorance, and sets them
forth as the punishment of ignorance. (98) This obviously agrees with the
verse of Solomon, already quoted, "The instruction of fools is folly," so
that it is easy to understand why Paul says that the wicked are without
excuse. (99) As every man sows so shall he reap: out of evil, evils
necessarily spring, unless they be wisely counteracted.

(100) Thus we see that Scripture literally approves of the light of natural
reason and the natural Divine law, and I have fulfilled the promises made at
the beginning of this chapter.





CHAPTER V. - OF THE CEREMONIAL LAW.

(1) In the foregoing chapter we have shown that the Divine law, which
renders men truly blessed, and teaches them the true life, is universal to
all men; nay, we have so intimately deduced it from human nature that it
must be esteemed innate, and, as it were, ingrained in the human mind.

(2) But with regard to the ceremonial observances which were ordained in the
Old Testament for the Hebrews only, and were so adapted to their state that
they could for the most part only be observed by the society as a whole and
not by each individual, it is evident that they formed no part of the Divine
law, and had nothing to do with blessedness and virtue, but had reference
only to the election of the Hebrews, that is (as I have shown in Chap. II.),
to their temporal bodily happiness and the tranquillity of their kingdom,
and that therefore they were only valid while that kingdom lasted. (3) If in
the Old Testament they are spoken of as the law of God, it is only because
they were founded on revelation, or a basis of revelation. (4) Still as
reason, however sound, has little weight with ordinary theologians, I will
adduce the authority of Scripture for what I here assert, and will further
show, for the sake of greater clearness, why and how these ceremonials
served to establish and preserve the Jewish kingdom. (5) Isaiah teaches most
plainly that the Divine law in its strict sense signifies that universal law
which consists in a true manner of life, and does not signify ceremonial
observances. (6) In chapter i:10, the prophet calls on his countrymen to
hearken to the Divine law as he delivers it, and first excluding all kinds
of sacrifices and all feasts, he at length sums up the law in these few
words, "Cease to do evil, learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the
oppressed." (7) Not less striking testimony is given in Psalm xl:7- 9, where
the Psalmist addresses God: "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire;
mine ears hast Thou opened; burnt offering and sin-offering hast Thou not
required; I delight to do Thy will, 0 my God; yea, Thy law is within my
heart." (8) Here the Psalmist reckons as the law of God only that which is
inscribed in his heart, and excludes ceremonies therefrom, for the latter
are good and inscribed on the heart only from the fact of their institution,
and not because of their intrinsic value.

(9) Other passages of Scripture testify to the same truth, but these two
will suffice. (10) We may also learn from the Bible that ceremonies are no
aid to blessedness, but only have reference to the temporal prosperity of
the kingdom; for the rewards promised for their observance are
merely temporal advantages and delights, blessedness being reserved for the
universal Divine law. (11) In all the five books commonly attributed to
Moses nothing is promised, as I have said, beyond temporal benefits, such as
honours, fame, victories, riches, enjoyments, and health. (12) Though many
moral precepts besides ceremonies are contained in these five books, they
appear not as moral doctrines universal to all men, but as commands
especially adapted to the understanding and character of the Hebrew people,
and as having reference only to the welfare of the kingdom. (13) For
instance, Moses does not teach the Jews as a prophet not to kill or to
steal, but gives these commandments solely as a lawgiver and judge; he does
not reason out the doctrine, but affixes for its non-observance a penalty
which may and very properly does vary in different nations. (14) So, too,
the command not to commit adultery is given merely with reference to the
welfare of the state; for if the moral doctrine had been intended, with
reference not only to the welfare of the state, but also to the tranquillity
and blessedness of the individual, Moses would have condemned not merely the
outward act, but also the mental acquiescence, as is done by Christ, Who
taught only universal moral precepts, and for this cause promises a
spiritual instead of a temporal reward. (15) Christ, as I have said, was
sent into the world, not to preserve the state nor to lay down laws, but
solely to teach the universal moral law, so we can easily understand that He
wished in nowise to do away with the law of Moses, inasmuch as He introduced
no new laws of His own - His sole care was to teach moral doctrines, and
distinguish them from the laws of the state; for the Pharisees, in their
ignorance, thought that the observance of the state law and the Mosaic law
was the sum total of morality; whereas such laws merely had reference to the
public welfare, and aimed not so much at instructing the Jews as at keeping
them under constraint. (16) But let us return to our subject, and cite other
passages of Scripture which set forth temporal benefits as rewards for
observing the ceremonial law, and blessedness as reward for the universal
law.

(17) None of the prophets puts the point more clearly than Isaiah. (18.)
After condemning hypocrisy he commends liberty and charity towards one's
self and one's neighbours, and promises as a reward: "Then shall thy light
break forth as the morning, and thy health shall spring forth speedily, thy
righteousness shall go before thee, and the glory of the Lord shall be thy
reward" (chap. lviii:8). (19) Shortly afterwards he commends the Sabbath,
and for a due observance of it, promises: "Then shalt thou delight thyself
in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the
earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of
the Lord has spoken it." (20) Thus the prophet for liberty bestowed, and
charitable works, promises a healthy mind in a healthy body, and the glory
of the Lord even after death; whereas, for ceremonial exactitude, he only
promises security of rule, prosperity, and temporal happiness.

(21) In Psalms xv. and xxiv. no mention is made of ceremonies, but only of
moral doctrines, inasmuch as there is no question of anything but
blessedness, and blessedness is symbolically promised: it is quite certain
that the expressions, "the hill of God," and "His tents and the dwellers
therein," refer to blessedness and security of soul, not to the actual mount
of Jerusalem and the tabernacle of Moses, for these latter were not dwelt in
by anyone, and only the sons of Levi ministered there. (22) Further, all
those sentences of Solomon to which I referred in the last chapter, for the
cultivation of the intellect and wisdom, promise true blessedness, for by
wisdom is the fear of God at length understood, and the knowledge of God
found.

(23) That the Jews themselves were not bound to practise their ceremonial
observances after the destruction of their kingdom is evident from Jeremiah.
(24) For when the prophet saw and foretold that the desolation of the city
was at hand, he said that God only delights in those who know and understand
that He exercises loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the
earth, and that such persons only are worthy of praise. (Jer. ix:23.) (25)
As though God had said that, after the desolation of the city, He would
require nothing special from the Jews beyond the natural law by which all
men are bound.

(26) The New Testament also confirms this view, for only moral doctrines are
therein taught, and the kingdom of heaven is promised as a reward, whereas
ceremonial observances are not touched on by the Apostles, after they began
to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. (27) The Pharisees certainly continued
to practise these rites after the destruction of the kingdom, but more with
a view of opposing the Christians than of pleasing God: for after the first
destruction of the city, when they were led captive to Babylon, not being
then, so far as I am aware, split up into sects, they straightway neglected
their rites, bid farewell to the Mosaic law, buried their national customs
in oblivion as being plainly superfluous, and began to mingle with other
nations, as we may abundantly learn from Ezra and Nehemiah. (28) We cannot,
therefore, doubt that they were no more bound by the law of Moses, after the
destruction of their kingdom, than they had been before it had been begun,
while they were still living among other peoples before the exodus from
Egypt, and were subject to no special law beyond the natural law, and also,
doubtless, the law of the state in which they were living, in so far as it
was consonant with the Divine natural law.

(29) As to the fact that the patriarchs offered sacrifices, I think they did
so for the purpose of stimulating their piety, for their minds had been
accustomed from childhood to the idea of sacrifice, which we know had been
universal from the time of Enoch; and thus they found in sacrifice their
most powerful incentive. (30) The patriarchs, then, did not sacrifice to God
at the bidding of a Divine right, or as taught by the basis of the Divine
law, but simply in accordance with the custom of the time; and, if in so
doing they followed any ordinance, it was simply the ordinance of the
country they were living in, by which (as we have seen before in the case of
Melchisedek) they were bound.

(31) I think that I have now given Scriptural authority for my view: it
remains to show why and how the ceremonial observances tended to preserve
and confirm the Hebrew kingdom; and this I can very briefly do on grounds
universally accepted.

(32) The formation of society serves not only for defensive purposes, but is
also very useful, and, indeed, absolutely necessary, as rendering possible
the division of labour. (33) If men did not render mutual assistance to each
other, no one would have either the skill or the time to provide for his own
sustenance and preservation: for all men are not equally apt for all work,
and no one would be capable of preparing all that he individually stood in
need of. (34) Strength and time, I repeat, would fail, if every one had in
person to plough, to sow, to reap, to grind corn, to cook, to weave, to
stitch, and perform the other numerous functions required to keep life
going; to say nothing of the arts and sciences which are also entirely
necessary to the perfection and blessedness of human nature. (35) We see
that peoples living, in uncivilized barbarism lead a wretched and almost
animal life, and even they would not be able to acquire their few rude
necessaries without assisting one another to a certain extent.

(36) Now if men were so constituted by nature that they desired nothing but
what is designated by true reason, society would obviously have no need of
laws: it would be sufficient to inculcate true moral doctrines; and men
would freely, without hesitation, act in accordance with their true
interests. (37) But human nature is framed in a different fashion: every
one, indeed, seeks his own interest, but does not do so in accordance with
the dictates of sound reason, for most men's ideas of desirability and
usefulness are guided by their fleshly instincts and emotions, which take no
thought beyond the present and the immediate object. (38) Therefore, no
society can exist without government, and force, and laws to restrain and
repress men's desires and immoderate impulses. (39) Still human nature will
not submit to absolute repression. (40) Violent governments, as Seneca says,
never last long; the moderate governments endure. (41) So long as men act
simply from fear they act contrary to their inclinations, taking no thought
for the advantages or necessity of their actions, but simply endeavouring to
escape punishment or loss of life. (42) They must needs rejoice in any evil
which befalls their ruler, even if it should involve themselves; and must
long for and bring about such evil by every means in their power. (43)
Again, men are especially intolerant of serving and being ruled by their
equals. (44) Lastly, it is exceedingly difficult to revoke liberties once
granted.

(45) From these considerations it follows, firstly, that authority should
either be vested in the hands of the whole state in common, so that everyone
should be bound to serve, and yet not be in subjection to his equals; or
else, if power be in the hands of a few, or one man, that one man should be
something above average humanity, or should strive to get himself accepted
as such. (46) Secondly, laws should in every government be so arranged that
people should be kept in bounds by the hope of some greatly desired good,
rather than by fear, for then everyone will do his duty willingly.

(47) Lastly, as obedience consists in acting at the bidding of external
authority, it would have no place in a state where the government is vested
in the whole people, and where laws are made by common consent. (48) In such
a society the people would remain free, whether the laws were added to or
diminished, inasmuch as it would not be done on external authority, but
their own free consent. (49) The reverse happens when the sovereign power is
vested in one man, for all act at his bidding; and, therefore, unless they
had been trained from the first to depend on the words of their ruler, the
latter would find it difficult, in case of need, to abrogate liberties once
conceded, and impose new laws.

(50) From these universal considerations, let us pass on to the kingdom of
the Jews. (51) The Jews when they first came out of Egypt were not bound by
any national laws, and were therefore free to ratify any laws they liked, or
to make new ones, and were at liberty to set up a government and occupy a
territory wherever they chose. (52) However, they, were entirely unfit
to frame a wise code of laws and to keep the sovereign power vested in the
community; they were all uncultivated and sunk in a wretched slavery,
therefore the sovereignty was bound to remain vested in the hands of one man
who would rule the rest and keep them under constraint, make laws and
interpret them. (53) This sovereignty was easily retained by Moses,
because he surpassed the rest in virtue and persuaded the people of the
fact, proving it by many testimonies (see Exod. chap. xiv., last verse, and
chap. xix:9). (54) He then, by the Divine virtue he possessed, made laws and
ordained them for the people, taking the greatest care that they should be
obeyed willingly and not through fear, being specially induced to adopt this
course by the obstinate nature of the Jews, who would not have submitted to
be ruled solely by constraint; and also by the imminence of war, for it is
always better to inspire soldiers with a thirst for glory than to terrify
them with threats; each man will then strive to distinguish himself
by valour and courage, instead of merely trying to escape punishment. (55)
Moses, therefore, by his virtue and the Divine command, introduced a
religion, so that the people might do their duty from devotion rather than
fear. (56) Further, he bound them over by benefits, and prophesied
many advantages in the future; nor were his laws very severe, as anyone may
see for himself, especially if he remarks the number of circumstances
necessary in order to procure the conviction of an accused person.

(57) Lastly, in order that the people which could not govern itself should
be entirely dependent on its ruler, he left nothing to the free choice of
individuals (who had hitherto been slaves); the people could do nothing but
remember the law, and follow the ordinances laid down at the good pleasure
of their ruler; they were not allowed to plough, to sow, to reap, nor even
to eat; to clothe themselves, to shave, to rejoice, or in fact to do
anything whatever as they liked, but were bound to follow the directions
given in the law; and not only this, but they were obliged to have marks on
their door-posts, on their hands, and between their eyes to admonish them to
perpetual obedience.

(58) This, then, was the object of the ceremonial law, that men should do
nothing of their own free will, but should always act under external
authority, and should continually confess by their actions and thoughts that
they were not their own masters, but were entirely under the control of
others.

(59) From all these considerations it is clearer than day that ceremonies
have nothing to do with a state of blessedness, and that those mentioned in
the Old Testament, i.e. the whole Mosaic Law, had reference merely to the
government of the Jews, and merely temporal advantages.

(60) As for the Christian rites, such as baptism, the Lord's Supper,
festivals, public prayers, and any other observances which are, and always
have been, common to all Christendom, if they were instituted by Christ or
His Apostles (which is open to doubt), they were instituted as external
signs of the universal church, and not as having anything to do with
blessedness, or possessing any sanctity in themselves. (61) Therefore,
though such ceremonies were not ordained for the sake of upholding a
government, they were ordained for the preservation of a society, and
accordingly he who lives alone is not bound by them: nay, those who live in
a country where the Christian religion is forbidden, are bound to abstain
from such rites, and can none the less live in a state of blessedness. (62)
We have an example of this in Japan, where the Christian religion is
forbidden, and the Dutch who live there are enjoined by their East India
Company not to practise any outward rites of religion. (63) I need not cite
other examples, though it would be easy to prove my point from the
fundamental principles of the New Testament, and to adduce many confirmatory
instances; but I pass on the more willingly, as I am anxious to proceed to
my next proposition. (64) I will now, therefore, pass on to what I proposed
to treat of in the second part of this chapter, namely, what persons are
bound to believe in the narratives contained in Scripture, and how far they
are so bound. (65) Examining this question by the aid of natural reason, I
will proceed as follows.

(66) If anyone wishes to persuade his fellows for or against anything which
is not self-evident, he must deduce his contention from their admissions,
and convince them either by experience or by ratiocination; either by
appealing to facts of natural experience, or to self-evident intellectual
axioms. (67) Now unless the experience be of such a kind as to be clearly
and distinctly understood, though it may convince a man, it will not have
the same effect on his mind and disperse the clouds of his doubt so
completely as when the doctrine taught is deduced entirely from intellectual
axioms - that is, by the mere power of the understanding and logical order,
and this is especially the case in spiritual matters which have nothing to
do with the senses.

(68) But the deduction of conclusions from general truths a priori, usually
requires a long chain of arguments, and, moreover, very great caution,
acuteness, and self-restraint - qualities which are not often met with;
therefore people prefer to be taught by experience rather than deduce
their conclusion from a few axioms, and set them out in logical order. (69)
Whence it follows, that if anyone wishes to teach a doctrine to a whole
nation (not to speak of the whole human race), and to be understood by all
men in every particular, he will seek to support his teaching with
experience, and will endeavour to suit his reasonings and the definitions of
his doctrines as far as possible to the understanding of the common people,
who form the majority of mankind, and he will not set them forth in logical
sequence nor adduce the definitions which serve to establish them. (70)
Otherwise he writes only for the learned - that is, he will be understood by
only a small proportion of the human race.

(71) All Scripture was written primarily for an entire people, and
secondarily for the whole human race; therefore its contents must
necessarily be adapted as far as possible to the understanding of the
masses, and proved only by examples drawn from experience. (72) We will
explain ourselves more clearly. (73) The chief speculative doctrines taught
in Scripture are the existence of God, or a Being Who made all things, and
Who directs and sustains the world with consummate wisdom; furthermore, that
God takes the greatest thought for men, or such of them as live piously and
honourably, while He punishes, with various penalties, those who do
evil, separating them from the good. (74) All this is proved in Scripture
entirely through experience-that is, through the narratives there related.
(75) No definitions of doctrine are given, but all the sayings and
reasonings are adapted to the understanding of the masses. (76) Although
experience can give no clear knowledge of these things, nor explain the
nature of God, nor how He directs and sustains all things, it can
nevertheless teach and enlighten men sufficiently to impress obedience
and devotion on their minds.

(77) It is now, I think, sufficiently clear what persons are bound to
believe in the Scripture narratives, and in what degree they are so bound,
for it evidently follows from what has been said that the knowledge of and
belief in them is particularly necessary to the masses whose intellect is
not capable of perceiving things clearly and distinctly. (78) Further, he
who denies them because he does not believe that God exists or takes thought
for men and the world, may be accounted impious; but a man who is ignorant
of them, and nevertheless knows by natural reason that God exists, as we
have said, and has a true plan of life, is altogether blessed - yes, more
blessed than the common herd of believers, because besides true opinions he
possesses also a true and distinct conception. (79) Lastly, he who is
ignorant of the Scriptures and knows nothing by the light of reason, though
he may not be impious or rebellious, is yet less than human and almost
brutal, having none of God's gifts.

(80) We must here remark that when we say that the knowledge of the sacred
narrative is particularly necessary to the masses, we do not mean the
knowledge of absolutely all the narratives in the Bible, but only of the
principal ones, those which, taken by themselves, plainly display the
doctrine we have just stated, and have most effect over men's minds.

(81) If all the narratives in Scripture were necessary for the proof of this
doctrine, and if no conclusion could be drawn without the general
consideration of every one of the histories contained in the sacred
writings, truly the conclusion and demonstration of such doctrine would
overtask the understanding and strength not only of the masses, but of
humanity; who is there who could give attention to all the narratives at
once, and to all the circumstances, and all the scraps of doctrine to be
elicited from such a host of diverse histories? (82) I cannot believe that
the men who have left us the Bible as we have it were so abounding in talent
that they attempted setting about such a method of demonstration, still less
can I suppose that we cannot understand Scriptural doctrine till we have
given heed to the quarrels of Isaac, the advice of Achitophel to Absalom,
the civil war between Jews and Israelites, and other similar chronicles; nor
can I think that it was more difficult to teach such doctrine by means of
history to the Jews of early times, the contemporaries of Moses, than it was
to the contemporaries of Esdras. (83) But more will be said on this point
hereafter, we may now only note that the masses are only bound to know those
histories which can most powerfully dispose their mind to obedience and
devotion. (84) However, the masses are not sufficiently skilled to draw
conclusions from what they read, they take more delight in the actual
stories, and in the strange and unlooked-for issues of events than in the
doctrines implied; therefore, besides reading these narratives, they are
always in need of pastors or church ministers to explain them to their
feeble intelligence.

(85) But not to wander from our point, let us conclude with what has been
our principal object - namely, that the truth of narratives, be they what
they may, has nothing to do with the Divine law, and serves for nothing
except in respect of doctrine, the sole element which makes one history
better than another. (86) The narratives in the Old and New Testaments
surpass profane history, and differ among themselves in merit simply by
reason of the salutary doctrines which they inculcate. (87) Therefore, if a
man were to read the Scripture narratives believing the whole of them, but
were to give no heed to the doctrines they contain, and make no amendment in
his life, he might employ himself just as profitably in reading the Koran
or the poetic drama, or ordinary chronicles, with the attention usually
given to such writings; on the other hand, if a man is absolutely ignorant
of the Scriptures, and none the less has right opinions and a true
plan of life, he is absolutely blessed and truly possesses in himself the
spirit of Christ.

(88) The Jews are of a directly contrary way of thinking, for they hold that
true opinions and a true plan of life are of no service in attaining
blessedness, if their possessors have arrived at them by the light of reason
only, and not like the documents prophetically revealed to Moses. (89)
Maimonides ventures openly to make this assertion: "Every man who takes to
heart the seven precepts and diligently follows them, is counted with the
pious among the nation, and an heir of the world to come; that is to say, if
he takes to heart and follows them because God ordained them in the law, and
revealed them to us by Moses, because they were of aforetime precepts to the
sons of Noah: but he who follows them as led thereto by reason, is not
counted as a dweller among the pious or among the wise of the nations." (90)
Such are the words Of Maimonides, to which R. Joseph, the son of Shem Job,
adds in his book which he calls "Kebod Elohim, or God's Glory," that
although Aristotle (whom he considers to have written the best ethics and to
be above everyone else) has not omitted anything that concerns
true ethics, and which he has adopted in his own book, carefully following
the lines laid down, yet this was not able to suffice for his salvation,
inasmuch as he embraced his doctrines in accordance with the dictates of
reason and not as Divine documents prophetically revealed.

(91) However, that these are mere figments, and are not supported by
Scriptural authority will, I think, be sufficiently evident to the attentive
reader, so that an examination of the theory will be sufficient for its
refutation. (92) It is not my purpose here to refute the assertions of those
who assert that the natural light of reason can teach nothing, of any value
concerning the true way of salvation. (93) People who lay no claims to
reason for themselves, are not able to prove by reason this their assertion;
and if they hawk about something superior to reason, it is a mere figment,
and far below reason, as their general method of life sufficiently shows.
(94) But there is no need to dwell upon such persons. (95) I will merely add
that we can only judge of a man by his works. (96) If a man abounds in the
fruits of the Spirit, charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness,
goodness, faith, gentleness, chastity, against which, as Paul says
(Gal. v:22), there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason
only or by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by God, and is
altogether blessed. (97) Thus have I said all that I undertook to say
concerning Divine law.

End of Part 1





AUTHOR'S ENDNOTES TO THE THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE

CHAPTERS I to V

Chapter I

Endnote 1. (1) The word naw-vee', Strong:5030, is rightly interpreted
by Rabbi Salomon Jarchi, but the sense is hardly caught by Aben Ezra, who
was not so good a Hebraist. (2) We must also remark that this Hebrew word
for prophecy has a universal meaning and embraces all kinds of prophecy. (3)
Other terms are more special, and denote this or that sort of prophecy,
as I believe is well known to the learned.

Endnote 2. (1) "Although, ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors
cannot be called prophets." That is, interpreters of God. (2) For he alone
is an interpreter of God, who interprets the decrees which God has revealed
to him, to others who have not received such revelation, and whose belief,
therefore, rests merely on the prophet's authority and the confidence
reposed in him. (3) If it were otherwise, and all who listen to prophets
became prophets themselves, as all who listen to philosophers become
philosophers, a prophet would no longer be the interpreter of Divine
decrees, inasmuch as his hearers would know the truth, not on the authority
of the prophet, but by means of actual Divine revelation and inward
testimony. (4) Thus the sovereign powers are the interpreters of their own
rights of sway, because these are defended only by their authority and
supported by their testimony.

Endnote 3. (1) "Prophets were endowed with a peculiar and
extraordinary power." (2) Though some men enjoy gifts which nature has not
bestowed on their fellows, they are not said to surpass the bounds of human
nature, unless their special qualities are such as cannot be said to be
deducible from the definition of human nature. (3) For instance, a giant is
a rarity, but still human. (4) The gift of composing poetry extempore is
given to very few, yet it is human. (5) The same may, therefore, be said of
the faculty possessed by some of imagining things as vividly as though they
saw them before them, and this not while asleep, but while awake. (6) But if
anyone could be found who possessed other means and other foundations for
knowledge, he might be said to transcend the limits of human nature.

CHAPTER III.

Endnote 4. (1) In Gen. xv. it is written that God promised Abraham to
protect him, and to grant him ample rewards. (2) Abraham answered that he
could expect nothing which could be of any value to him, as he was childless
and well stricken in years.

Endnote 5. (1) That a keeping of the commandments of the old Testament
is not sufficient for eternal life, appears from Mark x:21.


End of Endnotes to PART I










End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Theological-Political Treatise [Part
I], by Benedict of Spinoza

*** 