{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_989/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_989","id":"gutenberg_989","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/989","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought -- Early works to 1800","Philosophy","Philosophy and religion -- Early works to 1800","Political science -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Sentence Numbers, shown thus (1), have been added by volunteer.\n\n\n\n\n\nA Theologico-Political Treatise\n\nPart 1 - Chapters I to V\n\nBaruch Spinoza\n\n\n\n\n\nA Theologico-Political Treatise\n\nPart 1 - Chapters I to V\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS:\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nOrigin and consequences of superstition.\n\nCauses that have led the author to write.\n\nCourse of his investigation.\n\nFor what readers the treatise is designed. Submission of author\nto the rulers of his country.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I - Of Prophecy.\n\nDefinition of prophecy.\n\nDistinction between revelation to Moses and to the other prophets.\n\nBetween Christ and other recipients of revelation.\n\nAmbiguity of the word \"Spirit.\"\n\nThe different senses in which things may be referred to God.\n\nDifferent senses of \"Spirit of God.\"\n\nProphets perceived revelation by imagination.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II - Of Prophets.\n\nA mistake to suppose that prophecy can give knowledge of phenomena\n\nCertainty of prophecy based on:\n(1) Vividness of imagination,\n(2) A Sign,\n(3) Goodness of the Prophet.\n\nVariation of prophecy with the temperament and opinions of the individual.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III - Of the Vocation of the Hebrews, and whether the Gift of\nProphecy was peculiar to them.\n\nHappiness of Hebrews did not consist in the inferiority of the Gentile.\n\nNor in philosophic knowledge or virtue.\n\nBut in their conduct of affairs of state and escape from political dangers.\n\nEven this Distinction did not exist in the time of Abraham.\n\nTestimony from the Old Testament itself to the share of the Gentiles\nin the law and favour of God.\n\nExplanation of apparent discrepancy of the Epistle to the Romans.\n\nAnswer to the arguments for the eternal election of the Jews.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV - Of the Divine Law.\n\nLaws either depend on natural necessity or on human decree.  The existence\nof the latter not inconsistent with the former class of laws.\n\nDivine law a kind of law founded on human decree:\ncalled Divine from its object.\n\nDivine law:\n(1) universal;\n(2) independent of the truth of any historical narrative;\n(3) independent of rites and ceremonies;\n(4) its own reward.\n\nReason does not present God as a law-giver for men.\n\nSuch a conception a proof of ignorance - in Adam - in the Israelites -\nin Christians.\n\nTestimony of the Scriptures in favour of reason and the\nrational view of the Divine.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V - Of the Ceremonial Law.\n\nCeremonial law of the Old Testament no part of the Divine universal law,\nbut partial and temporary. Testimony of the prophets themselves to this\nTestimony of the New Testament.\n\nHow the ceremonial law tended to preserve the Hebrew kingdom.\n\nChristian rites on a similar footing.\n\nWhat part of the Scripture narratives is one bound to believe?\n\n\n\nAuthors Endnotes to the Treatise.\n\n\n\nA Theologico-Political Treatise\n\nPart 1 - Chapters I to V\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n(1)Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their\ncircumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by fortune: but\nbeing frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being\noften kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty\nof fortune's greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most\npart, very prone to credulity. (2) The human mind is readily swayed this way\nor that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for\nthe mastery, though usually it is boastful, over - confident, and vain.\n\n(3) This as a general fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe,\nknow their own nature; no one can have lived in the world without observing\nthat most people, when in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom\n(however inexperienced they may be), that they take every offer of advice as\na personal insult, whereas in adversity they know not where to turn, but beg\nand pray for counsel from every passer-by. (4) No plan is then too futile,\ntoo absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes\nwill raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair - if anything happens\nduring their fright which reminds them of some past good or ill, they think\nit portends a happy or unhappy issue, and therefore (though it may have\nproved abortive a hundred times before) style it a lucky or unlucky omen.\n(5) Anything which excites their astonishment they believe to be a portent\nsignifying the anger of the gods or of the Supreme Being, and, mistaking\nsuperstition for religion, account it impious not to avert the evil with\nprayer and sacrifice. (6) Signs and wonders of this sort they conjure up\nperpetually, till one might think Nature as mad as themselves, they\ninterpret her so fantastically.\n\n(7) Thus it is brought prominently before us, that superstition's chief\nvictims are those persons who greedily covet temporal advantages; they it\nis, who (especially when they are in danger, and cannot help themselves) are\nwont with Prayers and womanish tears to implore help from God: upbraiding\nReason as blind, because she cannot show a sure path to the shadows they\npursue, and rejecting human wisdom as vain; but believing the phantoms of\nimagination, dreams, and other childish absurdities, to be the very oracles\nof Heaven. (8) As though God had turned away from the wise, and written His\ndecrees, not in the mind of man but in the entrails of beasts, or left them\nto be proclaimed by the inspiration and instinct of fools, madmen, and\nbirds. Such is the unreason to which terror can drive mankind!\n\n(9) Superstition, then, is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear. If\nanyone desire an example, let him take Alexander, who only began\nsuperstitiously to seek guidance from seers, when he first learnt to fear\nfortune in the passes of Sysis (Curtius, v. 4); whereas after he had\nconquered Darius he consulted prophets no more, till a second time\nfrightened by reverses. (10) When the Scythians were provoking a battle, the\nBactrians had deserted, and he himself was lying sick of his wounds, \"he\nonce more turned to superstition, the mockery of human wisdom, and bade\nAristander, to whom he confided his credulity, inquire the issue of affairs\nwith sacrificed victims.\" (11) Very numerous examples of a like nature might\nbe cited, clearly showing the fact, that only while under the dominion of\nfear do men fall a prey to superstition; that all the portents ever invested\nwith the reverence of misguided religion are mere phantoms of dejected and\nfearful minds; and lastly, that prophets have most power among the people,\nand are most formidable to rulers, precisely at those times when the state\nis in most peril. (12) I think this is sufficiently plain to all, and will\ntherefore say no more on the subject.\n\n(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason for\nthe fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to\na dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it\nis no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and\nemotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,\nhatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely\nfrom the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily\nunderstand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to\nevery form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at\nabout the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but\nis always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.\n\n(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars\nand revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): \"The mob has\nno ruler more potent than superstition,\" and is easily led, on the plea of\nreligion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and\nabjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense pains have therefore\nbeen taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or\nfalse, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may rise superior to every\nshock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people--a\nsystem which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they\nconsider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic\nformulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt\nwith.\n\n(18) But if, in despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mystery be to\nhoodwink the subjects, and to mask the fear, which keeps them clown, with\nthe specious garb of religion, so that men may fight as bravely for slavery\nas for safety, and count it not shame but highest honour to risk their blood\nand their lives for the vainglory of a tyrant; yet in a free state no more\nmischievous expedient could be planned or attempted. (19) Wholly repugnant\nto the general freedom are such devices as enthralling men's minds with\nprejudices, forcing their judgment, or employing any of the weapons of\nquasi-religious sedition; indeed, such seditions only spring up, when law\nenters the domain of speculative thought, and opinions are put on trial and\ncondemned on the same footing as crimes, while those who defend and follow\nthem are sacrificed, not to public safety, but to their opponents'\nhatred and cruelty. (20) If deeds only could be made the grounds of\ncriminal charges, and words were always allowed to pass free, such seditions\nwould be divested of every semblance of justification, and would be\nseparated from mere controversies by a hard and fast line.\n\n(20) Now, seeing that we have the rare happiness of living in a republic,\nwhere everyone's judgment is free and unshackled, where each may worship God\nas his conscience dictates, and where freedom is esteemed before all things\ndear and precious, I have believed that I should be undertaking no\nungrateful or unprofitable task, in demonstrating that not only can\nsuch freedom be granted without prejudice to the public peace, but also,\nthat without such freedom, piety cannot flourish nor the public peace be\nsecure.\n\n(21) Such is the chief conclusion I seek to establish in this treatise; but,\nin order to reach it, I must first point out the misconceptions which, like\nscars of our former bondage, still disfigure our notion of religion, and\nmust expose the false views about the civil authority which many have most\nimpudently advocated, endeavouring to turn the mind of the people, still\nprone to heathen superstition, away from its legitimate rulers, and so bring\nus again into slavery. (22) As to the order of my treatise I will speak\npresently, but first I will recount the causes which led me to write.\n\n(23) I have often wondered, that persons who make a boast of professing the\nChristian religion, namely, love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all\nmen, should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and display daily towards\none another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues they\nclaim, is the readiest criterion of their faith. (24) Matters have long\nsince come to such a pass, that one can only pronounce a man Christian,\nTurk, Jew, or Heathen, by his general appearance and attire, by his\nfrequenting this or that place of worship, or employing the phraseology of a\nparticular sect - as for manner of life, it is in all cases the same. (25)\nInquiry into the cause of this anomaly leads me unhesitatingly to ascribe it\nto the fact, that the ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses\nmerely as dignities, her offices as posts of emolument - in short, popular\nreligion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics. (26) The spread of\nthis misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire to\nenter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing God's religion degenerated\ninto sordid avarice and ambition. (27) Every church became a theatre, where\norators, instead of church teachers, harangued, caring not to instruct the\npeople, but striving to attract admiration, to bring opponents to public\nscorn, and to preach only novelties and paradoxes, such as would tickle\nthe ears of their congregation. (28) This state of things necessarily\nstirred up an amount of controversy, envy, and hatred, which no lapse of\ntime could appease; so that we can scarcely wonder that of the old religion\nnothing survives but its outward forms (even these, in the mouth of the\nmultitude, seem rather adulation than adoration of the Deity), and that\nfaith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices - aye,\nprejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which\ncompletely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which seem,\nin fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last spark\nof reason! (29) Piety, great God! and religion are become a tissue of\nridiculous mysteries; men, who flatly despise reason, who reject and turn\naway from understanding as naturally corrupt, these, I say, these of all\nmen, are thought, O lie most horrible! to possess light from on High. (30)\nVerily, if they had but one spark of light from on High, they would not\ninsolently rave, but would learn to worship God more wisely, and would be as\nmarked among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if they\nwere concerned for their opponents' souls, instead of for their own\nreputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be filled\nwith pity and compassion.\n\n(31) Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would appear from\ntheir doctrine. (32) I grant that they are never tired of professing their\nwonder at the profound mysteries of Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that\nthey teach anything but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to\nwhich (in order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy\nWrit conform; not content to rave with the Greeks themselves, they want to\nmake the prophets rave also; showing conclusively, that never even in sleep\nhave they caught a glimpse of Scripture's Divine nature. (33) The very\nvehemence of their admiration for the mysteries plainly attests, that\ntheir belief in the Bible is a formal assent rather than a living faith: and\nthe fact is made still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a\nfoundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle\nthat it is in every passage true and divine. (34) Such a doctrine should be\nreached only after strict scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred\nBooks (which would teach it much better, for they stand in need no human\nfactions), and not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.\n\n(35) As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason is not only\ndespised, but by many even execrated as a source of impiety, that human\ncommentaries are accepted as divine records, and that credulity is extolled\nas faith; as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in\nChurch and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready\ninstruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine\nthe Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no\nassumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do\nnot find clearly therein set down. (36) With these precautions I constructed\na method of Scriptural interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to\ninquire - what is prophecy? (37) In what sense did God reveal himself to the\nprophets, and why were these particular men - chosen by him? (38) Was it on\naccount of the sublimity of their thoughts about the Deity and nature, or\nwas it solely on account of their piety? (39) These questions being\nanswered, I was easily able to conclude, that the authority of the prophets\nhas weight only in matters of morality, and that their speculative doctrines\naffect us little.\n\n(40) Next I inquired, why the Hebrews were called God's chosen people,\nand discovering that it was only because God had chosen for them a\ncertain strip of territory, where they might live peaceably and at\nease, I learnt that the Law revealed by God to Moses was merely the law\nof the individual Hebrew state, therefore that it was binding on none\nbut Hebrews, and not even on Hebrews after the downfall of their\nnation. (41) Further, in order to ascertain, whether it could be\nconcluded from Scripture, that the human understanding is naturally\ncorrupt, I inquired whether the Universal Religion, the Divine Law\nrevealed through the Prophets and Apostles to the whole human race,\ndiffers from that which is taught by the light of natural reason,\nwhether miracles can take place in violation of the laws of nature, and\nif so, whether they imply the existence of God more surely and clearly\nthan events, which we understand plainly and distinctly through their\nimmediate natural causes.\n\n(42) Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found nothing taught\nexpressly by Scripture, which does not agree with our understanding, or\nwhich is repugnant thereto, and as I saw that the prophets taught nothing,\nwhich is not very simple and easily to be grasped by all, and further, that\nthey clothed their teaching in the style, and confirmed it with the reasons,\nwhich would most deeply move the mind of the masses to devotion towards God,\nI became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible leaves reason absolutely free,\nthat it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and\nPhilosophy stand on different footings. In order to set this forth\ncategorically and exhaust the whole question, I point out the way in which\nthe Bible should be interpreted, and show that all of spiritual questions\nshould be sought from it alone, and not from the objects of ordinary\nknowledge. (43) Thence I pass on to indicate the false notions, which have\nfrom the fact that the multitude - ever prone to superstition, and caring\nmore for the shreds of antiquity for eternal truths - pays homage to the\nBooks of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God. (44) I show that the\nWord of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books, was\ndisplayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the mind, namely, obedience to\nGod in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity; and\nI further point out, that this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in\naccordance with the opinions and understandings of those, among whom the\nApostles and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it\nwillingly, and with their whole heart.\n\n(45) Having thus laid bare the bases of belief, I draw the conclusion that\nRevelation has obedience for its sole object, therefore, in purpose no less\nthan in foundation and method, stands entirely aloof from ordinary\nknowledge; each has its separate province, neither can be called the\nhandmaid of the other.\n\n(46) Furthermore, as men's habits of mind differ, so that some more readily\nembrace one form of faith, some another, for what moves one to pray may move\nanother only to scoff, I conclude, in accordance with what has gone before,\nthat everyone should be free to choose for himself the foundations of his\ncreed, and that faith should be judged only by its fruits; each would then\nobey God freely with his whole heart, while nothing would be publicly\nhonoured save justice and charity.\n\n(47) Having thus drawn attention to the liberty conceded to everyone by the\nrevealed law of God, I pass on to another part of my subject, and prove that\nthis same liberty can and should be accorded with safety to the state and\nthe magisterial authority - in fact, that it cannot be withheld without\ngreat danger to peace and detriment to the community.\n\n(48) In order to establish my point, I start from the natural rights of the\nindividual, which are co-extensive with his desires and power, and from the\nfact that no one is bound to live as another pleases, but is the guardian of\nhis own liberty. (49) I show that these rights can only be transferred to\nthose whom we depute to defend us, who acquire with the duties of defence\nthe power of ordering our lives, and I thence infer that rulers possess\nrights only limited by their power, that they are the sole guardians of\njustice and liberty, and that their subjects should act in all things as\nthey dictate: nevertheless, since no one can so utterly abdicate his own\npower of self-defence as to cease to be a man, I conclude that no one can be\ndeprived of his natural rights absolutely, but that subjects, either by\ntacit agreement, or by social contract, retain a certain number, which\ncannot be taken from them without great danger to the state.\n\n(50) From these considerations I pass on to the Hebrew State, which I\ndescribe at some length, in order to trace the manner in which Religion\nacquired the force of law, and to touch on other noteworthy points. (51) I\nthen prove, that the holders of sovereign power are the depositories and\ninterpreters of religious no less than of civil ordinances, and that they\nalone have the right to decide what is just or unjust, pious or impious;\nlastly, I conclude by showing, that they best retain this right and secure\nsafety to their state by allowing every man to think what he likes, and say\nwhat he thinks.\n\n(52) Such, Philosophical Reader, are the questions I submit to your notice,\ncounting on your approval, for the subject matter of the whole book and of\nthe several chapters is important and profitable. (53) I would say more, but\nI do not want my preface to extend to a volume, especially as I know that\nits leading propositions are to Philosophers but common places. (54) To the\nrest of mankind I care not to commend my treatise, for I cannot expect that\nit contains anything to please them: I know how deeply rooted are the\nprejudices embraced under the name of religion; I am aware that in the mind\nof the masses superstition is no less deeply rooted than fear; I recognize\nthat their constancy is mere obstinacy, and that they are led to praise or\nblame by impulse rather than reason. (55) Therefore the multitude, and those\nof like passions with the multitude, I ask not to read my book; nay, I would\nrather that they should utterly neglect it, than that they should\nmisinterpret it after their wont. (56) They would gain no good themselves,\nand might prove a stumbling-block to others, whose philosophy is hampered by\nthe belief that Reason is a mere handmaid to Theology, and whom I seek in\nthis work especially to benefit. (57) But as there will be many who have\nneither the leisure, nor, perhaps, the inclination to read through all I\nhave written, I feel bound here, as at the end of my treatise, to declare\nthat I have written nothing, which I do not most willingly submit to the\nexamination and judgment of my country's rulers, and that I am ready to\nretract anything, which they shall decide to be repugnant to the laws or\nprejudicial to the public good. (58) I know that I am a man and, as a\nman, liable to error, but against error I have taken scrupulous care, and\nstriven to keep in entire accordance with the laws of my country, with\nloyalty, and with morality.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. - Of Prophecy\n\n(1) Prophecy, or revelation is sure knowledge revealed by God to man.\n(2) A prophet is one who interprets the revelations of God to those who\nare unable to attain to sure knowledge of the matters revealed, and\ntherefore can only apprehend them by simple faith.\n\n(3) The Hebrew word for prophet is \"_nabi_,\"[Endnote 1] i.e. speaker or\ninterpreter, but in Scripture its meaning is restricted to interpreter\nof God, as we may learn from Exodus vii:1, where God says to Moses,\n\"See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be\nthy prophet;\" implying that, since in interpreting Moses' words to\nPharaoh, Aaron acted the part of a prophet, Moses would be to Pharaoh\nas a god, or in the attitude of a god.\n\n(4) Prophets I will treat of in the next chapter, and at present consider\nprophecy.\n\n(5) Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that prophecy really\nincludes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge which we acquire by our\nnatural faculties depends on knowledge of God and His eternal laws; but\nordinary knowledge is common to all men as men, and rests on foundations\nwhich all share, whereas the multitude always strains after rarities\nand exceptions, and thinks little of the gifts of nature; so that, when\nprophecy is talked of, ordinary knowledge is not supposed to be included.\n(6) Nevertheless it has as much right as any other to be called Divine, for\nGod's nature, in so far as we share therein, and God's laws, dictate it to\nus; nor does it suffer from that to which we give the preeminence, except in\nso far as the latter transcends its limits and cannot be accounted for by\nnatural laws taken in themselves. (7) In respect to the certainty it\ninvolves, and the source from which it is derived, i.e. God, ordinary\nknowledge is no whit inferior to prophetic, unless indeed we believe, or\nrather dream, that the prophets had human bodies but superhuman minds, and\ntherefore that their sensations and consciousness were entirely different\nfrom our own.\n\n(8) But, although ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors cannot be\ncalled prophets [Endnote 2], for they teach what the rest of mankind could\nperceive and apprehend, not merely by simple faith, but as surely and\nhonourably as themselves.\n\n(9) Seeing then that our mind subjectively contains in itself and partakes\nof the nature of God, and solely from this cause is enabled to form notions\nexplaining natural phenomena and inculcating morality, it follows that we\nmay rightly assert the nature of the human mind (in so far as it is thus\nconceived) to be a primary cause of Divine revelation. (10) All that we\nclearly and distinctly understand is dictated to us, as I have just pointed\nout, by the idea and nature of God; not indeed through words, but in a way\nfar more excellent and agreeing perfectly with the nature of the mind, as\nall who have enjoyed intellectual certainty will doubtless attest. (11)\nHere, however, my chief purpose is to speak of matters having reference to\nScripture, so these few words on the light of reason will suffice.\n\n(12) I will now pass on to, and treat more fully, the other ways and means\nby which God makes revelations to mankind, both of that which transcends\nordinary knowledge, and of that within its scope; for there is no reason why\nGod should not employ other means to communicate what we know already by the\npower of reason.\n\n(13) Our conclusions on the subject must be drawn solely from Scripture; for\nwhat can we affirm about matters transcending our knowledge except what is\ntold us by the words or writings of prophets? (14) And since there are, so\nfar as I know, no prophets now alive, we have no alternative but to read the\nbooks of prophets departed, taking care the while not to reason from\nmetaphor or to ascribe anything to our authors which they do not themselves\ndistinctly state. (15) I must further premise that the Jews never make any\nmention or account of secondary, or particular causes, but in a spirit of\nreligion, piety, and what is commonly called godliness, refer all things\ndirectly to the Deity. (16) For instance if they make money by a\ntransaction, they say God gave it to them; if they desire anything, they say\nGod has disposed their hearts towards it; if they think anything, they say\nGod told them. (17) Hence we must not suppose that everything is prophecy or\nrevelation which is described in Scripture as told by God to anyone, but\nonly such things as are expressly announced as prophecy or revelation, or\nare plainly pointed to as such by the context.\n\n(18) A perusal of the sacred books will show us that all God's revelations\nto the prophets were made through words or appearances, or a combination of\nthe two. (19) These words and appearances were of two kinds; 1.- real when\nexternal to the mind of the prophet who heard or saw them, 2.- imaginary\nwhen the imagination of the prophet was in a state which led him distinctly\nto suppose that he heard or saw them.\n\n(20) With a real voice God revealed to Moses the laws which He wished to be\ntransmitted to the Hebrews, as we may see from Exodus xxv:22, where God\nsays, \"And there I will meet with thee and I will commune with thee from the\nmercy seat which is between the Cherubim.\" (21) Some sort of real voice must\nnecessarily have been employed, for Moses found God ready to commune with\nhim at any time. This, as I shall shortly show, is the only instance of a\nreal voice.\n\n(22) We might, perhaps, suppose that the voice with which God called Samuel\nwas real, for in 1 Sam. iii:21, we read, \"And the Lord appeared again in\nShiloh, for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the\nLord;\" implying that the appearance of the Lord consisted in His making\nHimself known to Samuel through a voice; in other words, that Samuel heard\nthe Lord speaking. (23) But we are compelled to distinguish between the\nprophecies of Moses and those of other prophets, and therefore must decide\nthat this voice was imaginary, a conclusion further supported by the voice's\nresemblance to the voice of Eli, which Samuel was in the habit of hearing,\nand therefore might easily imagine; when thrice called by the Lord, Samuel\nsupposed it to have been Eli.\n\n(24) The voice which Abimelech heard was imaginary, for it is written,\nGen. xx:6, \"And God said unto him in a dream.\" (25) So that the will of God\nwas manifest to him, not in waking, but only in sleep, that is, when the\nimagination is most active and uncontrolled. (26) Some of the Jews believe\nthat the actual words of the Decalogue were not spoken by God, but that the\nIsraelites heard a noise only, without any distinct words, and during its\ncontinuance apprehended the Ten Commandments by pure intuition; to this\nopinion I myself once inclined, seeing that the words of the Decalogue in\nExodus are different from the words of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, for the\ndiscrepancy seemed to imply (since God only spoke once) that the Ten\nCommandments were not intended to convey the actual words of the Lord, but\nonly His meaning. (27) However, unless we would do violence to Scripture, we\nmust certainly admit that the Israelites heard a real voice, for Scripture\nexpressly says, Deut. v:4, \"God spake with you face to face,\" i.e. as two\nmen ordinarily interchange ideas through the instrumentality of their two\nbodies; and therefore it seems more consonant with Holy Writ to suppose that\nGod really did create a voice of some kind with which the Decalogue was\nrevealed. (28) The discrepancy of the two versions is treated of in\nChap. VIII.\n\n(29) Yet not even thus is all difficulty removed, for it seems scarcely\nreasonable to affirm that a created thing, depending on God in the same\nmanner as other created things, would be able to express or explain the\nnature of God either verbally or really by means of its individual\norganism: for instance, by declaring in the first person, \"I am the Lord\nyour God.\"\n\n(30) Certainly when anyone says with his mouth, \"I understand,\" we do not\nattribute the understanding to the mouth, but to the mind of the speaker;\nyet this is because the mouth is the natural organ of a man speaking, and\nthe hearer, knowing what understanding is, easily comprehends, by a\ncomparison with himself, that the speaker's mind is meant; but if we knew\nnothing of God beyond the mere name and wished to commune with Him, and be\nassured of His existence, I fail to see how our wish would be satisfied by\nthe declaration of a created thing (depending on God neither more nor less\nthan ourselves), \"I am the Lord.\" (31) If God contorted the lips of Moses,\nor, I will not say Moses, but some beast, till they pronounced the words,\n\"I am the Lord,\" should we apprehend the Lord's existence therefrom?\n\n(32) Scripture seems clearly to point to the belief that God spoke Himself,\nhaving descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for the purpose - and not only\nthat the Israelites heard Him speaking, but that their chief men beheld Him\n(Ex:xxiv.) (33) Further the law of Moses, which might neither be added to\nnor curtailed, and which was set up as a national standard of right, nowhere\nprescribed the belief that God is without body, or even without form or\nfigure, but only ordained that the Jews should believe in His existence and\nworship Him alone: it forbade them to invent or fashion any likeness of the\nDeity, but this was to insure purity of service; because, never having seen\nGod, they could not by means of images recall the likeness of God, but only\nthe likeness of some created thing which might thus gradually take the place\nof God as the object of their adoration. (34) Nevertheless, the Bible\nclearly implies that God has a form, and that Moses when he heard God\nspeaking was permitted to behold it, or at least its hinder parts.\n\n(35) Doubtless some mystery lurks in this question which we will discuss\nmore fully below. (36) For the present I will call attention to the passages\nin Scripture indicating the means by which God has revealed His laws to man.\n\n(37) Revelation may be through figures only, as in I Chron:xxii., where God\ndisplays his anger to David by means of an angel bearing a sword, and also\nin the story of Balaam.\n\n(38) Maimonides and others do indeed maintain that these and every other\ninstance of angelic apparitions (e.g. to Manoah and to Abraham offering up\nIsaac) occurred during sleep, for that no one with his eyes open ever could\nsee an angel, but this is mere nonsense. (39) The sole object of such\ncommentators seems to be to extort from Scripture confirmations of\nAristotelian quibbles and their own inventions, a proceeding which I regard\nas the acme of absurdity.\n\n(40) In figures, not real but existing only in the prophet's imagination,\nGod revealed to Joseph his future lordship, and in words and figures He\nrevealed to Joshua that He would fight for the Hebrews, causing to appear an\nangel, as it were the Captain of the Lord's host, bearing a sword, and by\nthis means communicating verbally. (41) The forsaking of Israel by\nProvidence was portrayed to Isaiah by a vision of the Lord, the thrice Holy,\nsitting on a very lofty throne, and the Hebrews, stained with the mire of\ntheir sins, sunk as it were in uncleanness, and thus as far as possible\ndistant from God. (42) The wretchedness of the people at the time was thus\nrevealed, while future calamities were foretold in words. I could cite from\nHoly Writ many similar examples, but I think they are sufficiently well\nknown already.\n\n(43) However, we get a still more clear confirmation of our position in Num\nxii:6,7, as follows: \"If there be any prophet among you, I the Lord will\nmake myself known unto him in a vision\" (i.e. by appearances and signs, for\nGod says of the prophecy of Moses that it was a vision without signs), \"and\nwill speak unto him in a dream\" (i.e. not with actual words and an actual\nvoice). (44) \"My servant Moses is not so; with him will I speak mouth to\nmouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the\nLord he shall behold,\" i.e. looking on me as a friend and not afraid, he\nspeaks with me (cf. Ex xxxiii:17).\n\n(45) This makes it indisputable that the other prophets did not hear a real\nvoice, and we gather as much from Deut. xxxiv:10: \"And there arose not a\nprophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face,\"\nwhich must mean that the Lord spoke with none other; for not even Moses saw\nthe Lord's face. (46) These are the only media of communication between\nGod and man which I find mentioned in Scripture, and therefore the only ones\nwhich may be supposed or invented. (47) We may be able quite to comprehend\nthat God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention\nof bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who\ncan by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor\ndeducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily\npossess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe\nthat any have been so endowed save Christ. (48) To Him the ordinances of God\nleading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so\nthat God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He\nformerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. (49) In this sense the\nvoice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice\nof God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than\nhuman) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way\nof salvation. (50) I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines\nwhich certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor\ndeny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them. (51) What I have\njust stated I gather from Scripture, where I never read that God appeared to\nChrist, or spoke to Christ, but that God was revealed to the Apostles\nthrough Christ; that Christ was the Way of Life, and that the old law was\ngiven through an angel, and not immediately by God; whence it follows that\nif Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with his friend (i.e.\nby means of their two bodies) Christ communed with God mind to mind.\n\n(52) Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the revelations\nof God without the aid of imagination, whether in words or vision. (53)\nTherefore the power of prophecy implies not a peculiarly perfect mind, but a\npeculiarly vivid imagination, as I will show more clearly in the next\nchapter. (54) We will now inquire what is meant in the Bible by the\nSpirit of God breathed into the prophets, or by the prophets speaking with\nthe Spirit of God; to that end we must determine the exact signification of\nthe Hebrew word _ruagh_, commonly translated spirit.\n\n(55) The word _ruagh_ literally means a wind, _e.g._ the south\nwind, but it is frequently employed in other derivative significations.\nIt is used as equivalent to,\n\n(56) (1.) Breath: \"Neither is there any spirit in his mouth,\" Ps. cxxxv:17.\n\n(57) (2.) Life, or breathing: \"And his spirit returned to him\"\n          1 Sam. xxx:12; i.e. he breathed again.\n\n(58) (3.) Courage and strength: \"Neither did there remain any more spirit\n          in any man,\" Josh. ii:11; \"And the spirit entered into me, and\n          made me stand on my feet,\" Ezek. ii:2.\n\n(59) (4.) Virtue and fitness: \"Days should speak, and multitudes of years\n          should teach wisdom; but there is a spirit in man,\" Job xxxii:7;\n          i.e. wisdom is not always found among old men for I now discover\n          that it depends on individual virtue and capacity. So, \"A man in\n          whom is the Spirit,\" Numbers xxvii:18.\n\n(60) (5.) Habit of mind: \"Because he had another spirit with him,\"\n          Numbers xiv:24; i.e. another habit of mind. \"Behold I will pour\n          out My Spirit unto you,\" Prov. i:23.\n\n(61) (6.) Will, purpose, desire, impulse: \"Whither the spirit was to go,\n          they went,\" Ezek. 1:12; \"That cover with a covering, but not of My\n          Spirit,\" Is. xxx:1; \"For the Lord hath poured out on you the\n          spirit of deep sleep,\" Is. xxix:10; \"Then was their spirit\n          softened,\" Judges viii:3; \"He that ruleth his spirit, is better\n          than he that taketh a city,\" Prov. xvi:32; \"He that hath no ru\n          over his own spirit,\" Prov. xxv:28; \"Your spirit as fire shall\n          devour you,\" Isaiah xxxiii:1.\n\nFrom the meaning of disposition we get -\n\n(62) (7.) Passions and faculties. A lofty spirit means pride, a lowly spirit\n          humility, an evil spirit hatred and melancholy. So, too, the\n          expressions spirits of jealousy, fornication, wisdom, counsel,\n          bravery, stand for a jealous, lascivious, wise, prudent, or brave\n          mind (for we Hebrews use substantives in preference to\n          adjectives), or these various qualities.\n\n(63) (8.) The mind itself, or the life: \"Yea, they have all one spirit,\"\n          Eccles. iii:19 \"The spirit shall return to God Who gave it.\"\n\n(64) (9.) The quarters of the world (from the winds which blow thence), or\n          even the side of anything turned towards a particular quarter -\n          Ezek. xxxvii:9; xlii:16, 17, 18, 19, &c.\n\n(65) I have already alluded to the way in which things are referred to God,\nand said to be of God.\n\n(66) (1.) As belonging to His nature, and being, as it were, part of Him;\n          e.g. the power of God, the eyes of God.\n\n(67) (2.) As under His dominion, and depending on His pleasure; thus the\n          heavens are called the heavens of the Lord, as being His chariot\n          and habitation. So Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God,\n          Assyria the scourge of God, &c.\n\n(68) (3.) As dedicated to Him, e.g. the Temple of God, a Nazarene of God,\n          the Bread of God.\n\n(69) (4.) As revealed through the prophets and not through our natural\n          faculties. In this sense the Mosaic law is called the law of God.\n\n(70) (5.) As being in the superlative degree. Very high mountains are styled\n          the mountains of God, a very deep sleep, the sleep of God, &c. In\n          this sense we must explain Amos iv:11: \"I have overthrown you as\n          the overthrow of the Lord came upon Sodom and Gomorrah,\" i.e. that\n          memorable overthrow, for since God Himself is the Speaker, the\n          passage cannot well be taken otherwise. The wisdom of Solomon is\n          called the wisdom of God, or extraordinary. The size of the cedars\n          of Lebanon is alluded to in the Psalmist's expression, \"the cedars\n          of the Lord.\"\n\n(71) Similarly, if the Jews were at a loss to understand any phenomenon, or\nwere ignorant of its cause, they referred it to God. (72) Thus a storm was\ntermed the chiding of God, thunder and lightning the arrows of God, for it\nwas thought that God kept the winds confined in caves, His treasuries; thus\ndiffering merely in name from the Greek wind-god Eolus. (73) In like manner\nmiracles were called works of God, as being especially marvellous; though in\nreality, of course, all natural events are the works of God, and take place\nsolely by His power. (74) The Psalmist calls the miracles in Egypt the works\nof God, because the Hebrews found in them a way of safety which they had not\nlooked for, and therefore especially marvelled at.\n\n(75) As, then, unusual natural phenomena are called works of God, and trees\nof unusual size are called trees of God, we cannot wonder that very strong\nand tall men, though impious robbers and whoremongers, are in Genesis called\nsons of God.\n\n(76) This reference of things wonderful to God was not peculiar to the Jews.\n\n(77) Pharaoh, on hearing the interpretation of his dream, exclaimed that the\nmind of the gods was in Joseph. (78) Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel that he\npossessed the mind of the holy gods; so also in Latin anything well made is\noften said to be wrought with Divine hands, which is equivalent to the\nHebrew phrase, wrought with the hand of God.\n\n(80) We can now very easily understand and explain those passages of\nScripture which speak of the Spirit of God. (81) In some places the\nexpression merely means a very strong, dry, and deadly wind, as in\nIsaiah xl:7, \"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of\nthe Lord bloweth upon it.\" (82) Similarly in Gen. i:2: \"The Spirit of the\nLord moved over the face of the waters.\" (83) At other times it is used as\nequivalent to a high courage, thus the spirit of Gideon and of Samson is\ncalled the Spirit of the Lord, as being very bold, and prepared for any\nemergency. (84) Any unusual virtue or power is called the Spirit or Virtue\nof the Lord, Ex. xxxi:3: \"I will fill him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of the\nLord,\" i.e., as the Bible itself explains, with talent above man's usual\nendowment. (85) So Isa. xi:2: \"And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon\nhim,\" is explained afterwards in the text to mean the spirit of wisdom and\nunderstanding, of counsel and might.\n\n(86) The melancholy of Saul is called the melancholy of the Lord, or a very\ndeep melancholy, the persons who applied the term showing that they\nunderstood by it nothing supernatural, in that they sent for a musician to\nassuage it by harp-playing. (87) Again, the \"Spirit of the Lord\" is used\nas equivalent to the mind of man, for instance, Job xxvii:3: \"And the Spirit\nof the Lord in my nostrils,\" the allusion being to Gen. ii:7: \"And God\nbreathed into man's nostrils the breath of life.\" (88) Ezekiel also,\nprophesying to the dead, says (xxvii:14), \"And I will give to you My Spirit,\nand ye shall live;\" i.e. I will restore you to life. (89) In Job xxxiv:14,\nwe read: \"If He gather unto Himself His Spirit and breath;\" in Gen. vi:3:\n\"My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh,\"\ni.e. since man acts on the dictates of his body, and not the spirit which I\ngave him to discern the good, I will let him alone. (90) So, too, Ps. li:12:\n\"Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me; cast\nme not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.\" (91)\nIt was supposed that sin originated only from the body, and that good\nimpulses come from the mind; therefore the Psalmist invokes the aid of God\nagainst the bodily appetites, but prays that the spirit which the Lord, the\nHoly One, had given him might be renewed. (92) Again, inasmuch as the Bible,\nin concession to popular ignorance, describes God as having a mind, a heart,\nemotions - nay, even a body and breath - the expression Spirit of the Lord\nis used for God's mind, disposition, emotion, strength, or breath.\n(93) Thus, Isa. xl:13: \"Who hath disposed the Spirit of the Lord?\" i.e. who,\nsave Himself, hath caused the mind of the Lord to will anything,? and\nIsa. lxiii:10: \"But they rebelled, and vexed the Holy Spirit.\"\n\n(94) The phrase comes to be used of the law of Moses, which in a sense\nexpounds God's will, Is. lxiii. 11, \"Where is He that put His Holy Spirit\nwithin him?\" meaning, as we clearly gather from the context, the law of\nMoses. (95) Nehemiah, speaking of the giving of the law, says, i:20,\n\"Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them.\" (96) This is referred\nto in Deut. iv:6, \"This is your wisdom and understanding,\" and in\nPs. cxliii:10, \"Thy good Spirit will lead me into the land of uprightness.\"\n(97) The Spirit of the Lord may mean the breath of the Lord, for breath, no\nless than a mind, a heart, and a body are attributed to God in Scripture, as\nin Ps. xxxiii:6. (98) Hence it gets to mean the power, strength, or faculty\nof God, as in Job xxxiii:4, \"The Spirit of the Lord made me,\" i.e. the\npower, or, if you prefer, the decree of the Lord. (99) So the Psalmist in\npoetic language declares, xxxiii:6, \"By the word of the Lord were the\nheavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth,\" i.e. by\na mandate issued, as it were, in one breath. (100) Also Ps. cxxxix:7,\n\"Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy\npresence?\" i.e. whither shall I go so as to be beyond Thy power and Thy\npresence?\n\n(101) Lastly, the Spirit of the Lord is used in Scripture to express the\nemotions of God, e.g. His kindness and mercy, Micah ii:7, \"Is the Spirit\n[i.e. the mercy] of the Lord straitened? (102) Are these cruelties His\ndoings?\" (103) Zech. iv:6, \"Not by might or by power, but My Spirit [i.e.\nmercy], saith the Lord of hosts.\" (104) The twelfth verse of the seventh\nchapter of the same prophet must, I think, be interpreted in like manner:\n\"Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the\nlaw, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in His Spirit [i.e. in\nHis mercy] by the former prophets.\" (105) So also Haggai ii:5: \"So My Spirit\nremaineth among you: fear not.\"\n\n(106) The passage in Isaiah xlviii:16, \"And now the Lord and His Spirit hath\nsent me,\" may be taken to refer to God's mercy or His revealed law; for the\nprophet says, \"From the beginning\" (i.e. from the time when I first came to\nyou, to preach God's anger and His sentence forth against you) \"I spoke not\nin secret; from the time that it was, there am I,\" and now I am sent by\nthe mercy of God as a joyful messenger to preach your restoration. (107) Or\nwe may understand him to mean by the revealed law that he had before come to\nwarn them by the command of the law (Levit. xix:17) in the same manner under\nthe same conditions as Moses had warned them, that now, like Moses, he ends\nby preaching their restoration. (108) But the first explanation seems to me\nthe best.\n\n(109) Returning, then, to the main object of our discussion, we find that\nthe Scriptural phrases, \"The Spirit of the Lord was upon a prophet,\" \"The\nLord breathed His Spirit into men,\" \"Men were filled with the Spirit of God,\nwith the Holy Spirit,\" &c., are quite clear to us, and mean that prophets\nwere endowed with a peculiar and extraordinary power, and devoted themselves\nto piety with especial constancy(3); that thus they perceived the mind or\nthe thought of God, for we have shown that God's Spirit signifies in Hebrew\nGod's mind or thought, and that the law which shows His mind and thought is\ncalled His Spirit; hence that the imagination of the prophets, inasmuch as\nthrough it were revealed the decrees of God, may equally be called the mind\nof God, and the prophets be said to have possessed the mind of God. (110) On\nour minds also the mind of God and His eternal thoughts are impressed; but\nthis being the same for all men is less taken into account, especially by\nthe Hebrews, who claimed a pre-eminence, and despised other men and other\nmen's knowledge.\n\n(111) Lastly, the prophets were said to possess the Spirit of God because\nmen knew not the cause of prophetic knowledge, and in their wonder referred\nit with other marvels directly to the Deity, styling it Divine knowledge.\n\n(112) We need no longer scruple to affirm that the prophets only\nperceived God's revelation by the aid of imagination, that is, by words and\nfigures either real or imaginary. (113) We find no other means mentioned in\nScripture, and therefore must not invent any. (114) As to the particular law\nof Nature by which the communications took place, I confess my ignorance.\n(115) I might, indeed, say as others do, that they took place by the power\nof God; but this would be mere trifling, and no better than explaining some\nunique specimen by a transcendental term. (116) Everything takes place by\nthe power of God. (117) Nature herself is the power of God under another\nname, and our ignorance of the power of God is co-extensive with our\nignorance of Nature. (118) It is absolute folly, therefore, to ascribe an\nevent to the power of God when we know not its natural cause, which is the\npower of God.\n\n(119) However, we are not now inquiring into the causes of prophetic\nknowledge. (120) We are only attempting, as I have said, to examine the\nScriptural documents, and to draw our conclusions from them as from ultimate\nnatural facts; the causes of the documents do not concern us.\n\n(121) As the prophets perceived the revelations of God by the aid of\nimagination, they could indisputably perceive much that is beyond the\nboundary of the intellect, for many more ideas can be constructed from words\nand figures than from the principles and notions on which the whole fabric\nof reasoned knowledge is reared.\n\n(122) Thus we have a clue to the fact that the prophets perceived nearly\neverything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual truths in\nbodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. (122) We need no\nlonger wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and\nobscurely of God's Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers xi:17, 1 Kings xxii:21, &c.),\nthat the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting, by Daniel as an old man clothed\nin white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that the Holy Spirit appeared to those with\nChrist as a descending dove, to the apostles as fiery tongues, to Paul on\nhis conversion as a great light. (124) All these expressions are plainly in\nharmony with the current ideas of God and spirits.\n\n(125) Inasmuch as imagination is fleeting and inconstant, we find that the\npower of prophecy did not remain with a prophet for long, nor manifest\nitself frequently, but was very rare; manifesting itself only in a few men,\nand in them not often.\n\n(126) We must necessarily inquire how the prophets became assured of the\ntruth of what they perceived by imagination, and not by sure mental laws;\nbut our investigation must be confined to Scripture, for the subject is one\non which we cannot acquire certain knowledge, and which we cannot explain by\nthe immediate causes. (127) Scripture teaching about the assurance of\nprophets I will treat of in the next chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. - OF PROPHETS.\n\n(1) It follows from the last chapter that, as I have said, the prophets were\nendowed with unusually vivid imaginations, and not with unusually perfect\nminds. (2) This conclusion is amply sustained by Scripture, for we are told\nthat Solomon was the wisest of men, but had no special faculty of prophecy.\n(3) Heman, Calcol, and Dara, though men of great talent, were not prophets,\nwhereas uneducated countrymen, nay, even women, such as Hagar, Abraham's\nhandmaid, were thus gifted. (4) Nor is this contrary to ordinary experience\nand reason. (5) Men of great imaginative power are less fitted for abstract\nreasoning, whereas those who excel in intellect and its use keep their\nimagination more restrained and controlled, holding it in subjection, so to\nspeak, lest it should usurp the place of reason.\n\n(6) Thus to suppose that knowledge of natural and spiritual phenomena can be\ngained from the prophetic books, is an utter mistake, which I shall\nendeavour to expose, as I think philosophy, the age, and the question itself\ndemand. (7) I care not for the girdings of superstition, for superstition is\nthe bitter enemy, of all true knowledge and true morality. (8) Yes; it has\ncome to this! (9) Men who openly confess that they can form no idea of God,\nand only know Him through created things, of which they know not the causes,\ncan unblushingly accuse philosophers of Atheism.\n\n(10) Treating the question methodically, I will show that prophecies\nvaried, not only according to the imagination and physical temperament\nof the prophet, but also according to his particular opinions; and\nfurther that prophecy never rendered the prophet wiser than he was\nbefore. (11) But I will first discuss the assurance of truth which the\nprophets received, for this is akin to the subject-matter of the\nchapter, and will serve to elucidate somewhat our present point.\n\n(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of\ntruth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires\nsome extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy\ncannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation\nby some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,\nwho, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he\ndid not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who\nmade the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:\n\"Show me,\" he says to God, \"show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou\nthat talkest with me.\" (14) God also says to Moses: \"And let this be a\nsign that I have sent thee.\" (15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah\nto be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he\npredicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received\nsome sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason\nMoses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the\nprediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect, prophetic knowledge\nis inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies\ncertitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the\ncertitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. (18) Moses lays\ndown the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even\nthough he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); \"For,\" he\nsays, \"the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people.\" (19) And\nJesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20)\nFurthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives\nmen with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of\nthe prophets of Ahab.\n\n(21) Although these instances go to prove that revelation is open to doubt,\nit nevertheless contains, as we have said, a considerable element of\ncertainty, for God never deceives the good, nor His chosen, but (according\nto the ancient proverb, and as appears in the history of Abigail and her\nspeech), God uses the good as instruments of goodness, and the wicked as\nmeans to execute His wrath. (22) This may be seen from the case of Micaiah\nabove quoted; for although God had determined to deceive Ahab, through\nprophets, He made use of lying prophets; to the good prophet He revealed the\ntruth, and did not forbid his proclaiming it.\n\n(23) Still the certitude of prophecy, remains, as I have said, merely,\nmoral; for no one can justify himself before God, nor boast that he is an\ninstrument for God's goodness. (24) Scripture itself teaches and shows that\nGod led away David to number the people, though it bears ample\nwitness to David's piety.\n\n(25) The whole question of the certitude of prophecy, was based on these\nthree considerations:\n\n   1. That the things revealed were imagined very vividly, affecting the\n      prophets in the same way as things seen when awake;\n\n   2. The presence of a sign;\n\n   3. Lastly, and chiefly, that the mind of the prophet was given wholly,\n      to what was right and  good.\n\n(26) Although Scripture does not always make mention of a sign, we must\nnevertheless suppose that a sign was always vouchsafed; for Scripture does\nnot always relate every condition and circumstance (as many have\nremarked), but rather takes them for granted. (27) We may, however, admit\nthat no sign was needed when the prophecy declared nothing that was not\nalready contained in the law of Moses, because it was confirmed by that law.\n(28) For instance, Jeremiah's prophecy, of the destruction of Jerusalem was\nconfirmed by the prophecies of other prophets, and by the threats in the\nlaw, and, therefore, it needed no sign; whereas Hananiah, who, contrary to\nall the prophets, foretold the speedy restoration of the state, stood in\nneed of a sign, or he would have been in doubt as to the truth of his\nprophecy, until it was confirmed by facts. (29) \"The prophet which\nprophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to\npass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him.\"\n\n(30) As, then, the certitude afforded to the prophet by signs was not\nmathematical (i.e. did not necessarily follow from the perception of the\nthing perceived or seen), but only moral, and as the signs were only given\nto convince the prophet, it follows that such signs were given according to\nthe opinions and capacity of each prophet, so that a sign which\nconvince one prophet would fall far short of convincing another who was\nimbued with different opinions. (31) Therefore the signs varied according to\nthe individual prophet.\n\n(32) So also did the revelation vary, as we have stated, according to\nindividual disposition and temperament, and according to the opinions\npreviously held.\n\n(33) It varied according to disposition, in this way: if a prophet was\ncheerful, victories, peace, and events which make men glad, were revealed to\nhim; in that he was naturally more likely to imagine such things. (34) If,\non the contrary, he was melancholy, wars, massacres, and calamities were\nrevealed; and so, according as a prophet was merciful, gentle, quick to\nanger, or severe, he was more fitted for one kind of revelation than\nanother. (35) It varied according to the temper of imagination in this way:\nif a prophet was cultivated he perceived the mind of God in a cultivated\nway, if he was confused he perceived it confusedly. (36) And so with\nrevelations perceived through visions. (37) If a prophet was a countryman he\nsaw visions of oxen, cows, and the like; if he was a soldier, he saw\ngenerals and armies; if a courtier, a royal throne, and so on.\n\n(38) Lastly, prophecy varied according to the opinions held by the prophets;\nfor instance, to the Magi, who believed in the follies of astrology, the\nbirth of Christ was revealed through the vision of a star in the East. (39)\nTo the augurs of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was revealed\nthrough entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from oracles and the\ndirection of arrows which he shot into the air. (40) To prophets who\nbelieved that man acts from free choice and by his own power, God was\nrevealed as standing apart from and ignorant of future human actions. (41)\nAll of which we will illustrate from Scripture.\n\n(42) The first point is proved from the case of Elisha, who, in order to\nprophecy to Jehoram, asked for a harp, and was unable to perceive the Divine\npurpose till he had been recreated by its music; then, indeed, he prophesied\nto Jehoram and to his allies glad tidings, which previously he had been\nunable to attain to because he was angry with the king, and these who are\nangry with anyone can imagine evil of him, but not good. (43) The theory\nthat God does not reveal Himself to the angry or the sad, is a mere dream:\nfor God revealed to Moses while angry, the terrible slaughter of the\nfirstborn, and did so without the intervention of a harp. (44) To Cain in\nhis rage, God was revealed, and to Ezekiel, impatient with anger, was\nrevealed the contumacy and wretchedness of the Jews. (45) Jeremiah,\nmiserable and weary of life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews, so\nthat Josiah would not consult him, but inquired of a woman, inasmuch as it\nwas more in accordance with womanly nature that God should reveal His mercy\nthereto. (46) So, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab, though other true\nprophets had done so, but invariably evil. (46) Thus we see that individual\nprophets were by temperament more fitted for one sort of revelation than\nanother.\n\n(47) The style of the prophecy also varied according to the eloquence of the\nindividual prophet. (48) The prophecies of Ezekiel and Amos are not written\nin a cultivated style like those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more rudely. (49)\nAny Hebrew scholar who wishes to inquire into this point more closely, and\ncompares chapters of the different prophets treating of the same subject,\nwill find great dissimilarity of style. (50) Compare, for instance, chap. i.\nof the courtly Isaiah, verse 11 to verse 20, with chap. v. of the countryman\nAmos, verses 21-24. (51) Compare also the order and reasoning of the\nprophecies of Jeremiah, written in Idumaea (chap. xlix.), with the order and\nreasoning of Obadiah. (52) Compare, lastly, Isa. xl:19, 20, and xliv:8, with\nHosea viii:6, and xiii:2. And so on.\n\n(53) A due consideration of these passage will clearly show us that God has\nno particular style in speaking, but, according to the learning and capacity\nof the prophet, is cultivated, compressed, severe, untutored, prolix, or\nobscure.\n\n(54) There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions vouchsafed to\nthe prophets, and in the symbols by which they expressed them, for Isaiah\nsaw the glory of the Lord departing from the Temple in a different form from\nthat presented to Ezekiel. (55) The Rabbis, indeed, maintain that both\nvisions were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a countryman, was\nabove measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth in full detail;\nbut unless there is a trustworthy tradition on the subject, which I do not\nfor a moment believe, this theory is plainly an invention. Isaiah saw\nseraphim with six wings, Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah saw God\nclothed and sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the likeness of a\nfire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he usually imagined\nHim.\n\n(56) Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in details; for the\nrevelations of Zechariah were too obscure to be understood by the prophet\nwithout explanation, as appears from his narration of them; the visions of\nDaniel could not be understood by him even after they had been explained,\nand this obscurity did not arise from the difficulty of the matter revealed\n(for being merely human affairs, these only transcended human capacity in\nbeing future), but solely in the fact that Daniel's imagination was not so\ncapable for prophecy while he was awake as while he was asleep; and this is\nfurther evident from the fact that at the very beginning of the vision he\nwas so terrified that he almost despaired of his strength. (57) Thus, on\naccount of the inadequacy of his imagination and his strength, the things\nrevealed were so obscure to him that he could not understand them even after\nthey had been explained. (58) Here we may note that the words heard by\nDaniel, were, as we have shown above, simply imaginary, so that it is hardly\nwonderful that in his frightened state he imagined them so confusedly and\nobscurely that afterwards he could make nothing of them. (59) Those who say\nthat God did not wish to make a clear revelation, do not seem to have read\nthe words of the angel, who expressly says that he came to make the prophet\nunderstand what should befall his people in the latter days (Dan. x:14).\n\n(60) The revelation remained obscure because no one was found, at that time,\nwith imagination sufficiently strong to conceive it more clearly. (61)\nLastly, the prophets, to whom it was revealed that God would take away\nElijah, wished to persuade Elisha that he had been taken somewhere where\nthey would find him; showing sufficiently clearly that they had not\nunderstood God's revelation aright.\n\n(62) There is no need to set this out more amply, for nothing is more plain\nin the Bible than that God endowed some prophets with far greater gifts of\nprophecy than others. (63) But I will show in greater detail and length, for\nI consider the point more important, that the prophecies varied according to\nthe opinions previously embraced by the prophets, and that the prophets held\ndiverse and even contrary opinions and prejudices. (64) (I speak, be it\nunderstood, solely of matters speculative, for in regard to uprightness and\nmorality the case is widely different.) (65) From thence I shall conclude\nthat prophecy never rendered the prophets more learned, but left them with\ntheir former opinions, and that we are, therefore, not at all bound to\ntrust them in matters of intellect.\n\n(66) Everyone has been strangely hasty in affirming that the prophets knew\neverything within the scope of human intellect; and, although certain\npassages of Scripture plainly affirm that the prophets were in certain\nrespects ignorant, such persons would rather say that they do not\nunderstand the passages than admit that there was anything which the\nprophets did not know; or else they try to wrest the Scriptural words away\nfrom their evident meaning.\n\n(67) If either of these proceedings is allowable we may as well shut our\nBibles, for vainly shall we attempt to prove anything from them if their\nplainest passages may be classed among obscure and impenetrable mysteries,\nor if we may put any interpretation on them which we fancy. (68) For\ninstance, nothing is more clear in the Bible than that Joshua, and perhaps\nalso the author who wrote his history, thought that the sun revolves round\nthe earth, and that the earth is fixed, and further that the sun for a\ncertain period remained still. (69) Many, who will not admit any movement in\nthe heavenly bodies, explain away the passage till it seems to mean\nsomething quite different; others, who have learned to philosophize more\ncorrectly, and understand that the earth moves while the sun is still, or at\nany rate does not revolve round the earth, try with all their might to wrest\nthis meaning from Scripture, though plainly nothing of the sort is\nintended. (70) Such quibblers excite my wonder! (71) Are we, forsooth, bound\nto believe that Joshua the Soldier was a learned astronomer? or that a\nmiracle could not be revealed to him, or that the light of the sun could not\nremain longer than usual above the horizon, without his knowing the cause?\n(72) To me both alternatives appear ridiculous, and therefore I would\nrather say, that Joshua was ignorant of the true cause of the lengthened\nday, and that he and the whole host with him thought that the sun moved\nround the earth every day, and that on that particular occasion it stood\nstill for a time, thus causing the light to remain longer; and I would\nsay, that they did not conjecture that, from the amount of snow in the air\n(see Josh. x:11), the refraction may have been greater than usual, or that\nthere may have been some other cause which we will not now inquire into.\n\n(73) So also the sign of the shadow going back was revealed to Isaiah\naccording to his understanding; that is, as proceeding from a going\nbackwards of the sun; for he, too, thought that the sun moves and that the\nearth is still; of parhelia he perhaps never even dreamed. (74) We may\narrive at this conclusion without any scruple, for the sign could really\nhave come to pass, and have been predicted by Isaiah to the king, without\nthe prophet being aware of the real cause.\n\n(75) With regard to the building of the Temple by Solomon, if it was really\ndictated by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely, that all the\nmeasurements were revealed according to the opinions and understanding of\nthe king; for as we are not bound to believe that Solomon was a\nmathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant of the true ratio between\nthe circumference and the diameter of a circle, and that, like the\ngenerality of workmen, he thought that it was as three to one. (76) But if\nit is allowable to declare that we do not understand the passage, in good\nsooth I know nothing in the Bible that we can understand; for the process of\nbuilding is there narrated simply and as a mere matter of history. (77) If,\nagain, it is permitted to pretend that the passage has another meaning, and\nwas written as it is from some reason unknown to us, this is no less than a\ncomplete subversal of the Bible; for every absurd and evil invention of\nhuman perversity could thus, without detriment to Scriptural authority, be\ndefended and fostered. (78) Our conclusion is in no wise impious, for though\nSolomon, Isaiah, Joshua, &c. were prophets, they were none the less men, and\nas such not exempt from human shortcomings.\n\n(79) According to the understanding of Noah it was revealed to him that God\nas about to destroy the whole human race, for Noah thought that beyond the\nlimits of Palestine the world was not inhabited.\n\n(80) Not only in matters of this kind, but in others more important,\nthe prophets could be, and in fact were, ignorant; for they taught\nnothing special about the Divine attributes, but held quite ordinary\nnotions about God, and to these notions their revelations were adapted,\nas I will demonstrate by ample Scriptural testimony; from all which one\nmay easily see that they were praised and commended, not so much for\nthe sublimity and eminence of their intellect as for their piety and\nfaithfulness.\n\n(81) Adam, the first man to whom God was revealed, did not know that He is\nomnipotent and omniscient; for he hid himself from Him, and attempted to\nmake excuses for his fault before God, as though he had had to do with a\nman; therefore to him also was God revealed according to his understanding -\nthat is, as being unaware of his situation or his sin, for Adam\nheard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walking in the garden, calling him and\nasking him where he was; and then, on seeing his shamefacedness, asking him\nwhether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit. (82) Adam evidently only knew\nthe Deity as the Creator of all things. (83) To Cain also God was revealed,\naccording to his understanding, as ignorant of human affairs, nor was a\nhigher conception of the Deity required for repentance of his sin.\n\n(83) To Laban the Lord revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, because Laban\nbelieved that each nation had its own special divinity (see Gen. xxxi:29).\n(84) Abraham also knew not that God is omnipresent, and has foreknowledge of\nall things; for when he heard the sentence against the inhabitants of Sodom,\nhe prayed that the Lord should not execute it till He had ascertained\nwhether they all merited such punishment; for he said (see Gen. xviii:24),\n\"Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city,\" and in accordance\nwith this belief God was revealed to him; as Abraham imagined, He spake\nthus: \"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether\naccording to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and, if not, I will know.\"\n(85) Further, the Divine testimony concerning Abraham asserts nothing but\nthat he was obedient, and that he \"commanded his household after him that\nthey should keep the way of the Lord\" (Gen. xviii:19); it does not state\nthat he held sublime conceptions of the Deity.\n\n(86) Moses, also, was not sufficiently aware that God is omniscient, and\ndirects human actions by His sole decree, for although God Himself says that\nthe Israelites should hearken to Him, Moses still considered the matter\ndoubtful and repeated, \"But if they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my\nvoice.\" (87) To him in like manner God was revealed as taking no part in,\nand as being ignorant of, future human actions: the Lord gave him two signs\nand said, \"And it shall come to pass that if they will not believe thee,\nneither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the\nvoice of the latter sign; but if not, thou shalt take of the water of the\nriver,\" &c. (88) Indeed, if any one considers without prejudice the recorded\nopinions of Moses, he will plainly see that Moses conceived the Deity as a\nBeing Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for\nthis cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these\nthree phases of existence: as to His nature, Moses only taught that He is\nmerciful, gracious, and exceeding jealous, as appears from many passages in\nthe Pentateuch. (89) Lastly, he believed and taught that this Being was so\ndifferent from all other beings, that He could not be expressed by the image\nof any visible thing; also, that He could not be looked upon, and that not\nso much from inherent impossibility as from human infirmity; further, that\nby reason of His power He was without equal and unique. (90) Moses admitted,\nindeed, that there were beings (doubtless by the plan and command of the\nLord) who acted as God's vicegerents - that is, beings to whom God had given\nthe right, authority, and power to direct nations, and to provide and care\nfor them; but he taught that this Being Whom they were bound to obey was\nthe highest and Supreme God, or (to use the Hebrew phrase) God of gods, and\nthus in the song (Exod. xv:11) he exclaims, \"Who is like unto Thee, O Lord,\namong the gods?\" and Jethro says (Exod. xviii:11), \"Now I know that the Lord\nis greater than all gods.\" (91) That is to say, \"I am at length compelled to\nadmit to Moses that Jehovah is greater than all gods, and that His power\nis unrivalled.\" (92) We must remain in doubt whether Moses thought that\nthese beings who acted as God's vicegerents were created by Him, for he\nhas stated nothing, so far as we know, about their creation and origin. (93)\nHe further taught that this Being had brought the visible world into order\nfrom Chaos, and had given Nature her germs, and therefore that He\npossesses supreme right and power over all things; further, that by reason\nof this supreme right and power He had chosen for Himself alone the Hebrew\nnation and a certain strip of territory, and had handed over to the care of\nother gods substituted by Himself the rest of the nations and territories,\nand that therefore He was called the God of Israel and the God of Jerusalem,\nwhereas the other gods were called the gods of the Gentiles. (94) For this\nreason the Jews believed that the strip of territory which God had chosen\nfor Himself, demanded a Divine worship quite apart and different from the\nworship which obtained elsewhere, and that the Lord would not suffer the\nworship of other gods adapted to other countries. (95) Thus they thought\nthat the people whom the king of Assyria had brought into Judaea were torn\nin pieces by lions because they knew not the worship of the National\nDivinity (2 Kings xvii:25).\n\n(96) Jacob, according to Aben Ezra's opinion, therefore admonished his sons\nwhen he wished them to seek out a new country, that they should prepare\nthemselves for a new worship, and lay aside the worship of strange gods -\nthat is, of the gods of the land where they were (Gen. xxxv:2, 3).\n\n(97) David, in telling Saul that he was compelled by the king's persecution\nto live away from his country, said that he was driven out from the heritage\nof the Lord, and sent to worship other gods (1 Sam. xxvi:19). (98) Lastly,\nhe believed that this Being or Deity had His habitation in the heavens\n(Deut. xxxiii:27), an opinion very common among the Gentiles.\n\n(99) If we now examine the revelations to Moses, we shall find that they\nwere accommodated to these opinions; as he believed that the Divine Nature\nwas subject to the conditions of mercy, graciousness, &c., so God was\nrevealed to him in accordance with his idea and under these attributes (see\nExodus xxxiv:6, 7, and the second commandment). (100) Further it is related\n(Ex. xxxiii:18) that Moses asked of God that he might behold Him, but as\nMoses (as we have said) had formed no mental image of God, and God (as I\nhave shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in accordance with the\ndisposition of their imagination, He did not reveal Himself in any form.\n(101) This, I repeat, was because the imagination of Moses was unsuitable,\nfor other prophets bear witness that they saw the Lord; for instance,\nIsaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, &c. (102) For this reason God answered Moses, \"Thou\ncanst not see My face;\" and inasmuch as Moses believed that God can be\nlooked upon - that is, that no contradiction of the Divine nature is therein\ninvolved (for otherwise he would never have preferred his request) - it is\nadded, \"For no one shall look on Me and live,\" thus giving a reason in\naccordance with Moses' idea, for it is not stated that a contradiction of\nthe Divine nature would be involved, as was really the case, but that the\nthing would not come to pass because of human infirmity.\n\n(103) When God would reveal to Moses that the Israelites, because they\nworshipped the calf, were to be placed in the same category as other\nnations, He said (ch. xxxiii:2, 3), that He would send an angel (that is, a\nbeing who should have charge of the Israelites, instead of the Supreme\nBeing), and that He Himself would no longer remain among them; thus leaving\nMoses no ground for supposing that the Israelites were more beloved by God\nthan the other nations whose guardianship He had entrusted to other beings\nor angels (vide verse 16).\n\n(104) Lastly, as Moses believed that God dwelt in the heavens, God was\nrevealed to him as coming down from heaven on to a mountain, and in order to\ntalk with the Lord Moses went up the mountain, which he certainly need not\nhave done if he could have conceived of God as omnipresent.\n\n(105) The Israelites knew scarcely anything of God, although He was revealed\nto them; and this is abundantly evident from their transferring, a few days\nafterwards, the honour and worship due to Him to a calf, which they believed\nto be the god who had brought them out of Egypt. (106) In truth, it is\nhardly likely that men accustomed to the superstitions of Egypt,\nuncultivated and sunk in most abject slavery, should have held any sound\nnotions about the Deity, or that Moses should have taught them anything\nbeyond a rule of right living; inculcating it not like a philosopher, as the\nresult of freedom, but like a lawgiver compelling them to be moral by\nlegal authority. (107) Thus the rule of right living, the worship and love\nof God, was to them rather a bondage than the true liberty, the gift and\ngrace of the Deity. (108) Moses bid them love God and keep His law, because\nthey had in the past received benefits from Him (such as the\ndeliverance from slavery in Egypt), and further terrified them with threats\nif they transgressed His commands, holding out many promises of good if they\nshould observe them; thus treating them as parents treat irrational\nchildren. It is, therefore, certain that they knew not the excellence of\nvirtue and the true happiness.\n\n(109) Jonah thought that he was fleeing from the sight of God, which seems\nto show that he too held that God had entrusted the care of the nations\noutside Judaea to other substituted powers. (110) No one in the whole of the\nOld Testament speaks more rationally of God than Solomon, who in fact\nsurpassed all the men of his time in natural ability. (111) Yet he\nconsidered himself above the law (esteeming it only to have been given for\nmen without reasonable and intellectual grounds for their actions), and made\nsmall account of the laws concerning kings, which are mainly three: nay, he\nopenly violated them (in this he did wrong, and acted in a manner unworthy\nof a philosopher, by indulging in sensual pleasure), and taught that all\nFortune's favours to mankind are vanity, that humanity has no nobler gift\nthan wisdom, and no greater punishment than folly.\n(112) See Proverbs xvi:22, 23.\n\n(113) But let us return to the prophets whose conflicting opinions we have\nundertaken to note.\n\n(114) The expressed ideas of Ezekiel seemed so diverse from those of\nMoses to the Rabbis who have left us the extant prophetic books (as is\ntold in the treatise of Sabbathus, i:13, 2), that they had serious\nthoughts of omitting his prophecy from the canon, and would doubtless\nhave thus excluded it if a certain Hananiah had not undertaken to\nexplain it; a task which (as is there narrated) he with great zeal and\nlabour accomplished. (115) How he did so does not sufficiently appear,\nwhether it was by writing a commentary which has now perished, or by\naltering Ezekiel's words and audaciously striking out phrases according\nto his fancy. (116) However this may be, chapter xviii. certainly does\nnot seem to agree with Exodus xxxiv:7, Jeremiah xxxii:18, &c.\n\n(117 ) Samuel believed that the Lord never repented of anything He had\ndecreed (1 Sam. xv:29), for when Saul was sorry for his sin, and wished to\nworship God and ask for forgiveness, Samuel said that the Lord would not go\nback from his decree.\n\n(118) To Jeremiah, on the other hand, it was revealed that, \"If that nation\nagainst whom I (the Lord) have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will\nrepent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. (119) If it do evil in my\nsight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I\nsaid I would benefit them\" (Jer. xviii:8-10). (120) Joel (ii:13) taught that\nthe Lord repented Him only of evil. (121) Lastly, it is clear from Gen iv: 7\nthat a man can overcome the temptations of sin, and act righteously; for\nthis doctrine is told to Cain, though, as we learn from Josephus and the\nScriptures, he never did so overcome them. (122) And this agrees with the\nchapter of Jeremiah just cited, for it is there said that the Lord repents\nof the good or the evil pronounced, if the men in question change their ways\nand manner of life. (123) But, on the other hand, Paul (Rom.ix:10) teaches\nas plainly as possible that men have no control over the temptations of the\nflesh save by the special vocation and grace of God. (124) And when\n(Rom. iii:5 and vi:19) he attributes righteousness to man, he corrects\nhimself as speaking merely humanly and through the infirmity of the flesh.\n\n(125) We have now more than sufficiently proved our point, that God adapted\nrevelations to the understanding and opinions of the prophets, and that in\nmatters of theory without bearing on charity or morality the prophets could\nbe, and, in fact, were, ignorant, and held conflicting opinions. (126) It\ntherefore follows that we must by no means go to the prophets for knowledge,\neither of natural or of spiritual phenomena.\n\n(127) We have determined, then, that we are only bound to believe in the\nprophetic writings, the object and substance of the revelation; with regard\nto the details, every one may believe or not, as he likes.\n\n(128) For instance, the revelation to Cain only teaches us that God\nadmonished him to lead the true life, for such alone is the object and\nsubstance of the revelation, not doctrines concerning free will and\nphilosophy. (129) Hence, though the freedom of the will is clearly implied\nin the words of the admonition, we are at liberty to hold a contrary\nopinion, since the words and reasons were adapted to the understanding of\nCain.\n\n(130) So, too, the revelation to Micaiah would only teach that God revealed\nto him the true issue of the battle between Ahab and Aram; and this is all\nwe are bound to believe. (131) Whatever else is contained in the revelation\nconcerning the true and the false Spirit of God, the army of heaven standing\non the right hand and on the left, and all the other details, does not\naffect us at all. (132) Everyone may believe as much of it as his reason\nallows.\n\n(132) The reasonings by which the Lord displayed His power to Job (if they\nreally were a revelation, and the author of the history is narrating, and\nnot merely, as some suppose, rhetorically adorning his own conceptions),\nwould come under the same category - that is, they were adapted to Job's\nunderstanding, for the purpose of convincing him, and are not universal,\nor for the convincing of all men.\n\n(133) We can come to no different conclusion with respect to the reasonings\nof Christ, by which He convicted the Pharisees of pride and ignorance, and\nexhorted His disciples to lead the true life. (134) He adapted them to each\nman's opinions and principles. (135) For instance, when He said to the\nPharisees (Matt. xii:26), \"And if Satan cast out devils, his house is\ndivided against itself, how then shall his kingdom stand?\" (136) He only\nwished to convince the Pharisees according, to their own principles, not to\nteach that there are devils, or any kingdom of devils. (137) So, too,\nwhen He said to His disciples (Matt. viii:10), \"See that ye despise not one\nof these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels,\" &c., He merely\ndesired to warn them against pride and despising any of their fellows, not\nto insist on the actual reason given, which was simply adopted in order to\npersuade them more easily.\n\n(138) Lastly, we should say exactly the same of the apostolic signs and\nreasonings, but there is no need to go further into the subject. (139) If I\nwere to enumerate all the passages of Scripture addressed only to\nindividuals, or to a particular man's understanding, and which cannot,\nwithout great danger to philosophy, be defended as Divine doctrines, I\nshould go far beyond the brevity at which I aim. (140) Let it suffice, then,\nto have indicated a few instances of general application, and let the\ncurious reader consider others by himself. (141) Although the points we\nhave just raised concerning prophets and prophecy are the only ones which\nhave any direct bearing on the end in view, namely, the separation of\nPhilosophy from Theology, still, as I have touched on the general question,\nI may here inquire whether the gift of prophecy was peculiar to the Hebrews,\nor whether it was common to all nations. (142) I must then come to a\nconclusion about the vocation of the Hebrews, all of which I shall do in the\nensuing chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.  OF THE VOCATION OF THE HEBREWS, AND\nWHETHER THE GIFT OF PROPHECY WAS PECULIAR TO THEM.\n\n(1) Every man's true happiness and blessedness consist solely in the\nenjoyment of what is good, not in the pride that he alone is enjoying it, to\nthe exclusion of others. (2) He who thinks himself the more blessed because\nhe is enjoying benefits which others are not, or because he is more blessed\nor more fortunate than his fellows, is ignorant of true happiness and\nblessedness, and the joy which he feels is either childish or envious and\nmalicious. (3) For instance, a man's true happiness consists only in wisdom,\nand the knowledge of the truth, not at all in the fact that he is wiser than\nothers, or that others lack such knowledge: such considerations do not\nincrease his wisdom or true happiness.\n\n(4) Whoever, therefore, rejoices for such reasons, rejoices in another's\nmisfortune, and is, so far, malicious and bad, knowing neither true\nhappiness nor the peace of the true life.\n\n(5) When Scripture, therefore, in exhorting the Hebrews to obey the law,\nsays that the Lord has chosen them for Himself before other nations\n(Deut. x:15); that He is near them, but not near others (Deut. iv:7); that\nto them alone He has given just laws (Deut. iv:8); and, lastly, that He has\nmarked them out before others (Deut. iv:32); it speaks only according to the\nunderstanding of its hearers, who, as we have shown in the last chapter, and\nas Moses also testifies (Deut. ix:6, 7), knew not true blessedness. (6) For\nin good sooth they would have been no less blessed if God had called all men\nequally to salvation, nor would God have been less present to them for being\nequally present to others; their laws, would have been no less just if they\nhad been ordained for all, and they themselves would have been no less wise.\n(7) The miracles would have shown God's power no less by being wrought for\nother nations also; lastly, the Hebrews would have been just as much bound\nto worship God if He had bestowed all these gifts equally on all men.\n\n(8) When God tells Solomon (1 Kings iii:12) that no one shall be as wise as\nhe in time to come, it seems to be only a manner of expressing surpassing\nwisdom; it is little to be believed that God would have promised Solomon,\nfor his greater happiness, that He would never endow anyone with so much\nwisdom in time to come; this would in no wise have increased Solomon's\nintellect, and the wise king would have given equal thanks to the Lord if\neveryone had been gifted with the same faculties.\n\n(9) Still, though we assert that Moses, in the passages of the Pentateuch\njust cited, spoke only according to the understanding of the Hebrews, we\nhave no wish to deny that God ordained the Mosaic law for them alone, nor\nthat He spoke to them alone, nor that they witnessed marvels beyond those\nwhich happened to any other nation; but we wish to emphasize that\nMoses desired to admonish the Hebrews in such a manner, and with such\nreasonings as would appeal most forcibly to their childish understanding,\nand constrain them to worship the Deity. (10) Further, we wished to show\nthat the Hebrews did not surpass other nations in knowledge, or in piety,\nbut evidently in some attribute different from these; or (to speak like the\nScriptures, according to their understanding), that the Hebrews were not\nchosen by God before others for the sake of the true life and sublime ideas,\nthough they were often thereto admonished, but with some other object. (11)\nWhat that object was, I will duly show.\n\n(12) But before I begin, I wish in a few words to explain what I mean by the\nguidance of God, by the help of God, external and inward, and, lastly, what\nI understand by fortune.\n\n(13) By the help of God, I mean the fixed and unchangeable order of nature\nor the chain of natural events: for I have said before and shown elsewhere\nthat the universal laws of nature, according to which all things exist and\nare determined, are only another name for the eternal decrees of God, which\nalways involve eternal truth and necessity.\n\n(14) So that to say that everything happens according to natural laws, and\nto say that everything is ordained by the decree and ordinance of God, is\nthe same thing. (15) Now since the power in nature is identical with the\npower of God, by which alone all things happen and are determined, it\nfollows that whatsoever man, as a part of nature, provides himself with to\naid and preserve his existence, or whatsoever nature affords him without his\nhelp, is given to him solely by the Divine power, acting either through\nhuman nature or through external circumstance. (16) So whatever human nature\ncan furnish itself with by its own efforts to preserve its existence, may\nbe fitly called the inward aid of God, whereas whatever else accrues to\nman's profit from outward causes may be called the external aid of God.\n\n(17) We can now easily understand what is meant by the election of God. (18)\nFor since no one can do anything save by the predetermined order of nature,\nthat is by God's eternal ordinance and decree, it follows that no one can\nchoose a plan of life for himself, or accomplish any work save by God's\nvocation choosing him for the work or the plan of life in question, rather\nthan any other. (19) Lastly, by fortune, I mean the ordinance of God in so\nfar as it directs human life through external and unexpected means. (20)\nWith these preliminaries I return to my purpose of discovering the reason\nwhy the Hebrews were said to be elected by God before other nations, and\nwith the demonstration I thus proceed.\n\n(21) All objects of legitimate desire fall, generally speaking, under one\nof these three categories:\n\n    1. The knowledge of things through their primary causes.\n    2. The government of the passions, or the acquirement of the habit of\n       virtue.\n    3. Secure and healthy life.\n\n(22) The means which most directly conduce towards the first two of these\nends, and which may be considered their proximate and efficient causes are\ncontained in human nature itself, so that their acquisition hinges only on\nour own power, and on the laws of human nature. (23) It may be concluded\nthat these gifts are not peculiar to any nation, but have always been shared\nby the whole human race, unless, indeed, we would indulge the dream that\nnature formerly created men of different kinds. (24) But the means which\nconduce to security and health are chiefly in external circumstance, and are\ncalled the gifts of fortune because they depend chiefly on objective causes\nof which we are ignorant; for a fool may be almost as liable to happiness\nor unhappiness as a wise man. (25) Nevertheless, human management and\nwatchfulness can greatly assist towards living in security and warding off\nthe injuries of our fellow-men, and even of beasts. (26) Reason and\nexperience show no more certain means of attaining this object than\nthe formation of a society with fixed laws, the occupation of a strip of\nterritory and the concentration of all forces, as it were, into one body,\nthat is the social body. (27) Now for forming and preserving a society, no\nordinary ability and care is required: that society will be most\nsecure, most stable, and least liable to reverses, which is founded and\ndirected by far-seeing and careful men; while, on the other hand, a society\nconstituted by men without trained skill, depends in a great measure on\nfortune, and is less constant. (28) If, in spite of all, such a society\nlasts a long time, it is owing to some other directing influence than its\nown; if it overcomes great perils and its affairs prosper, it will perforce\nmarvel at and adore the guiding Spirit of God (in so far, that is, as God\nworks through hidden means, and not through the nature and mind of man),\nfor everything happens to it unexpectedly and contrary to anticipation, it\nmay even be said and thought to be by miracle. (29) Nations, then, are\ndistinguished from one another in respect to the social organization and the\nlaws under which they live and are governed; the Hebrew nation was not\nchosen by God in respect to its wisdom nor its tranquillity of mind, but in\nrespect to its social organization and the good fortune with which it\nobtained supremacy and kept it so many years. (30) This is abundantly clear\nfrom Scripture. Even a cursory perusal will show us that the only respects\nin which the Hebrews surpassed other nations, are in their successful\nconduct of matters relating to government, and in their surmounting great\nperils solely by God's external aid; in other ways they were on a par with\ntheir fellows, and God was equally gracious to all. (31) For in respect to\nintellect (as we have shown in the last chapter) they held very ordinary\nideas about God and nature, so that they cannot have been God's chosen in\nthis respect; nor were they so chosen in respect of virtue and the true\nlife, for here again they, with the exception of a very few elect, were on\nan equality with other nations: therefore their choice and vocation\nconsisted only in the temporal happiness and advantages of independent rule.\n(32) In fact, we do not see that God promised anything beyond this to the\npatriarchs [Endnote 4] or their successors; in the law no other reward is\noffered for obedience than the continual happiness of an independent\ncommonwealth and other goods of this life; while, on the other hand, against\ncontumacy and the breaking of the covenant is threatened the downfall of the\ncommonwealth and great hardships. (33) Nor is this to be wondered at; for\nthe ends of every social organization and commonwealth are (as appears from\nwhat we have said, and as we will explain more at length hereafter) security\nand comfort; a commonwealth can only exist by the laws being binding on all.\n(34) If all the members of a state wish to disregard the law, by that very\nfact they dissolve the state and destroy the commonwealth. (35) Thus, the\nonly reward which could be promised to the Hebrews for continued obedience\nto the law was security [Endnote 5] and its attendant advantages, while no\nsurer punishment could be threatened for disobedience, than the ruin of the\nstate and the evils which generally follow therefrom, in addition to such\nfurther consequences as might accrue to the Jews in particular from the ruin\nof their especial state. (36) But there is no need here to go into this\npoint at more length. (37) I will only add that the laws of the Old\nTestament were revealed and ordained to the Jews only, for as God chose them\nin respect to the special constitution of their society and government, they\nmust, of course, have had special laws. (38) Whether God ordained special\nlaws for other nations also, and revealed Himself to their lawgivers\nprophetically, that is, under the attributes by which the latter were\naccustomed to imagine Him, I cannot sufficiently determine. (39) It is\nevident from Scripture itself that other nations acquired supremacy and\nparticular laws by the external aid of God; witness only the two following\npassages:\n\n(40) In Genesis xiv:18, 19, 20, it is related that Melchisedek was king of\nJerusalem and priest of the Most High God, that in exercise of his priestly\nfunctions he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham the beloved of the Lord gave\nto this priest of God a tithe of all his spoils. (41) This sufficiently\nshows that before He founded the Israelitish nation God constituted kings\nand priests in Jerusalem, and ordained for them rites and laws. (42) Whether\nHe did so prophetically is, as I have said, not sufficiently clear; but I am\nsure of this, that Abraham, whilst he sojourned in the city, lived\nscrupulously according to these laws, for Abraham had received no special\nrites from God; and yet it is stated (Gen. xxvi:5), that he observed the\nworship, the precepts, the statutes, and the laws of God, which must be\ninterpreted to mean the worship, the statutes, the precepts, and the laws of\nking Melchisedek. (43) Malachi chides the Jews as follows (i:10-11.): \"Who\nis there among you that will shut the doors? [of the Temple]; neither do ye\nkindle fire on mine altar for nought. (44) I have no pleasure in you, saith\nthe Lord of Hosts. (45) For from the rising of the sun, even until the going\ndown of the same My Name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every\nplace incense shall be offered in My Name, and a pure offering; for My Name\nis great among the heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts.\" (46) These words,\nwhich, unless we do violence to them, could only refer to the current\nperiod, abundantly testify that the Jews of that time were not more beloved\nby God than other nations, that God then favoured other nations with more\nmiracles than He vouchsafed to the Jews, who had then partly recovered their\nempire without miraculous aid; and, lastly, that the Gentiles possessed\nrites and ceremonies acceptable to God. (47) But I pass over these points\nlightly: it is enough for my purpose to have shown that the election of the\nJews had regard to nothing but temporal physical happiness and freedom, in\nother words, autonomous government, and to the manner and means by which\nthey obtained it; consequently to the laws in so far as they were\nnecessary to the preservation of that special government; and, lastly, to\nthe manner in which they were revealed. In regard to other matters, wherein\nman's true happiness consists, they were on a par with the rest of the\nnations.\n\n(48) When, therefore, it is said in Scripture (Deut. iv:7) that the Lord is\nnot so nigh to any other nation as He is to the Jews, reference is only made\nto their government, and to the period when so many miracles happened to\nthem, for in respect of intellect and virtue - that is, in respect of\nblessedness - God was, as we have said already, and are now demonstrating,\nequally gracious to all. (49) Scripture itself bears testimony to this fact,\nfor the Psalmist says (cxlv:18), \"The Lord is near unto all them that call\nupon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth.\" (50) So in the same Psalm,\nverse 9, \"The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all\nHis works.\" In Ps. xxxiii:16, it is clearly stated that God has granted to\nall men the same intellect, in these words, \"He fashioneth their hearts\nalike.\" The heart was considered by the Hebrews, as I suppose everyone\nknows, to be the seat of the soul and the intellect.\n\n(51) Lastly, from Job xxxviii:28, it is plain that God had ordained for the\nwhole human race the law to reverence God, to keep from evil doing, or to do\nwell, and that Job, although a Gentile, was of all men most acceptable to\nGod, because he exceeded all in piety and religion. (52) Lastly, from Jonah\niv:2, it is very evident that, not only to the Jews but to all men, God was\ngracious, merciful, long-suffering, and of great goodness, and repented Him\nof the evil, for Jonah says: \"Therefore I determined to flee before unto\nTarshish, for I know that Thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to\nanger, and of great kindness,\" &c., and that, therefore, God would pardon\nthe Ninevites. (53) We conclude, therefore (inasmuch as God is to all men\nequally gracious, and the Hebrews were only chosen by him in respect to\ntheir social organization and government), that the individual Jew, taken\napart from his social organization and government, possessed no\ngift of God above other men, and that there was no difference between Jew\nand Gentile. (54) As it is a fact that God is equally gracious, merciful,\nand the rest, to all men; and as the function of the prophet was to teach\nmen not so much the laws of their country, as true virtue, and to exhort\nthem thereto, it is not to be doubted that all nations possessed prophets,\nand that the prophetic gift was not peculiar to the Jews. (55) Indeed,\nhistory, both profane and sacred, bears witness to the fact. (56) Although,\nfrom the sacred histories of the Old Testament, it is not evident that the\nother nations had as many prophets as the Hebrews, or that any Gentile\nprophet was expressly sent by God to the nations, this does not affect the\nquestion, for the Hebrews were careful to record their own affairs, not\nthose of other nations. (57) It suffices, then, that we find in the Old\nTestament Gentiles, and uncircumcised, as Noah, Enoch, Abimelech,\nBalaam, &c., exercising prophetic gifts; further, that Hebrew prophets were\nsent by God, not only to their own nation but to many others also. (58)\nEzekiel prophesied to all the nations then known; Obadiah to none, that we\nare aware of, save the Idumeans; and Jonah was chiefly the prophet to the\nNinevites. (59) Isaiah bewails and predicts the calamities, and hails the\nrestoration not only of the Jews but also of other nations, for he says\n(chap. xvi:9), \"Therefore I will bewail Jazer with weeping;\" and in chap.\nxix. he foretells first the calamities and then the restoration of\nthe Egyptians (see verses 19, 20, 21, 25), saying that God shall send them a\nSaviour to free them, that the Lord shall be known in Egypt, and, further,\nthat the Egyptians shall worship God with sacrifice and oblation; and, at\nlast, he calls that nation the blessed Egyptian people of God; all of which\nparticulars are specially noteworthy.\n\n(60) Jeremiah is called, not the prophet of the Hebrew nation, but simply\nthe prophet of the nations (see Jer. i.5). (61) He also mournfully foretells\nthe calamities of the nations, and predicts their restoration, for he says\n(xlviii. 31) of the Moabites, \"Therefore will I howl for Moab, and I will\ncry out for all Moab\" (verse 36), \"and therefore mine heart shall sound\nfor Moab like pipes;\" in the end he prophesies their restoration, as also\nthe restoration of the Egyptians, Ammonites, and Elamites. (62) Wherefore it\nis beyond doubt that other nations also, like the Jews, had their\nprophets, who prophesied to them.\n\n(63) Although Scripture only, makes mention of one man, Balaam, to whom the\nfuture of the Jews and the other nations was revealed, we must not suppose\nthat Balaam prophesied only once, for from the narrative itself it is\nabundantly clear that he had long previously been famous for prophesy and\nother Divine gifts. (64) For when Balak bade him to come to him, he said\n(Num. xxii:6), \"For I know that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he\nwhom thou cursest is cursed.\" (65) Thus we see that he possessed the gift\nwhich God had bestowed on Abraham. Further, as accustomed to prophesy,\nBalaam bade the messengers wait for him till the will of the Lord was\nrevealed to him. (66) When he prophesied, that is, when he interpreted\nthe true mind of God, he was wont to say this of himself: \"He hath said,\nwhich heard the words of God and knew the knowledge of the Most High, which\nsaw the vision of the Almighty falling into a trance, but having his eyes\nopen.\" (67) Further, after he had blessed the Hebrews by the command of God,\nhe began (as was his custom) to prophesy to other nations, and to predict\ntheir future; all of which abundantly shows that he had always been a\nprophet, or had often prophesied, and (as we may also remark here) possessed\nthat which afforded the chief certainty to prophets of the truth of their\nprophecy, namely, a mind turned wholly to what is right and good, for he did\nnot bless those whom he wished to bless, nor curse those whom he wished to\ncurse, as Balak supposed, but only those whom God wished to be blessed or\ncursed. (68) Thus he answered Balak: \"If Balak should give me his house full\nof silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord to do\neither good or bad of my own mind; but what the Lord saith, that will I\nspeak.\" (69) As for God being angry with him in the way, the same happened\nto Moses when he set out to Egypt by the command of the Lord; and as to his\nreceiving money for prophesying, Samuel did the same (1 Sam. ix:7, 8); if in\nanyway he sinned, \"there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and\nsinneth not,\" Eccles. vii:20. (Vide 2 Epist. Peter ii:15, 16, and\nJude 5:11.)\n\n(70) His speeches must certainly have had much weight with God, and His\npower for cursing must assuredly have been very great from the number of\ntimes that we find stated in Scripture, in proof of God's great mercy to the\nJews, that God would not hear Balaam, and that He changed the cursing to\nblessing (see Deut. xxiii:6, Josh. xxiv:10, Neh. xiii:2). (71) Wherefore he\nwas without doubt most acceptable to God, for the speeches and cursings of\nthe wicked move God not at all. (72) As then he was a true prophet, and\nnevertheless Joshua calls him a soothsayer or augur, it is certain that this\ntitle had an honourable signification, and that those whom the Gentiles\ncalled augurs and soothsayers were true prophets, while those whom Scripture\noften accuses and condemns were false soothsayers, who deceived the\nGentiles as false prophets deceived the Jews; indeed, this is made evident\nfrom other passages in the Bible, whence we conclude that the gift of\nprophecy was not peculiar to the Jews, but common to all nations. (73) The\nPharisees, however, vehemently contend that this Divine gift was peculiar to\ntheir nation, and that the other nations foretold the future (what will\nsuperstition invent next?) by some unexplained diabolical faculty. (74) The\nprincipal passage of Scripture which they cite, by way of confirming their\ntheory with its authority, is Exodus xxxiii:16, where Moses says to God,\n\"For wherein shall it be known here that I and Thy people have found grace\nin Thy sight? is it not in that Thou goest with us? so shall we be\nseparated, I and Thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of\nthe earth.\" (75) From this they would infer that Moses asked of God that He\nshould be present to the Jews, and should reveal Himself to them\nprophetically; further, that He should grant this favour to no other nation.\n(76) It is surely absurd that Moses should have been jealous of God's\npresence among the Gentiles, or that he should have dared to ask any such\nthing. (77) The fact is, as Moses knew that the disposition and spirit of his\nnation was rebellious, he clearly saw that they could not carry out what\nthey had begun without very great miracles and special external aid from\nGod; nay, that without such aid they must necessarily perish: as it was\nevident that God wished them to be preserved, he asked for this special\nexternal aid. (78) Thus he says (Ex. xxxiv:9), \"If now I have found grace in\nThy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray Thee, go among us; for it is a\nstiffnecked people.\" (79) The reason, therefore, for his seeking special\nexternal aid from God was the stiffneckedness of the people, and it is made\nstill more plain, that he asked for nothing beyond this special external aid\nby God's answer - for God answered at once (verse 10 of the same chapter) -\n\"Behold, I make a covenant: before all Thy people I will do marvels, such as\nhave not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation.\" (80) Therefore\nMoses had in view nothing beyond the special election of the Jews, as I have\nexplained it, and made no other request to God. (81) I confess that in\nPaul's Epistle to the Romans, I find another text which carries more weight,\nnamely, where Paul seems to teach a different doctrine from that here set\ndown, for he there says (Rom. iii:1): \"What advantage then hath the Jew? or\nwhat profit is there of circumcision? (82) Much every way: chiefly, because\nthat unto them were committed the oracles of God.\"\n\n(83) But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired to teach,\nwe shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the contrary,\nhis doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (Rom. iii:29) \"that God is the\nGod of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and\" (ch. ii:25, 26) \"But,\nif thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.\n(84) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,\nshall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?\" (85) Further, in\nchap. iv:verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were under sin,\nand that without commandment and law there is no sin. (86) Wherefore it is\nmost evident that to all men absolutely was revealed the law under which all\nlived - namely, the law which has regard only to true virtue, not the law\nestablished in respect to, and in the formation of a particular state and\nadapted to the disposition of a particular people. (87) Lastly, Paul\nconcludes that since God is the God of all nations, that is, is equally\ngracious to all, and since all men equally live under the law and under sin,\nso also to all nations did God send His Christ, to free all men equally from\nthe bondage of the law, that they should no more do right by the\ncommand of the law, but by the constant determination of their hearts. (88)\nSo that Paul teaches exactly the same as ourselves. (89) When, therefore, he\nsays \"To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of God,\" we must either\nunderstand that to them only were the laws entrusted in writing, while they\nwere given to other nations merely in revelation and conception, or else (as\nnone but Jews would object to the doctrine he desired to advance) that Paul\nwas answering only in accordance with the understanding and current ideas of\nthe Jews, for in respect to teaching things which he had partly seen, partly\nheard, he was to the Greeks a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.\n\n(90) It now only remains to us to answer the arguments of those who would\npersuade themselves that the election of the Jews was not temporal, and\nmerely in respect of their commonwealth, but eternal; for, they say, we see\nthe Jews after the loss of their commonwealth, and after being scattered so\nmany years and separated from all other nations, still surviving, which is\nwithout parallel among other peoples, and further the Scriptures seem to\nteach that God has chosen for Himself the Jews for ever, so that though they\nhave lost their commonwealth, they still nevertheless remain God's elect.\n\n(91) The passages which they think teach most clearly this eternal election, are chiefly:\n(1.) Jer. xxxi:36, where the prophet testifies that the seed of Israel\nshall for ever remain the nation of God, comparing them with the\nstability of the heavens and nature;\n\n(2.) Ezek. xx:32, where the prophet seems to intend that though the Jews\nwanted after the help afforded them to turn their backs on the worship of\nthe Lord, that God would nevertheless gather them together again from all\nthe lands in which they were dispersed, and lead them to the wilderness of\nthe peoples - as He had led their fathers to the wilderness of the land of\nEgypt - and would at length, after purging out from among them the rebels\nand transgressors, bring them thence to his Holy mountain, where the whole\nhouse of Israel should worship Him. Other passages are also cited,\nespecially by the Pharisees, but I think I shall satisfy everyone if I\nanswer these two, and this I shall easily accomplish after showing from\nScripture itself that God chose not the Hebrews for ever, but only on the\ncondition under which He had formerly chosen the Canaanites, for these last,\nas we have shown, had priests who religiously worshipped God, and whom God\nat length rejected because of their luxury, pride, and corrupt worship.\n\n(92) Moses (Lev. xviii:27) warned the Israelites that they be not polluted\nwith whoredoms, lest the land spue them out as it had spued out the nations\nwho had dwelt there before, and in Deut. viii:19, 20, in the plainest terms\nHe threatens their total ruin, for He says, \"I testify against you that ye\nshall surely perish. (93) As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before\nyour face, so shall ye perish.\" In like manner many other passages are found\nin the law which expressly show that God chose the Hebrews neither\nabsolutely nor for ever. (94) If, then, the prophets foretold for them a new\ncovenant of the knowledge of God, love, and grace, such a promise is easily\nproved to be only made to the elect, for Ezekiel in the chapter which we\nhave just quoted expressly says that God will separate from them the\nrebellious and transgressors, and Zephaniah (iii:12, 13), says that \"God\nwill take away the proud from the midst of them, and leave the poor.\" (95)\nNow, inasmuch as their election has regard to true virtue, it is not to be\nthought that it was promised to the Jews alone to the exclusion of others,\nbut we must evidently believe that the true Gentile prophets (and every\nnation, as we have shown, possessed such) promised the same to the faithful\nof their own people, who were thereby comforted. (96) Wherefore this eternal\ncovenant of the knowledge of God and love is universal, as is clear,\nmoreover, from Zeph. iii:10, 11: no difference in this respect can be\nadmitted between Jew and Gentile, nor did the former enjoy any special\nelection beyond that which we have pointed out.\n\n(97) When the prophets, in speaking of this election which regards only true\nvirtue, mixed up much concerning sacrifices and ceremonies, and the\nrebuilding of the temple and city, they wished by such figurative\nexpressions, after the manner and nature of prophecy, to expound matters\nspiritual, so as at the same time to show to the Jews, whose prophets they\nwere, the true restoration of the state and of the temple to be expected\nabout the time of Cyrus.\n\n(98) At the present time, therefore, there is absolutely nothing which the\nJews can arrogate to themselves beyond other people.\n\n(99) As to their continuance so long after dispersion and the loss of\nempire, there is nothing marvellous in it, for they so separated themselves\nfrom every other nation as to draw down upon themselves universal hate, not\nonly by their outward rites, rites conflicting with those of other nations,\nbut also by the sign of circumcision which they most scrupulously observe.\n\n(100) That they have been preserved in great measure by Gentile hatred,\nexperience demonstrates. (101) When the king of Spain formerly\ncompelled the Jews to embrace the State religion or to go into exile, a\nlarge number of Jews accepted Catholicism. (102) Now, as these renegades\nwere admitted to all the native privileges of Spaniards, and deemed worthy\nof filling all honourable offices, it came to pass that they straightway\nbecame so intermingled with the Spaniards as to leave of themselves no relic\nor remembrance. (103) But exactly the opposite happened to those whom the\nking of Portugal compelled to become Christians, for they always, though\nconverted, lived apart, inasmuch as they were considered unworthy of any\ncivic honours.\n\n(104) The sign of circumcision is, as I think, so important, that I could\npersuade myself that it alone would preserve the nation for ever. (105) Nay,\nI would go so far as to believe that if the foundations of their religion\nhave not emasculated their minds they may even, if occasion offers, so\nchangeable are human affairs, raise up their empire afresh, and that God may\na second time elect them.\n\n(106) Of such a possibility we have a very famous example in the Chinese.\n(107) They, too, have some distinctive mark on their heads which they most\nscrupulously observe, and by which they keep themselves apart from everyone\nelse, and have thus kept themselves during so many thousand years that they\nfar surpass all other nations in antiquity. (108) They have not always\nretained empire, but they have recovered it when lost, and doubtless will do\nso again after the spirit of the Tartars becomes relaxed through the luxury\nof riches and pride.\n\n(109) Lastly, if any one wishes to maintain that the Jews, from this or from\nany other cause, have been chosen by God for ever, I will not gainsay him if\nhe will admit that this choice, whether temporary or eternal, has no regard,\nin so far as it is peculiar to the Jews, to aught but dominion and physical\nadvantages (for by such alone can one nation be distinguished from\nanother), whereas in regard to intellect and true virtue, every nation is on\na par with the rest, and God has not in these respects chosen one people\nrather than another.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. - OF THE DIVINE LAW.\n\n(1) The word law, taken in the abstract, means that by which an individual,\nor all things, or as many things as belong to a particular species, act in\none and the same fixed and definite manner, which manner depends either on\nnatural necessity or on human decree. (2) A law which depends on natural\nnecessity is one which necessarily follows from the nature, or from the\ndefinition of the thing in question; a law which depends on human decree,\nand which is more correctly called an ordinance, is one which men have laid\ndown for themselves and others in order to live more safely or conveniently,\nor from some similar reason.\n\n(3) For example, the law that all bodies impinging on lesser bodies, lose as\nmuch of their own motion as they communicate to the latter is a universal\nlaw of all bodies, and depends on natural necessity. (4) So, too, the law\nthat a man in remembering one thing, straightway remembers another either\nlike it, or which he had perceived simultaneously with it, is a law which\nnecessarily follows from the nature of man. (5) But the law that men must\nyield, or be compelled to yield, somewhat of their natural right, and that\nthey bind themselves to live in a certain way, depends on human decree. (6)\nNow, though I freely admit that all things are predetermined by universal\nnatural laws to exist and operate in a given, fixed, and definite\nmanner, I still assert that the laws I have just mentioned depend on human\ndecree.\n\n(1.) (7) Because man, in so far as he is a part of nature, constitutes a\npart of the power of nature. (8) Whatever, therefore, follows necessarily\nfrom the necessity of human nature (that is, from nature herself, in so far\nas we conceive of her as acting through man) follows, even though it be\nnecessarily, from human power. (9) Hence the sanction of such laws may very\nwell be said to depend on man's decree, for it principally depends on the\npower of the human mind; so that the human mind in respect to its perception\nof things as true and false, can readily be conceived as without such laws,\nbut not without necessary law as we have just defined it.\n\n(2.) (10) I have stated that these laws depend on human decree because it is\nwell to define and explain things by their proximate causes. (11) The\ngeneral consideration of fate and the concatenation of causes would aid us\nvery little in forming and arranging our ideas concerning particular\nquestions. (12) Let us add that as to the actual coordination and\nconcatenation of things, that is how things are ordained and linked\ntogether, we are obviously ignorant; therefore, it is more profitable for\nright living, nay, it is necessary for us to consider things as contingent.\n(13) So much about law in the abstract.\n\n(14) Now the word law seems to be only applied to natural phenomena by\nanalogy, and is commonly taken to signify a command which men can either\nobey or neglect, inasmuch as it restrains human nature within certain\noriginally exceeded limits, and therefore lays down no rule beyond human\nstrength. (15) Thus it is expedient to define law more particularly as a\nplan of life laid down by man for himself or others with a certain object.\n\n(16) However, as the true object of legislation is only perceived by a few,\nand most men are almost incapable of grasping it, though they live under its\nconditions, legislators, with a view to exacting general obedience, have\nwisely put forward another object, very different from that which\nnecessarily follows from the nature of law: they promise to the observers of\nthe law that which the masses chiefly desire, and threaten its violators\nwith that which they chiefly fear: thus endeavouring to restrain the masses,\nas far as may be, like a horse with a curb; whence it follows that the word\nlaw is chiefly applied to the modes of life enjoined on men by the sway of\nothers; hence those who obey the law are said to live under it and to be\nunder compulsion. (17) In truth, a man who renders everyone their due\nbecause he fears the gallows, acts under the sway and compulsion of others,\nand cannot be called just. (18) But a man who does the same from a knowledge\nof the true reason for laws and their necessity, acts from a firm purpose\nand of his own accord, and is therefore properly called just. (19) This, I\ntake it, is Paul's meaning when he says, that those who live under the law\ncannot be justified through the law, for justice, as commonly defined, is\nthe constant and perpetual will to render every man his due. (20) Thus\nSolomon says (Prov. xxi:15), \"It is a joy to the just to do judgment,\" but\nthe wicked fear.\n\n(21) Law, then, being a plan of living which men have for a certain object\nlaid down for themselves or others, may, as it seems, be divided into human\nlaw and Divine law.\n\n(22) By human law I mean a plan of living which serves only to render life\nand the state secure. (23) By Divine law I mean that which only regards the\nhighest good, in other words, the true knowledge of God and love.\n\n(24) I call this law Divine because of the nature of the highest good, which\nI will here shortly explain as clearly as I can.\n\n(25) Inasmuch as the intellect is the best part of our being, it is evident\nthat we should make every effort to perfect it as far as possible if we\ndesire to search for what is really profitable to us. (26) For in\nintellectual perfection the highest good should consist. (27) Now, since all\nour knowledge, and the certainty which removes every doubt, depend solely on\nthe knowledge of God;- firstly, because without God nothing can exist or be\nconceived; secondly, because so long as we have no clear and distinct idea\nof God we may remain in universal doubt - it follows that our highest good\nand perfection also depend solely on the knowledge of God. (28) Further,\nsince without God nothing can exist or be conceived, it is evident that all\nnatural phenomena involve and express the conception of God as far as their\nessence and perfection extend, so that we have greater and more perfect\nknowledge of God in proportion to our knowledge of natural phenomena:\nconversely (since the knowledge of an effect through its cause is the same\nthing as the knowledge of a particular property of a cause) the greater our\nknowledge of natural phenomena, the more perfect is our knowledge of the\nessence of God (which is the cause of all things). (29) So, then, our\nhighest good not only depends on the knowledge of God, but wholly consists\ntherein; and it further follows that man is perfect or the reverse in\nproportion to the nature and perfection of the object of his special desire;\nhence the most perfect and the chief sharer in the highest blessedness is he\nwho prizes above all else, and takes especial delight in, the intellectual\nknowledge of God, the most perfect Being.\n\n(30) Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim -\nnamely, to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded by\nthis aim of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as the idea of him\nis in us, may be called the commands of God, because they proceed, as it\nwere, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists in our minds, and the plan of\nlife which has regard to this aim may be fitly called the law of God.\n\n(31) The nature of the means, and the plan of life which this aim demands,\nhow the foundations of the best states follow its lines, and how men's life\nis conducted, are questions pertaining to general ethics. (32) Here I only\nproceed to treat of the Divine law in a particular application.\n\n(33) As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the\nultimate end and aim of all human actions, it follows that he alone lives by\nthe Divine law who loves God not from fear of punishment, or from love of\nany other object, such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely\nbecause he has knowledge of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love\nof God is the highest good. (34) The sum and chief precept, then, of the\nDivine law is to love God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not\nfrom fear of any pains and penalties, or from the love of any other object\nin which we desire to take pleasure. (35) The idea of God lays down\nthe rule that God is our highest good - in other words, that the knowledge\nand love of God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions should be\ndirected. (36) The worldling cannot understand these things, they appear\nfoolishness to him, because he has too meager a knowledge of God, and also\nbecause in this highest good he can discover nothing which he can handle or\neat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he chiefly delights, for\nit consists solely in thought and the pure reason. (37) They, on the other\nhand, who know that they possess no greater gift than intellect and sound\nreason, will doubtless accept what I have said without question.\n\n(38) We have now explained that wherein the Divine law chiefly consists, and\nwhat are human laws, namely, all those which have a different aim\nunless they have been ratified by revelation, for in this respect also\nthings are referred to God (as we have shown above) and in this sense the\nlaw of Moses, although it was not universal, but entirely adapted to the\ndisposition and particular preservation of a single people, may yet be\ncalled a law of God or Divine law, inasmuch as we believe that it was\nratified by prophetic insight. (39) If we consider the nature of natural\nDivine law as we have just explained it, we shall see:\n\n(40) I.- That it is universal or common to all men, for we have deduced it\nfrom universal human nature.\n\n(41) II. That it does not depend on the truth of any historical narrative\nwhatsoever, for inasmuch as this natural Divine law is comprehended solely\nby the consideration of human nature, it is plain that we can conceive it as\nexisting as well in Adam as in any other man, as well in a man living among\nhis fellows, as in a man who lives by himself.\n\n(42) The truth of a historical narrative, however assured, cannot give us\nthe knowledge nor consequently the love of God, for love of God springs from\nknowledge of Him, and knowledge of Him should be derived from general ideas,\nin themselves certain and known, so that the truth of a historical narrative\nis very far from being a necessary requisite for our attaining our highest\ngood.\n\n(43) Still, though the truth of histories cannot give us the knowledge and\nlove of God, I do not deny that reading them is very useful with a view to\nlife in the world, for the more we have observed and known of men's customs\nand circumstances, which are best revealed by their actions, the more warily\nwe shall be able to order our lives among them, and so far as reason\ndictates to adapt our actions to their dispositions.\n\n(44) III. We see that this natural Divine law does not demand the\nperformance of ceremonies - that is, actions in themselves indifferent,\nwhich are called good from the fact of their institution, or actions\nsymbolizing something profitable for salvation, or (if one prefers this\ndefinition) actions of which the meaning surpasses human understanding. (45)\nThe natural light of reason does not demand anything which it is itself\nunable to supply, but only such as it can very clearly show to be good, or a\nmeans to our blessedness. (46) Such things as are good simply because they\nhave been commanded or instituted, or as being symbols of something good,\nare mere shadows which cannot be reckoned among actions that are the\noffsprings as it were, or fruit of a sound mind and of intellect. (47) There\nis no need for me to go into this now in more detail.\n\n(48) IV. Lastly, we see that the highest reward of the Divine law is the law\nitself, namely, to know God and to love Him of our free choice, and with an\nundivided and fruitful spirit; while its penalty is the absence of these\nthings, and being in bondage to the flesh - that is, having an inconstant\nand wavering spirit.\n\n(49) These points being noted, I must now inquire:\n\n(50) I. Whether by the natural light of reason we can conceive of\n        God as a law-giver or potentate ordaining laws for men?\n\n(51) II. What is the teaching of Holy Writ concerning this\n         natural light of reason and natural law?\n\n(52) III. With what objects were ceremonies formerly instituted?\n\n(53) IV. Lastly, what is the good gained by knowing the\n         sacred histories and believing them?\n\n(54) Of the first two I will treat in this chapter, of the remaining two\nin the following one.\n\n(55) Our conclusion about the first is easily deduced from the nature of\nGod's will, which is only distinguished from His understanding in relation\nto our intellect - that is, the will and the understanding of God are in\nreality one and the same, and are only distinguished in relation to\nour thoughts which we form concerning God's understanding. (56) For\ninstance, if we are only looking to the fact that the nature of a triangle\nis from eternity contained in the Divine nature as an eternal verity, we say\nthat God possesses the idea of a triangle, or that He understands the\nnature of a triangle; but if afterwards we look to the fact that the nature\nof a triangle is thus contained in the Divine nature, solely by the\nnecessity of the Divine nature, and not by the necessity of the nature and\nessence of a triangle - in fact, that the necessity of a triangle's essence\nand nature, in so far as they are conceived of as eternal verities, depends\nsolely on the necessity of the Divine nature and intellect, we then style\nGod's will or decree, that which before we styled His intellect. (57)\nWherefore we make one and the same affirmation concerning God when we say\nthat He has from eternity decreed that three angles of a triangle are equal\nto two right angles, as when we say that He has understood it.\n\n(58) Hence the affirmations and the negations of God always involve\nnecessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did\nnot wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have\ninvolved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and\nwould therefore have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the\nDivine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. (59) But\nsince Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to\nAdam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say\nthat God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should\neat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity\ncome to pass. (60) Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an\neternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by\ngain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed,\nbut solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the\nrevelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through\nhis lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and\npotentate. (61) From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the\nDecalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law, for since they knew not the\nexistence of God as an eternal truth, they must have taken as a law that\nwhich was revealed to them in the Decalogue, namely, that God exists, and\nthat God only should be worshipped. (62) But if God had spoken to them\nwithout the intervention of any bodily means, immediately they would have\nperceived it not as a law, but as an eternal truth.\n\n(63) What we have said about the Israelites and Adam, applies also to all\nthe prophets who wrote laws in God's name - they did not adequately conceive\nGod's decrees as eternal truths. (64) For instance, we must say of Moses\nthat from revelation, from the basis of what was revealed to him, he\nperceived the method by which the Israelitish nation could best be united in\na particular territory, and could form a body politic or state, and further\nthat he perceived the method by which that nation could best be constrained\nto obedience; but he did not perceive, nor was it revealed to him, that this\nmethod was absolutely the best, nor that the obedience of the people in a\ncertain strip of territory would necessarily imply the end he had in view.\n(65) Wherefore he perceived these things not as eternal truths, but as\nprecepts and ordinances, and he ordained them as laws of God, and thus it\ncame to be that he conceived God as a ruler, a legislator, a king, as\nmerciful, just, &c., whereas such qualities are simply attributes of human\nnature, and utterly alien from the nature of the Deity. (66)Thus much we may\naffirm of the prophets who wrote laws in the name of God; but we must not\naffirm it of Christ, for Christ, although He too seems to have written laws\nin the name of God, must be taken to have had a clear and adequate\nperception, for Christ was not so much a prophet as the mouthpiece of God.\n(67) For God made revelations to mankind through Christ as He had before\ndone through angels - that is, a created voice, visions, &c. (68) It would\nbe as unreasonable to say that God had accommodated his revelations to the\nopinions of Christ as that He had before accommodated them to the opinions\nof angels (that is, of a created voice or visions) as matters to be revealed\nto the prophets, a wholly absurd hypothesis. (69) Moreover, Christ was sent\nto teach not only the Jews but the whole human race, and therefore it was\nnot enough that His mind should be accommodated to the opinions the Jews\nalone, but also to the opinion and fundamental teaching common to the whole\nhuman race - in other words, to ideas universal and true. (70) Inasmuch as\nGod revealed Himself to Christ, or to Christ's mind immediately, and not as\nto the prophets through words and symbols, we must needs suppose that Christ\nperceived truly what was revealed, in other words, He understood it, for a\nmatter is understood when it is perceived simply by the mind without words\nor symbols.\n\n(71) Christ, then, perceived (truly and adequately) what was revealed, and\nif He ever proclaimed such revelations as laws, He did so because of the\nignorance and obstinacy of the people, acting in this respect the part of\nGod; inasmuch as He accommodated Himself to the comprehension of the\npeople, and though He spoke somewhat more clearly than the other prophets,\nyet He taught what was revealed obscurely, and generally through parables,\nespecially when He was speaking to those to whom it was not yet given to\nunderstand the kingdom of heaven. (See Matt. xiii:10, &c.) (72) To those to\nwhom it was given to understand the mysteries of heaven, He doubtless taught\nHis doctrines as eternal truths, and did not lay them down as laws, thus\nfreeing the minds of His hearers from the bondage of that law which He\nfurther confirmed and established. (73) Paul apparently points to this more\nthan once (e.g. Rom. vii:6, and iii:28), though he never himself seems to\nwish to speak openly, but, to quote his own words (Rom. iii:6, and vi:19),\n\"merely humanly.\" (74) This he expressly states when he calls God just, and\nit was doubtless in concession to human weakness that he attributes mercy,\ngrace, anger, and similar qualities to God, adapting his language to the\npopular mind, or, as he puts it (1 Cor. iii:1, 2), to carnal men. (75) In\nRom. ix:18, he teaches undisguisedly that God's auger and mercy depend not\non the actions of men, but on God's own nature or will; further, that no\none is justified by the works of the law, but only by faith, which he seems\nto identify with the full assent of the soul; lastly, that no one is blessed\nunless he have in him the mind of Christ (Rom. viii:9), whereby he perceives\nthe laws of God as eternal truths. (76) We conclude, therefore, that God is\ndescribed as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, &c., merely in\nconcession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular\nknowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the\nnecessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions\nare eternal truths, and always involve necessity. (77) So much for the first\npoint which I wished to explain and demonstrate.\n\n(78) Passing on to the second point, let us search the sacred pages for\ntheir teaching concerning the light of nature and this Divine law. (79) The\nfirst doctrine we find in the history of the first man, where it is narrated\nthat God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the\nknowledge of good and evil; this seems to mean that God commanded Adam to do\nand to seek after righteousness because it was good, not because the\ncontrary was evil: that is, to seek the good for its own sake, not from fear\nof evil. (80) We have seen that he who acts rightly from the true knowledge\nand love of right, acts with freedom and constancy, whereas he who acts from\nfear of evil, is under the constraint of evil, and acts in bondage under\nexternal control. (81) So that this commandment of God to Adam comprehends\nthe whole Divine natural law, and absolutely agrees with the dictates of the\nlight of nature; nay, it would be easy to explain on this basis the whole\nhistory or allegory of the first man. (82) But I prefer to pass over the\nsubject in silence, because, in the first place, I cannot be absolutely\ncertain that my explanation would be in accordance with the intention of the\nsacred writer; and, secondly, because many do not admit that this history is\nan allegory, maintaining it to be a simple narrative of facts. (83) It will\nbe better, therefore, to adduce other passages of Scripture, especially such\nas were written by him, who speaks with all the strength of his natural\nunderstanding, in which he surpassed all his contemporaries, and whose\nsayings are accepted by the people as of equal weight with\nthose of the prophets. (84) I mean Solomon, whose prudence and wisdom are\ncommended in Scripture rather than his piety and gift of prophecy. (85) Life\nbeing taken to mean the true life (as is evident from Deut. xxx:19), the\nfruit of the understanding consists only in the true life, and its\nabsence constitutes punishment. (86) All this absolutely agrees with what\nwas set out in our fourth point concerning natural law. (87) Moreover our\nposition that it is the well-spring of life, and that the intellect alone\nlays down laws for the wise, is plainly taught by, the sage, for he says\n(Prov. xiii:14): \"The law of the wise is a fountain of life\" - that is, as\nwe gather from the preceding text, the understanding. (88) In chap. iii:13,\nhe expressly teaches that the understanding renders man blessed and happy,\nand gives him true peace of mind. \"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and\nthe man that getteth understanding,\" for \"Wisdom gives length of days, and\nriches and honour; her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths\npeace\" (xiiii:6, 17). (89) According to Solomon, therefore, it is only,\nthe wise who live in peace and equanimity, not like the wicked whose minds\ndrift hither and thither, and (as Isaiah says, chap. lvii:20) \"are like the\ntroubled sea, for them there is no peace.\"\n\n(90) Lastly, we should especially note the passage in chap. ii. of Solomon's\nproverbs which most clearly confirms our contention: \"If thou criest after\nknowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding . . . then shalt thou\nunderstand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God; for the Lord\ngiveth wisdom; out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.\"\n(91) These words clearly enunciate (1), that wisdom or intellect alone\nteaches us to fear God wisely - that is, to worship Him truly; (2), that\nwisdom and knowledge flow from God's mouth, and that God bestows on us this\ngift; this we have already shown in proving that our understanding and our\nknowledge depend on, spring from, and are perfected by the idea or\nknowledge of God, and nothing else. (92) Solomon goes on to say in so many\nwords that this knowledge contains and involves the true principles of\nethics and politics: \"When wisdom entereth into thy heart, and knowledge is\npleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall\nkeep thee, then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and\nequity, yea every good path.\" (93) All of which is in obvious agreement with\nnatural knowledge: for after we have come to the understanding of things,\nand have tasted the excellence of knowledge, she teaches us ethics and true\nvirtue.\n\n(94) Thus the happiness and the peace of him who cultivates his natural\nunderstanding lies, according to Solomon also, not so much under the\ndominion of fortune (or God's external aid) as in inward personal virtue (or\nGod's internal aid), for the latter can to a great extent be preserved by\nvigilance, right action, and thought.\n\n(95) Lastly, we must by no means pass over the passage in Paul's Epistle to\nthe Romans, i:20, in which he says: \"For the invisible things of God from\nthe creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things\nthat are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without\nexcuse, because, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither\nwere they thankful.\" (96) These words clearly show that everyone can by the\nlight of nature clearly understand the goodness and the eternal divinity of\nGod, and can thence know and deduce what they should seek for and what\navoid; wherefore the Apostle says that they are without excuse and cannot\nplead ignorance, as they certainly might if it were a question of\nsupernatural light and the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ.\n(97) \"Wherefore,\" he goes on to say (ib. 24), \"God gave them up to\nuncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts;\" and so on, through the\nrest of the chapter, he describes the vices of ignorance, and sets them\nforth as the punishment of ignorance. (98) This obviously agrees with the\nverse of Solomon, already quoted, \"The instruction of fools is folly,\" so\nthat it is easy to understand why Paul says that the wicked are without\nexcuse. (99) As every man sows so shall he reap: out of evil, evils\nnecessarily spring, unless they be wisely counteracted.\n\n(100) Thus we see that Scripture literally approves of the light of natural\nreason and the natural Divine law, and I have fulfilled the promises made at\nthe beginning of this chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. - OF THE CEREMONIAL LAW.\n\n(1) In the foregoing chapter we have shown that the Divine law, which\nrenders men truly blessed, and teaches them the true life, is universal to\nall men; nay, we have so intimately deduced it from human nature that it\nmust be esteemed innate, and, as it were, ingrained in the human mind.\n\n(2) But with regard to the ceremonial observances which were ordained in the\nOld Testament for the Hebrews only, and were so adapted to their state that\nthey could for the most part only be observed by the society as a whole and\nnot by each individual, it is evident that they formed no part of the Divine\nlaw, and had nothing to do with blessedness and virtue, but had reference\nonly to the election of the Hebrews, that is (as I have shown in Chap. II.),\nto their temporal bodily happiness and the tranquillity of their kingdom,\nand that therefore they were only valid while that kingdom lasted. (3) If in\nthe Old Testament they are spoken of as the law of God, it is only because\nthey were founded on revelation, or a basis of revelation. (4) Still as\nreason, however sound, has little weight with ordinary theologians, I will\nadduce the authority of Scripture for what I here assert, and will further\nshow, for the sake of greater clearness, why and how these ceremonials\nserved to establish and preserve the Jewish kingdom. (5) Isaiah teaches most\nplainly that the Divine law in its strict sense signifies that universal law\nwhich consists in a true manner of life, and does not signify ceremonial\nobservances. (6) In chapter i:10, the prophet calls on his countrymen to\nhearken to the Divine law as he delivers it, and first excluding all kinds\nof sacrifices and all feasts, he at length sums up the law in these few\nwords, \"Cease to do evil, learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the\noppressed.\" (7) Not less striking testimony is given in Psalm xl:7- 9, where\nthe Psalmist addresses God: \"Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire;\nmine ears hast Thou opened; burnt offering and sin-offering hast Thou not\nrequired; I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my\nheart.\" (8) Here the Psalmist reckons as the law of God only that which is\ninscribed in his heart, and excludes ceremonies therefrom, for the latter\nare good and inscribed on the heart only from the fact of their institution,\nand not because of their intrinsic value.\n\n(9) Other passages of Scripture testify to the same truth, but these two\nwill suffice. (10) We may also learn from the Bible that ceremonies are no\naid to blessedness, but only have reference to the temporal prosperity of\nthe kingdom; for the rewards promised for their observance are\nmerely temporal advantages and delights, blessedness being reserved for the\nuniversal Divine law. (11) In all the five books commonly attributed to\nMoses nothing is promised, as I have said, beyond temporal benefits, such as\nhonours, fame, victories, riches, enjoyments, and health. (12) Though many\nmoral precepts besides ceremonies are contained in these five books, they\nappear not as moral doctrines universal to all men, but as commands\nespecially adapted to the understanding and character of the Hebrew people,\nand as having reference only to the welfare of the kingdom. (13) For\ninstance, Moses does not teach the Jews as a prophet not to kill or to\nsteal, but gives these commandments solely as a lawgiver and judge; he does\nnot reason out the doctrine, but affixes for its non-observance a penalty\nwhich may and very properly does vary in different nations. (14) So, too,\nthe command not to commit adultery is given merely with reference to the\nwelfare of the state; for if the moral doctrine had been intended, with\nreference not only to the welfare of the state, but also to the tranquillity\nand blessedness of the individual, Moses would have condemned not merely the\noutward act, but also the mental acquiescence, as is done by Christ, Who\ntaught only universal moral precepts, and for this cause promises a\nspiritual instead of a temporal reward. (15) Christ, as I have said, was\nsent into the world, not to preserve the state nor to lay down laws, but\nsolely to teach the universal moral law, so we can easily understand that He\nwished in nowise to do away with the law of Moses, inasmuch as He introduced\nno new laws of His own - His sole care was to teach moral doctrines, and\ndistinguish them from the laws of the state; for the Pharisees, in their\nignorance, thought that the observance of the state law and the Mosaic law\nwas the sum total of morality; whereas such laws merely had reference to the\npublic welfare, and aimed not so much at instructing the Jews as at keeping\nthem under constraint. (16) But let us return to our subject, and cite other\npassages of Scripture which set forth temporal benefits as rewards for\nobserving the ceremonial law, and blessedness as reward for the universal\nlaw.\n\n(17) None of the prophets puts the point more clearly than Isaiah. (18.)\nAfter condemning hypocrisy he commends liberty and charity towards one's\nself and one's neighbours, and promises as a reward: \"Then shall thy light\nbreak forth as the morning, and thy health shall spring forth speedily, thy\nrighteousness shall go before thee, and the glory of the Lord shall be thy\nreward\" (chap. lviii:8). (19) Shortly afterwards he commends the Sabbath,\nand for a due observance of it, promises: \"Then shalt thou delight thyself\nin the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the\nearth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of\nthe Lord has spoken it.\" (20) Thus the prophet for liberty bestowed, and\ncharitable works, promises a healthy mind in a healthy body, and the glory\nof the Lord even after death; whereas, for ceremonial exactitude, he only\npromises security of rule, prosperity, and temporal happiness.\n\n(21) In Psalms xv. and xxiv. no mention is made of ceremonies, but only of\nmoral doctrines, inasmuch as there is no question of anything but\nblessedness, and blessedness is symbolically promised: it is quite certain\nthat the expressions, \"the hill of God,\" and \"His tents and the dwellers\ntherein,\" refer to blessedness and security of soul, not to the actual mount\nof Jerusalem and the tabernacle of Moses, for these latter were not dwelt in\nby anyone, and only the sons of Levi ministered there. (22) Further, all\nthose sentences of Solomon to which I referred in the last chapter, for the\ncultivation of the intellect and wisdom, promise true blessedness, for by\nwisdom is the fear of God at length understood, and the knowledge of God\nfound.\n\n(23) That the Jews themselves were not bound to practise their ceremonial\nobservances after the destruction of their kingdom is evident from Jeremiah.\n(24) For when the prophet saw and foretold that the desolation of the city\nwas at hand, he said that God only delights in those who know and understand\nthat He exercises loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the\nearth, and that such persons only are worthy of praise. (Jer. ix:23.) (25)\nAs though God had said that, after the desolation of the city, He would\nrequire nothing special from the Jews beyond the natural law by which all\nmen are bound.\n\n(26) The New Testament also confirms this view, for only moral doctrines are\ntherein taught, and the kingdom of heaven is promised as a reward, whereas\nceremonial observances are not touched on by the Apostles, after they began\nto preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. (27) The Pharisees certainly continued\nto practise these rites after the destruction of the kingdom, but more with\na view of opposing the Christians than of pleasing God: for after the first\ndestruction of the city, when they were led captive to Babylon, not being\nthen, so far as I am aware, split up into sects, they straightway neglected\ntheir rites, bid farewell to the Mosaic law, buried their national customs\nin oblivion as being plainly superfluous, and began to mingle with other\nnations, as we may abundantly learn from Ezra and Nehemiah. (28) We cannot,\ntherefore, doubt that they were no more bound by the law of Moses, after the\ndestruction of their kingdom, than they had been before it had been begun,\nwhile they were still living among other peoples before the exodus from\nEgypt, and were subject to no special law beyond the natural law, and also,\ndoubtless, the law of the state in which they were living, in so far as it\nwas consonant with the Divine natural law.\n\n(29) As to the fact that the patriarchs offered sacrifices, I think they did\nso for the purpose of stimulating their piety, for their minds had been\naccustomed from childhood to the idea of sacrifice, which we know had been\nuniversal from the time of Enoch; and thus they found in sacrifice their\nmost powerful incentive. (30) The patriarchs, then, did not sacrifice to God\nat the bidding of a Divine right, or as taught by the basis of the Divine\nlaw, but simply in accordance with the custom of the time; and, if in so\ndoing they followed any ordinance, it was simply the ordinance of the\ncountry they were living in, by which (as we have seen before in the case of\nMelchisedek) they were bound.\n\n(31) I think that I have now given Scriptural authority for my view: it\nremains to show why and how the ceremonial observances tended to preserve\nand confirm the Hebrew kingdom; and this I can very briefly do on grounds\nuniversally accepted.\n\n(32) The formation of society serves not only for defensive purposes, but is\nalso very useful, and, indeed, absolutely necessary, as rendering possible\nthe division of labour. (33) If men did not render mutual assistance to each\nother, no one would have either the skill or the time to provide for his own\nsustenance and preservation: for all men are not equally apt for all work,\nand no one would be capable of preparing all that he individually stood in\nneed of. (34) Strength and time, I repeat, would fail, if every one had in\nperson to plough, to sow, to reap, to grind corn, to cook, to weave, to\nstitch, and perform the other numerous functions required to keep life\ngoing; to say nothing of the arts and sciences which are also entirely\nnecessary to the perfection and blessedness of human nature. (35) We see\nthat peoples living, in uncivilized barbarism lead a wretched and almost\nanimal life, and even they would not be able to acquire their few rude\nnecessaries without assisting one another to a certain extent.\n\n(36) Now if men were so constituted by nature that they desired nothing but\nwhat is designated by true reason, society would obviously have no need of\nlaws: it would be sufficient to inculcate true moral doctrines; and men\nwould freely, without hesitation, act in accordance with their true\ninterests. (37) But human nature is framed in a different fashion: every\none, indeed, seeks his own interest, but does not do so in accordance with\nthe dictates of sound reason, for most men's ideas of desirability and\nusefulness are guided by their fleshly instincts and emotions, which take no\nthought beyond the present and the immediate object. (38) Therefore, no\nsociety can exist without government, and force, and laws to restrain and\nrepress men's desires and immoderate impulses. (39) Still human nature will\nnot submit to absolute repression. (40) Violent governments, as Seneca says,\nnever last long; the moderate governments endure. (41) So long as men act\nsimply from fear they act contrary to their inclinations, taking no thought\nfor the advantages or necessity of their actions, but simply endeavouring to\nescape punishment or loss of life. (42) They must needs rejoice in any evil\nwhich befalls their ruler, even if it should involve themselves; and must\nlong for and bring about such evil by every means in their power. (43)\nAgain, men are especially intolerant of serving and being ruled by their\nequals. (44) Lastly, it is exceedingly difficult to revoke liberties once\ngranted.\n\n(45) From these considerations it follows, firstly, that authority should\neither be vested in the hands of the whole state in common, so that everyone\nshould be bound to serve, and yet not be in subjection to his equals; or\nelse, if power be in the hands of a few, or one man, that one man should be\nsomething above average humanity, or should strive to get himself accepted\nas such. (46) Secondly, laws should in every government be so arranged that\npeople should be kept in bounds by the hope of some greatly desired good,\nrather than by fear, for then everyone will do his duty willingly.\n\n(47) Lastly, as obedience consists in acting at the bidding of external\nauthority, it would have no place in a state where the government is vested\nin the whole people, and where laws are made by common consent. (48) In such\na society the people would remain free, whether the laws were added to or\ndiminished, inasmuch as it would not be done on external authority, but\ntheir own free consent. (49) The reverse happens when the sovereign power is\nvested in one man, for all act at his bidding; and, therefore, unless they\nhad been trained from the first to depend on the words of their ruler, the\nlatter would find it difficult, in case of need, to abrogate liberties once\nconceded, and impose new laws.\n\n(50) From these universal considerations, let us pass on to the kingdom of\nthe Jews. (51) The Jews when they first came out of Egypt were not bound by\nany national laws, and were therefore free to ratify any laws they liked, or\nto make new ones, and were at liberty to set up a government and occupy a\nterritory wherever they chose. (52) However, they, were entirely unfit\nto frame a wise code of laws and to keep the sovereign power vested in the\ncommunity; they were all uncultivated and sunk in a wretched slavery,\ntherefore the sovereignty was bound to remain vested in the hands of one man\nwho would rule the rest and keep them under constraint, make laws and\ninterpret them. (53) This sovereignty was easily retained by Moses,\nbecause he surpassed the rest in virtue and persuaded the people of the\nfact, proving it by many testimonies (see Exod. chap. xiv., last verse, and\nchap. xix:9). (54) He then, by the Divine virtue he possessed, made laws and\nordained them for the people, taking the greatest care that they should be\nobeyed willingly and not through fear, being specially induced to adopt this\ncourse by the obstinate nature of the Jews, who would not have submitted to\nbe ruled solely by constraint; and also by the imminence of war, for it is\nalways better to inspire soldiers with a thirst for glory than to terrify\nthem with threats; each man will then strive to distinguish himself\nby valour and courage, instead of merely trying to escape punishment. (55)\nMoses, therefore, by his virtue and the Divine command, introduced a\nreligion, so that the people might do their duty from devotion rather than\nfear. (56) Further, he bound them over by benefits, and prophesied\nmany advantages in the future; nor were his laws very severe, as anyone may\nsee for himself, especially if he remarks the number of circumstances\nnecessary in order to procure the conviction of an accused person.\n\n(57) Lastly, in order that the people which could not govern itself should\nbe entirely dependent on its ruler, he left nothing to the free choice of\nindividuals (who had hitherto been slaves); the people could do nothing but\nremember the law, and follow the ordinances laid down at the good pleasure\nof their ruler; they were not allowed to plough, to sow, to reap, nor even\nto eat; to clothe themselves, to shave, to rejoice, or in fact to do\nanything whatever as they liked, but were bound to follow the directions\ngiven in the law; and not only this, but they were obliged to have marks on\ntheir door-posts, on their hands, and between their eyes to admonish them to\nperpetual obedience.\n\n(58) This, then, was the object of the ceremonial law, that men should do\nnothing of their own free will, but should always act under external\nauthority, and should continually confess by their actions and thoughts that\nthey were not their own masters, but were entirely under the control of\nothers.\n\n(59) From all these considerations it is clearer than day that ceremonies\nhave nothing to do with a state of blessedness, and that those mentioned in\nthe Old Testament, i.e. the whole Mosaic Law, had reference merely to the\ngovernment of the Jews, and merely temporal advantages.\n\n(60) As for the Christian rites, such as baptism, the Lord's Supper,\nfestivals, public prayers, and any other observances which are, and always\nhave been, common to all Christendom, if they were instituted by Christ or\nHis Apostles (which is open to doubt), they were instituted as external\nsigns of the universal church, and not as having anything to do with\nblessedness, or possessing any sanctity in themselves. (61) Therefore,\nthough such ceremonies were not ordained for the sake of upholding a\ngovernment, they were ordained for the preservation of a society, and\naccordingly he who lives alone is not bound by them: nay, those who live in\na country where the Christian religion is forbidden, are bound to abstain\nfrom such rites, and can none the less live in a state of blessedness. (62)\nWe have an example of this in Japan, where the Christian religion is\nforbidden, and the Dutch who live there are enjoined by their East India\nCompany not to practise any outward rites of religion. (63) I need not cite\nother examples, though it would be easy to prove my point from the\nfundamental principles of the New Testament, and to adduce many confirmatory\ninstances; but I pass on the more willingly, as I am anxious to proceed to\nmy next proposition. (64) I will now, therefore, pass on to what I proposed\nto treat of in the second part of this chapter, namely, what persons are\nbound to believe in the narratives contained in Scripture, and how far they\nare so bound. (65) Examining this question by the aid of natural reason, I\nwill proceed as follows.\n\n(66) If anyone wishes to persuade his fellows for or against anything which\nis not self-evident, he must deduce his contention from their admissions,\nand convince them either by experience or by ratiocination; either by\nappealing to facts of natural experience, or to self-evident intellectual\naxioms. (67) Now unless the experience be of such a kind as to be clearly\nand distinctly understood, though it may convince a man, it will not have\nthe same effect on his mind and disperse the clouds of his doubt so\ncompletely as when the doctrine taught is deduced entirely from intellectual\naxioms - that is, by the mere power of the understanding and logical order,\nand this is especially the case in spiritual matters which have nothing to\ndo with the senses.\n\n(68) But the deduction of conclusions from general truths a priori, usually\nrequires a long chain of arguments, and, moreover, very great caution,\nacuteness, and self-restraint - qualities which are not often met with;\ntherefore people prefer to be taught by experience rather than deduce\ntheir conclusion from a few axioms, and set them out in logical order. (69)\nWhence it follows, that if anyone wishes to teach a doctrine to a whole\nnation (not to speak of the whole human race), and to be understood by all\nmen in every particular, he will seek to support his teaching with\nexperience, and will endeavour to suit his reasonings and the definitions of\nhis doctrines as far as possible to the understanding of the common people,\nwho form the majority of mankind, and he will not set them forth in logical\nsequence nor adduce the definitions which serve to establish them. (70)\nOtherwise he writes only for the learned - that is, he will be understood by\nonly a small proportion of the human race.\n\n(71) All Scripture was written primarily for an entire people, and\nsecondarily for the whole human race; therefore its contents must\nnecessarily be adapted as far as possible to the understanding of the\nmasses, and proved only by examples drawn from experience. (72) We will\nexplain ourselves more clearly. (73) The chief speculative doctrines taught\nin Scripture are the existence of God, or a Being Who made all things, and\nWho directs and sustains the world with consummate wisdom; furthermore, that\nGod takes the greatest thought for men, or such of them as live piously and\nhonourably, while He punishes, with various penalties, those who do\nevil, separating them from the good. (74) All this is proved in Scripture\nentirely through experience-that is, through the narratives there related.\n(75) No definitions of doctrine are given, but all the sayings and\nreasonings are adapted to the understanding of the masses. (76) Although\nexperience can give no clear knowledge of these things, nor explain the\nnature of God, nor how He directs and sustains all things, it can\nnevertheless teach and enlighten men sufficiently to impress obedience\nand devotion on their minds.\n\n(77) It is now, I think, sufficiently clear what persons are bound to\nbelieve in the Scripture narratives, and in what degree they are so bound,\nfor it evidently follows from what has been said that the knowledge of and\nbelief in them is particularly necessary to the masses whose intellect is\nnot capable of perceiving things clearly and distinctly. (78) Further, he\nwho denies them because he does not believe that God exists or takes thought\nfor men and the world, may be accounted impious; but a man who is ignorant\nof them, and nevertheless knows by natural reason that God exists, as we\nhave said, and has a true plan of life, is altogether blessed - yes, more\nblessed than the common herd of believers, because besides true opinions he\npossesses also a true and distinct conception. (79) Lastly, he who is\nignorant of the Scriptures and knows nothing by the light of reason, though\nhe may not be impious or rebellious, is yet less than human and almost\nbrutal, having none of God's gifts.\n\n(80) We must here remark that when we say that the knowledge of the sacred\nnarrative is particularly necessary to the masses, we do not mean the\nknowledge of absolutely all the narratives in the Bible, but only of the\nprincipal ones, those which, taken by themselves, plainly display the\ndoctrine we have just stated, and have most effect over men's minds.\n\n(81) If all the narratives in Scripture were necessary for the proof of this\ndoctrine, and if no conclusion could be drawn without the general\nconsideration of every one of the histories contained in the sacred\nwritings, truly the conclusion and demonstration of such doctrine would\novertask the understanding and strength not only of the masses, but of\nhumanity; who is there who could give attention to all the narratives at\nonce, and to all the circumstances, and all the scraps of doctrine to be\nelicited from such a host of diverse histories? (82) I cannot believe that\nthe men who have left us the Bible as we have it were so abounding in talent\nthat they attempted setting about such a method of demonstration, still less\ncan I suppose that we cannot understand Scriptural doctrine till we have\ngiven heed to the quarrels of Isaac, the advice of Achitophel to Absalom,\nthe civil war between Jews and Israelites, and other similar chronicles; nor\ncan I think that it was more difficult to teach such doctrine by means of\nhistory to the Jews of early times, the contemporaries of Moses, than it was\nto the contemporaries of Esdras. (83) But more will be said on this point\nhereafter, we may now only note that the masses are only bound to know those\nhistories which can most powerfully dispose their mind to obedience and\ndevotion. (84) However, the masses are not sufficiently skilled to draw\nconclusions from what they read, they take more delight in the actual\nstories, and in the strange and unlooked-for issues of events than in the\ndoctrines implied; therefore, besides reading these narratives, they are\nalways in need of pastors or church ministers to explain them to their\nfeeble intelligence.\n\n(85) But not to wander from our point, let us conclude with what has been\nour principal object - namely, that the truth of narratives, be they what\nthey may, has nothing to do with the Divine law, and serves for nothing\nexcept in respect of doctrine, the sole element which makes one history\nbetter than another. (86) The narratives in the Old and New Testaments\nsurpass profane history, and differ among themselves in merit simply by\nreason of the salutary doctrines which they inculcate. (87) Therefore, if a\nman were to read the Scripture narratives believing the whole of them, but\nwere to give no heed to the doctrines they contain, and make no amendment in\nhis life, he might employ himself just as profitably in reading the Koran\nor the poetic drama, or ordinary chronicles, with the attention usually\ngiven to such writings; on the other hand, if a man is absolutely ignorant\nof the Scriptures, and none the less has right opinions and a true\nplan of life, he is absolutely blessed and truly possesses in himself the\nspirit of Christ.\n\n(88) The Jews are of a directly contrary way of thinking, for they hold that\ntrue opinions and a true plan of life are of no service in attaining\nblessedness, if their possessors have arrived at them by the light of reason\nonly, and not like the documents prophetically revealed to Moses. (89)\nMaimonides ventures openly to make this assertion: \"Every man who takes to\nheart the seven precepts and diligently follows them, is counted with the\npious among the nation, and an heir of the world to come; that is to say, if\nhe takes to heart and follows them because God ordained them in the law, and\nrevealed them to us by Moses, because they were of aforetime precepts to the\nsons of Noah: but he who follows them as led thereto by reason, is not\ncounted as a dweller among the pious or among the wise of the nations.\" (90)\nSuch are the words Of Maimonides, to which R. Joseph, the son of Shem Job,\nadds in his book which he calls \"Kebod Elohim, or God's Glory,\" that\nalthough Aristotle (whom he considers to have written the best ethics and to\nbe above everyone else) has not omitted anything that concerns\ntrue ethics, and which he has adopted in his own book, carefully following\nthe lines laid down, yet this was not able to suffice for his salvation,\ninasmuch as he embraced his doctrines in accordance with the dictates of\nreason and not as Divine documents prophetically revealed.\n\n(91) However, that these are mere figments, and are not supported by\nScriptural authority will, I think, be sufficiently evident to the attentive\nreader, so that an examination of the theory will be sufficient for its\nrefutation. (92) It is not my purpose here to refute the assertions of those\nwho assert that the natural light of reason can teach nothing, of any value\nconcerning the true way of salvation. (93) People who lay no claims to\nreason for themselves, are not able to prove by reason this their assertion;\nand if they hawk about something superior to reason, it is a mere figment,\nand far below reason, as their general method of life sufficiently shows.\n(94) But there is no need to dwell upon such persons. (95) I will merely add\nthat we can only judge of a man by his works. (96) If a man abounds in the\nfruits of the Spirit, charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness,\ngoodness, faith, gentleness, chastity, against which, as Paul says\n(Gal. v:22), there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason\nonly or by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by God, and is\naltogether blessed. (97) Thus have I said all that I undertook to say\nconcerning Divine law.\n\nEnd of Part 1\n\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S ENDNOTES TO THE THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE\n\nCHAPTERS I to V\n\nChapter I\n\nEndnote 1. (1) The word _nabi_ is rightly interpreted by Rabbi Salomon\nJarchi, but the sense is hardly caught by Aben Ezra, who was not so\ngood a Hebraist. (2) We must also remark that this Hebrew word for\nprophecy has a universal meaning and embraces all kinds of prophecy.\n(3) Other terms are more special, and denote this or that sort of\nprophecy, as I believe is well known to the learned.\n\nEndnote 2. (1) \"Although, ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors\ncannot be called prophets.\" That is, interpreters of God. (2) For he alone\nis an interpreter of God, who interprets the decrees which God has revealed\nto him, to others who have not received such revelation, and whose belief,\ntherefore, rests merely on the prophet's authority and the confidence\nreposed in him. (3) If it were otherwise, and all who listen to prophets\nbecame prophets themselves, as all who listen to philosophers become\nphilosophers, a prophet would no longer be the interpreter of Divine\ndecrees, inasmuch as his hearers would know the truth, not on the authority\nof the prophet, but by means of actual Divine revelation and inward\ntestimony. (4) Thus the sovereign powers are the interpreters of their own\nrights of sway, because these are defended only by their authority and\nsupported by their testimony.\n\nEndnote 3. (1) \"Prophets were endowed with a peculiar and\nextraordinary power.\" (2) Though some men enjoy gifts which nature has not\nbestowed on their fellows, they are not said to surpass the bounds of human\nnature, unless their special qualities are such as cannot be said to be\ndeducible from the definition of human nature. (3) For instance, a giant is\na rarity, but still human. (4) The gift of composing poetry extempore is\ngiven to very few, yet it is human. (5) The same may, therefore, be said of\nthe faculty possessed by some of imagining things as vividly as though they\nsaw them before them, and this not while asleep, but while awake. (6) But if\nanyone could be found who possessed other means and other foundations for\nknowledge, he might be said to transcend the limits of human nature.\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nEndnote 4. (1) In Gen. xv. it is written that God promised Abraham to\nprotect him, and to grant him ample rewards. (2) Abraham answered that he\ncould expect nothing which could be of any value to him, as he was childless\nand well stricken in years.\n\nEndnote 5. (1) That a keeping of the commandments of the old Testament\nis not sufficient for eternal life, appears from Mark x:21.\n\n\nEnd of Endnotes to PART I","title":"Theologico-Political Treatise \u2014 Part 1","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":31033}