A Theologico-Political Treatise Pt 1
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

A THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE

Part 1 of 4 - Chapters I to V

Published 1670 anonymously

Baruch Spinoza

1632 - 1677

JBY Notes:

1. Text was scanned from Benedict de Spinoza's

"A Theologico-Political Treatise", and "A Political

Treatise" as published in Dover's ISBN 0-486-20249-6.

2. The text is that of the translation of "A Theologico-Political

Treatise" by R. H. M. Elwes. This text is "an unabridged and
unaltered republication of the Bohn Library edition originally
published by George Bell and Sons in 1883."

3. JBY added sentence numbers and search strings.

4. Sentence numbers are shown thus (yy:xx).

yy = Chapter Number when given.

xx = Sentence Number.

5. Search strings are enclosed in [square brackets]:

a. Roman numeral, when given before a search string,

indicates Part Number. If a different Part, bring

up that Part and then search.

b. Include square brackets in search string.

c. Do not include Part Number in search string.

d. Search Down with the same string to facilitate return.

6. Please report any errors in the text, search formatting,
or sentence numbering to jyselman@erols.com.

7. HTML version:

Part 1 - http://www.erols.com/jyselman/ttpelws1.htm

[P:0] Preface

[1:0] Chapter I

[2:0] Chapter II

[3:0] Chapter III

[4:0] Chapter IV

[5:0] Chapter V

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Search strings are shown thus [*:x].

Search forward and back with the same string.

Include square brackets in search string.

[P:0] PREFACE.

[P:1] Origin and consequences of superstition.

[P:2] Causes that have led the author to write.

[P:3] Course of his investigation.

[P:4] For what readers the treatise is designed.

Submission of author to the rulers of his country.

[1:0] CHAPTER I - Of Prophecy.

[1:1] Definition of prophecy.

[1:2] Distinction between revelation to Moses and

to the other prophets.

[1:3] Between Christ and other recipients of

revelation.

[1:4] Ambiguity of the word "Spirit."

[1:5] The different senses in which things may

be referred to God.

[1:6] Different senses of "Spirit of God."

[1:7] Prophets perceived revelation by imagination.

[2:0] CHAPTER II - Of Prophets.

[2:1] A mistake to suppose that prophecy can give

knowledge of phenomena.

[2:2] Certainty of prophecy based on:

(1) Vividness of imagination,

(2) A Sign,

(3) Goodness of the Prophet.

[2:3] Variation of prophecy with the temperament and

opinions of the individual.

[3:0] CHAPTER III - Of the Vocation of the Hebrews, and

whether the Gift of Prophecy was peculiar to them.

[3:1] Happiness of Hebrews did not consist in the

inferiority of the Gentile.

[3:2] Nor in philosophic knowledge or virtue.

[3:3] But in their conduct of affairs of state and

escape from political dangers.

[3:4] Even this Distinction did not exist in the

time of Abraham.

[3:5] Testimony from the Old Testament itself to

the share of the Gentiles in the law and

favour of God.

[3:6] Explanation of apparent discrepancy of the

Epistle to the Romans.

[3:7] Answer to the arguments for the eternal

election of the Jews.

[4:0] CHAPTER IV - Of the Divine Law.

[4:1] Laws either depend on natural necessity or on

human decree. The existence of the latter not

inconsistent with the former class of laws.

[4:2] Divine law a kind of law founded on human decree:

called Divine from its object.

[4:3] Divine law:

(1) universal;

(2) independent of the truth of any historical narrative;

(3) independent of rites and ceremonies;

(4) its own reward.

[4:4] Reason does not present God as a law-giver for men.

[4:5] Such a conception a proof of ignorance - in Adam -

in the Israelites - in Christians.

[4:6] Testimony of the Scriptures in favour of reason and

the rational view of the Divine.

[5:0] CHAPTER V. - Of the Ceremonial Law.

[5:1] Ceremonial law of the Old Testament no

part of the Divine universal law, but

partial and temporary. Testimony of the

prophets themselves to this.

[5:2] Testimony of the New Testament.

[5:3] How the ceremonial law tended to

preserve the Hebrew kingdom.

[5:4] Christian rites on a similar footing.

[5:5] What part of the Scripture narratives

is one bound to believe?

[Author's Endnotes] to the Treatise.

[P:0] PREFACE.

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

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

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

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

[P:1] (P:13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear
reason for the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though
some refer its rise to a dim notion of God, universal to mankind,
and also tends to show, that it is no less inconsistent and
variable than other mental hallucinations and emotional impulses,
and further that it can only be maintained by hope, hatred, anger,
and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely from the
more powerful phases of emotion. (P:14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men
prone to every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind
remains always at about the same pitch of misery, it never assents
long to any one remedy, but is always best pleased by a novelty
which has not yet proved illusive.

(P:16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many
terrible wars and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says

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

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

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

[P:2] (21) Such is the chief conclusion I seek to establish
in this treatise; but, in order to reach it, I must first
point out the misconceptions which, like scars of our former
bondage, still disfigure our notion of religion, and must
expose the false views about the civil authority which many
have most impudently advocated, endeavouring to turn the
mind of the people, still prone to heathen superstition,
away from its legitimate rulers, and so bring us again into
slavery. (P:22) As to the order of my treatise I will speak
presently, but first I will recount the causes which led me
to write.

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

to possess light from on High. (30) Verily, if they had but one
spark of light from on High, they would not insolently rave, but
would learn to worship God more wisely, and would be as marked
among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if they
were concerned for their opponents' souls, instead of for their own
reputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be
filled with pity and compassion.

(P:31) Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would
appear from their doctrine. (32) I grant that they are never
tired of professing their wonder at the profound mysteries of

Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that they teach anything
but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to which (in
order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy

Writ conform; not content to rave with the Greeks themselves,
they want to make the prophets rave also; showing conclusively,
that never even in sleep have they caught a glimpse of Scripture's

Divine nature. (P:33) The very vehemence of their admiration for
the mysteries plainly attests, that their belief in the Bible is a
formal assent rather than a living faith: and the fact is made
still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a
foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture,
the principle that it is in every passage true and divine.

(34) Such a doctrine should be reached only after strict scrutiny
and thorough comprehension of the Sacred Books (which would teach
it much better, for they stand in need no human factions), and
not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.

[P:3] (35) As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason
is not only despised, but by many even execrated as a source of
impiety, that human commentaries are accepted as divine records,
and that credulity is extolled as faith; as I marked the fierce
controversies of philosophers raging in Church and State, the
source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready instruments
of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine
the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit,
making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no
doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down.

(36) With these precautions I constructed a method of Scriptural
interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to inquire - what
is prophecy? (37) In what sense did God reveal himself to the
prophets, and why were these particular men - chosen by him?

(P:38) Was it on account of the sublimity of their thoughts about
the Deity and nature, or was it solely on account of their piety?

(39) These questions being answered, I was easily able to conclude,
that the authority of the prophets has weight only in matters of
morality, and that their speculative doctrines affect us little.

(P:40) Next I inquired, why the Hebrews were called God's chosen
people, and discovering that it was only because God had chosen
for them a certain strip of territory, where they might live
peaceably and at ease, I learnt that the Law revealed by God to

Moses was merely the law of the individual Hebrew state, therefore
that it was binding on none but Hebrews, and not even on Hebrews
after the downfall of their nation. (P:41) Further, in order to
ascertain, whether it could be concluded from Scripture, that
the human understanding standing is naturally corrupt, I inquired
whether the Universal Religion, the Divine Law revealed through
the Prophets and Apostles to the whole human race, differs from
that which is taught by the light of natural reason, whether
miracles can take place in violation of the laws of nature, and
if so, whether they imply the existence of God more surely and
clearly than events, which we understand plainly and distinctly
through their immediate natural causes.

(P:42) Now, as in the whole course of my investigation I found
nothing taught expressly by Scripture, which does not agree with
our understanding, or which is repugnant thereto, and as I saw
that the prophets taught nothing, which is not very simple and
easily to be grasped by all, and further, that they clothed
their leaching in the style, and confirmed it with the reasons,
which would most deeply move the mind of the masses to devotion
towards God, I became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible
leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with
philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on
different footings. In order to set this forth categorically and
exhaust the whole question, I point out the way in which the Bible
should be interpreted, and show that all of spiritual questions
should be sought from it alone, and not from the objects of
ordinary knowledge. (P:43) Thence I pass on to indicate the
false notions, which have from the fact that the multitude -
ever prone to superstition, and caring more for the shreds of
antiquity for eternal truths - pays homage to the Books of the

Bible, rather than to the Word of God. (P:44) I show that the

Word of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books,
was displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the mind,
namely, obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the
practice of justice and charity; and I further point out, that
this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in accordance with the
opinions and understandings of those, among whom the Apostles
and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it
willingly, and with their whole heart.

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

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

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

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

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

[P:4] (52) Such, Philosophical Reader, are the questions I submit
to your notice, counting on your approval, for the subject matter
of the whole book and of the several chapters is important and
profitable. (53) I would say more, but I do not want my preface
to extend to a volume, especially as I know that its leading
propositions are to Philosophers but commonplaces. (54) To the
rest of mankind I care not to commend my treatise, for I cannot
expect that it contains anything to please them: I know how deeply
rooted are the prejudices embraced under the name of religion;

I am aware that in the mind of the masses superstition is no less
deeply rooted than fear; I recognize that their constancy is mere
obstinacy, and that they are led to praise or blame by impulse
rather than reason. (P:55) Therefore the multitude, and those of
like passions with the multitude, I ask not to read my book; nay,

I would rather that they should utterly neglect it, than that they
should misinterpret it after their wont. (56) They would gain no
good themselves, and might prove a stumbling-block to others, whose
philosophy is hampered by the belief that Reason is a mere handmaid
to Theology, and whom I seek in this work especially to benefit.

(P:57) But as there will be many who have neither the leisure, nor,
perhaps, the inclination to read through all I have written, I feel
bound here, as at the end of my treatise, to declare that I have
written nothing, which I do not most willingly submit to the
examination and judgment of my country's rulers, and that I am ready
to retract anything, which they shall decide to be repugnant to the
laws or prejudicial to the public good. (58) I know that I am a man
and, as a man, liable to error, but against error I have taken
scrupulous care, and striven to keep in entire accordance with the
laws of my country, with loyalty, and with morality.

[1:0] CHAPTER I. - Of Prophecy

[1:1] (1) Prophecy, or revelation is sure knowledge revealed by

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

(1:3) The Hebrew word for prophet is "naw-vee'", Strong:5030,

[Endnote 1] i.e. speaker or interpreter, but in Scripture its
meaning is restricted to interpreter of God, as we may learn
from Exodus vii:1, where God says to Moses, "See, I have made
thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy
prophet;" implying that, since in interpreting Moses' words to

Pharaoh, Aaron acted the part of a prophet, Moses would be to

Pharaoh as a god, or in the attitude of a god.

(1:4) Prophets I will treat of in the next chapter, and at
present consider prophecy.

(1:5) Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that
prophecy really includes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge
which we acquire by our natural faculties depends on knowledge
of God and His eternal laws; but ordinary knowledge is common
to all men as men, and rests on foundations which all share,
whereas the multitude always strains after rarities and
exceptions, and thinks little of the gifts of nature; so that,
when prophecy is talked of, ordinary knowledge is not supposed
to be included. (1:6) Nevertheless it has as much right as any
other to be called Divine, for God's nature, in so far as we
share therein, and God's laws, dictate it to us; nor does it
suffer from that to which we give the preeminence, except in so
far as the latter transcends its limits and cannot be accounted
for by natural laws taken in themselves. (7) In respect to the
certainty it involves, and the source from which it is derived,
i.e. God, ordinary knowledge is no whit inferior to prophetic,
unless indeed we believe, or rather dream, that the prophets had
human bodies but superhuman minds, and therefore that their
sensations and consciousness were entirely different from our own.

(1:8) But, although ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors
cannot be called prophets [Endnote 2] , for they teach what the
rest of mankind could perceive and apprehend, not merely by
simple faith, but as surely and honourably as themselves.

(1:9) Seeing then that our mind subjectively contains in itself
and partakes of the nature of God, and solely from this cause is
enabled to form notions explaining natural phenomena and
inculcating morality, it follows that we may rightly assert the
nature of the human mind (in so far as it is thus conceived) to
be a primary cause of Divine revelation. (1:10) All that we
clearly and distinctly understand is dictated to us, as I have
just pointed out, by the idea and nature of God; not indeed
through words, but in a way far more excellent and agreeing
perfectly with the nature of the mind, as all who have enjoyed
intellectual certainty will doubtless attest. (11) Here,
however, my chief purpose is to speak of matters having
reference to Scripture, so these few words on the light
of reason will suffice.

(1:12) I will now pass on to, and treat more fully, the other
ways and means by which God makes revelations to mankind, both
of that which transcends ordinary knowledge, and of that within
its scope; for there is no reason why God should not employ
other means to communicate what we know already by the power
of reason.

(1:13) Our conclusions on the subject must be drawn solely from

Scripture; for what can we affirm about matters transcending
our knowledge except what is told us by the words or writings
of prophets? (14) And since there are, so far as I know, no
prophets now alive, we have no alternative but to read the books
of prophets departed, taking care the while not to reason from
metaphor or to ascribe anything to our authors which they do
not themselves distinctly state. (15) I must further premise
that the Jews never make any mention or account of secondary,
or particular causes, but in a spirit of religion, piety, and
what is commonly called godliness, refer all things directly
to the Deity. (1:16) For instance if they make money by a
transaction, they say God gave it to them; if they desire
anything, they say God has disposed their hearts towards it;
if they think anything, they say God told them. (17) Hence we
must not suppose that everything is prophecy or revelation
which is described in Scripture as told by God to anyone, but
only such things as are expressly announced as prophecy or
revelation, or are plainly pointed to as such by the context.

(1:18) A perusal of the sacred books will show us that all God's
revelations to the prophets were made through words or appearances,
or a combination of the two. (19) These words and appearances
were of two kinds;

1.- real when external to the mind of the prophet

who heard or saw them,

2.- imaginary when the imagination of the prophet

was in a state which led him distinctly to

suppose that he heard or saw them.

(1:20) With a real voice God revealed to Moses the laws which

He wished to be transmitted to the Hebrews, as we may see from

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

(1:22) We might, perhaps, suppose that the voice with which God
called Samuel was real, for in 1 Sam. iii:21, we read, "And the

Lord appeared again in Shiloh, for the Lord revealed Himself to

Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord;" implying that the
appearance of the Lord consisted in His making Himself known to

Samuel through a voice; in other words, that Samuel heard the

Lord speaking. [1:2] (23) But we are compelled to distinguish
between the prophecies of Moses and those of other prophets,
and therefore must decide that this voice was imaginary, a
conclusion further supported by the voice's resemblance to the
voice of Eli, which Samuel was in the habit of hearing, and
therefore might easily imagine; when thrice called by the Lord,

Samuel supposed it to have been Eli.

(1:24) The voice which Abimelech heard was imaginary, for it is
written, Gen. xx:6, "And God said unto him in a dream." (25) So
that the will of God was manifest to him, not in waking, but only
in sleep, that is, when the imagination is most active and
uncontrolled. (1:26) Some of the Jews believe that the actual
words of the Decalogue were not spoken by God, but that the

Israelites heard a noise only, without any distinct words, and
during its continuance apprehended the Ten Commandments by pure
intuition; to this opinion I myself once inclined, seeing that
the words of the Decalogue in Exodus are different from the words
of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, for the discrepancy seemed to
imply (since God only spoke once) that the Ten Commandments were
not intended to convey the actual words of the Lord, but only His
meaning. (1:27) However, unless we would do violence to Scripture,
we must certainly admit that the Israelites heard a real voice, for

Scripture expressly says, Deut. v:4, "God spake with you face to
face," i.e. as two men ordinarily interchange ideas through the
instrumentality of their two bodies; and therefore it seems more
consonant with Holy Writ to suppose that God really did create a
voice of some kind with which the Decalogue was revealed. (28) The
discrepancy of the two versions is treated of in Chap. VIII.

(1:29) Yet not even thus is all difficulty removed, for it seems
scarcely reasonable to affirm that a created thing, depending on

God in the same manner as other created things, would be able to
express or explain the nature of God either verbally or really by
means of its individual organism: for instance, by declaring in
the first person, "I am the Lord your God."

(1:30) Certainly when anyone says with his mouth, "I understand,"

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

(1:32) Scripture seems clearly to point to the belief that God spoke

Himself, having descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for the purpose -
and not only that the Israelites heard Him speaking, but that their
chief men beheld Him (Ex:xxiv.) (1:33) Further the law of Moses, which
might neither be added to nor curtailed, and which was set up as a
national standard of right, nowhere prescribed the belief that God
is without body, or even without form or figure, but only ordained that
the Jews should believe in His existence and worship Him alone: it
forbade them to invent or fashion any likeness of the Deity, but this
was to insure purity of service; because, never having seen God, they
could not by means of images recall the likeness of God, but only the
likeness of some created thing which might thus gradually take the
place of God as the object of their adoration. (34) Nevertheless,
the Bible clearly implies that God has a form, and that Moses when he
heard God speaking was permitted to behold it, or at least its hinder
parts.

(1:35) Doubtless some mystery lurks in this question which we will
discuss more fully below. (36) For the present I will call attention
to the passages in Scripture indicating the means by which God has
revealed His laws to man.

(1:37) Revelation may be through figures only, as in I Chron:xxii.,
where God displays his anger to David by means of an angel bearing
a sword, and also in the story of Balaam.

(1:38) Maimonides and others do indeed maintain that these and
every other instance of angelic apparitions (e.g. to Manoah and
to Abraham offering up Isaac) occurred during sleep, for that
no one with his eyes open ever could see an angel, but this is
mere nonsense. (39) The sole object of such commentators seems
to be to extort from Scripture confirmations of Aristotelian
quibbles and their own inventions, a proceeding which I regard
as the acme of absurdity.

(1:40) In figures, not real but existing only in the prophet's
imagination, God revealed to Joseph his future lordship, and in
words and figures He revealed to Joshua that He would fight for
the Hebrews, causing to appear an angel, as it were the Captain
of the Lord's host, bearing a sword, and by this means
communicating verbally. (41) The forsaking of Israel by

Providence was portrayed to Isaiah by a vision of the Lord,
the thrice Holy, sitting on a very lofty throne, and the Hebrews,
stained with the mire of their sins, sunk as it were in
uncleanness, and thus as far as possible distant from God.

(42) The wretchedness of the people at the time was thus revealed,
while future calamities were foretold in words. (42a) I could
cite from Holy Writ many similar examples, but I think they are
sufficiently well known already.

(1:43) However, we get a still more clear confirmation of our
position in Num xii:6,7, as follows: "If there be any prophet
among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision"

(i.e. by appearances and signs, for God says of the prophecy of

Moses that it was a vision without signs), "and will speak unto
him in a dream " (i.e. not with actual words and an actual voice).

(1:44) "My servant Moses is not so; with him will I speak mouth to
mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the
similitude of the Lord he shall behold," i.e. looking on me as
a friend and not afraid, he speaks with me (cf. Ex xxxiii:17).

(1:45) This makes it indisputable that the other prophets did not
hear a real voice, and we gather as much from Deut. xxiv:10:

"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses
whom the Lord knew face to face," which must mean that the Lord
spoke with none other; for not even Moses saw the Lord's face.

(1:46) These are the only media of communication between God and
man which I find mentioned in Scripture, and therefore the only
ones which may be supposed or invented. (47) We may be able quite
to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for
without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our
minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition
comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible
from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily
possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do

I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. (1:48) To Him
the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed
directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself
to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to

Moses through the supernatural voice. (49) In this sense the voice
of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice
of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (,i.e. wisdom
more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that

Christ was the way of salvation. (1:50) I must at this juncture
declare that those doctrines which certain churches put forward
concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor deny, for I freely confess
that I do not understand them. (1:51) What I have just stated I
gather from Scripture, where I never read that God appeared to

Christ, or spoke to Christ, but that God was revealed to the

Apostles through Christ; that Christ was the Way of Life, and
that the old law was given through an angel, and not immediately
by God; whence it follows that if Moses spoke with God face to
face as a man speaks with his friend (i.e. by means of their two
bodies) Christ communed with God mind to mind.

[1:3] (52) Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received
the revelations of God without the aid of imagination, whether in
words or vision. (53) Therefore the power of prophecy implies not
a peculiarly perfect mind, but a peculiarly vivid imagination, as

I will show more clearly in the next chapter. [1:4] (54) We will
now inquire what is meant in the Bible by the Spirit of God
breathed into the prophets, or by the prophets speaking with
the Spirit of God; to that end we must determine the exact
signification of the Hebrew word roo'-akh, Strong:7307, commonly
translated spirit.

(1:55) The word roo'-akh, Strong:7307, literally means a wind,
e.g. the south wind, but it is frequently employed in other
derivative significations.

It is used as equivalent to,

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

Ps. cxxxv:17.

(57) (2.) Life, or breathing: "And his spirit returned to him"

1 Sam. xxx:12; i.e. he breathed again.

(58) (3.) Courage and strength: "Neither did there remain any

more spirit in any man," Josh. ii:11; "And the spirit

entered into me, and made me stand on my feet," Ezek. ii:2.

(59) (4.) Virtue and fitness: "Days should speak, and multitudes

of years should teach wisdom; but there is a spirit in

man,"Job xxxii:7; i.e. wisdom is not always found among

old men for I now discover that it depends on individual

virtue and capacity. So, "A man in whom is the Spirit,"

Numbers xxvii:18.

(1:60)(5) Habit of mind: "Because he had another spirit with him,"

Numbers xiv:24; i.e. another habit of mind. "Behold I

will pour out My Spirit unto you," Prov. i:23.

(61) (6.) Will, purpose, desire, impulse: "Whither the spirit was

to go, they went," Ezek. 1:12; "That cover with a covering,

but not of My Spirit," Is. xxx:1; "For the Lord hath

poured out on you the spirit of deep sleep," Is. xxix:10;

"Then was their spirit softened," Judges viii:3; "He that

ruleth his spirit, is better than he that taketh a city,"

Prov. xvi:32; "He that hath no rule over his own spirit,"

Prov. xxv:28; "Your spirit as fire shall devour you,"

Isaiah xxxiii:l.

From the meaning of disposition we get -

(1:62)(7) Passions and faculties. A lofty spirit means pride, a

lowly spirit humility, an evil spirit hatred and

melancholy. So, too, the expressions spirits of

jealousy, fornication, wisdom, counsel, bravery, stand

for a jealous, lascivious, wise, prudent, or brave mind

(for we Hebrews use substantives in preference to

adjectives), for these various qualities.

(63) (8.) The mind itself, or the life: "Yea, they have all one

spirit," Eccles. iii:19 "The spirit shall return to God

Who gave it."

(64) (9.) The quarters of the world (from the winds which blow

thence), or even the side of anything turned towards a

particular quarter - Ezek. xxxvii:9; xlii:16, 17, 18, 19, &c.

[1:5] (65) I have already alluded to the way in which things are

referred to God, and said to be of God.

(66) (1.) As belonging to His nature, and being, as it were,

part of Him; e.g. the power of God, the eyes of God.

(67) (2.) As under His dominion, and depending on His pleasure;

thus the heavens are called the heavens of the Lord,

as being His chariot and habitation. So Nebuchadnezzar is

called the servant of God, Assyria the scourge of God, &c.

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

of God, the Bread of God.

(69) (4.) As revealed through the prophets and not through our

natural faculties. In this sense the Mosaic law is

called the law of God.

(70) (5.) As being in the superlative degree. Very high mountains

are styled the mountains of God, a very deep sleep, the

sleep of God, &c. In this sense we must explain Amos iv:11:

"I have overthrown you as the overthrow of the Lord came

upon Sodom and Gomorrah," i.e. that memorable overthrow,

for since God Himself is the Speaker, the passage cannot

well be taken otherwise. The wisdom of Solomon is called

the wisdom of God, or extraordinary. The size of the cedars

of Lebanon is alluded to in the Psalmist's expression,

"the cedars of the Lord."

(1:71) Similarly, if the Jews were at a loss to understand any
phenomenon, or were ignorant of its cause, they referred it to

God. (72) Thus a storm was termed the chiding of God, thunder
and lightning the arrows of God, for it was thought that God
kept the winds confined in caves, His treasuries; thus differing
merely in name from the Greek wind-god Eolus. (73) In like manner
miracles were called works of God, as being especially marvellous;
though in reality, of course, all natural events are the works of

God, and take place solely by His power. (74) The Psalmist calls
the miracles in Egypt the works of God, because the Hebrews found
in them a way of safety which they had not looked for, and
therefore especially marvelled at.

(1:75) As, then, unusual natural phenomena are called works of

God, and trees of unusual size are called trees of God, we
cannot wonder that very strong and tall men, though impious
robbers and whoremongers, are in Genesis called sons of God.

(1:76) This reference of things wonderful to God was not
peculiar to the Jews. (77) Pharaoh, on hearing the
interpretation of his dream, exclaimed that the mind
of the gods was in Joseph. (78) Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel
that he possessed the mind of the holy gods; so also in

Latin anything well made is often said to be wrought with

Divine hands, which is equivalent to the Hebrew phrase,
wrought with the hand of God.

[1:6] (80) We can now very easily understand and explain those
passages of Scripture which speak of the Spirit of God. (81) In
some places the expression merely means a very strong, dry, and
deadly wind, as in Isaiah xl:7, "The grass withereth, the flower
fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it."

(82) Similarly in Gen. i:2: "The Spirit of the Lord moved
over the face of the waters." (83) At other times it is used
as equivalent to a high courage, thus the spirit of Gideon and
of Samson is called the Spirit of the Lord, as being very bold,
and prepared for any emergency. (84) Any unusual virtue or power
is called the Spirit or Virtue of the Lord, Ex. xxxi:3: "I will
fill him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of the Lord," i.e., as the

Bible itself explains, with talent above man's usual endowment.

(85) So Isa. xi:2: "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon
him," is explained afterwards in the text to mean the spirit of
wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might.

(1:86) The melancholy of Saul is called the melancholy of the

Lord, or a very deep melancholy, the persons who applied the
term showing that they understood by it nothing supernatural,
in that they sent for a musician to assuage it by harp-playing.

(87) Again, the "Spirit of the Lord" is used as equivalent to
the mind of man, for instance, Job xxvii:3: "And the Spirit
of the Lord in my nostrils," the allusion being to Gen. ii:7:

"And God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life."

(1:88) Ezekiel also, prophesying to the dead, says (xxvii:14),

"And I will give to you My Spirit, and ye shall live;" i.e.

I will restore you to life. (1:89) In Job xxxiv:14, we read:

"If He gather unto Himself His Spirit and breath;" in

Gen. vi:3: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh," i.e. since man acts on the
dictates of his body, and not the spirit which I gave
him to discern the good, I will let him alone. (90) So,
too, Ps. li:12: "Create in me a clean heart, 0 God, and
renew a right spirit within me; cast me not away from

Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me."

(1:91) It was supposed that sin originated only from the
body, and that good impulses come from the mind;
therefore the Psalmist invokes the aid of God against
the bodily appetites, but prays that the spirit which
the Lord, the Holy One, had given him might be renewed.

(1:92) Again, inasmuch as the Bible, in concession to
popular ignorance, describes God as having a mind, a
heart, emotions - nay, even a body and breath - the
expression Spirit of the Lord is used for God's mind,
disposition, emotion, strength, or breath. (93) Thus,

Isa. xl:13: "Who hath disposed the Spirit of the Lord?"

i.e. who, save Himself, hath caused the mind of the Lord
to will anything,? and Isa. lxiii:10: "But they rebelled,
and vexed the Holy Spirit."

(94) The phrase comes to be used of the law of Moses, which
in a sense expounds God's will, Is. lxiii. 11, "Where is He
that put His Holy Spirit within him?" meaning, as we clearly
gather from the context, the law of Moses. (95) Nehemiah,
speaking of the giving of the law, says, i:20, "Thou gavest
also thy good Spirit to instruct them." (96) This is referred
to in Deut. iv:6, "This is your wisdom and understanding,"

and in Ps. cxliii:10, "Thy good Spirit will lead me into the
land of uprightness." (1:97) The Spirit of the Lord may mean
the breath of the Lord, for breath, no less than a mind, a
heart, and a body are attributed to God in Scripture, as in

Ps. xxxiii:6. (98) Hence it gets to mean the power, strength,
or faculty of God, as in Job xxxiii:4, "The Spirit of the Lord
made me," i.e. the power, or, if you prefer, the decree of the

Lord. (99) So the Psalmist in poetic language declares, xxxiii:6,

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the
host of them by the breath of His mouth," i.e. by a mandate
issued, as it were, in one breath. (100) Also Ps. cxxxix:7,

"Wither shall I go from Thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee
from Thy presence?" i.e. whither shall I go so as to be beyond

Thy power and Thy presence?

(1:101) Lastly, the Spirit of the Lord is used in Scripture to
express the emotions of God, e.g. His kindness and mercy,

Micah ii:7, "Is the Spirit [i.e. the mercy] of the Lord
straitened? (102) Are these cruelties His doings?"

(1:103) Zech. iv:6, "Not by might or by power, but My Spirit

[i.e. mercy], saith the Lord of hosts." (104) The twelfth
verse of the seventh chapter of the same prophet must, I
think, be interpreted in like manner: "Yea, they made their
hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law,
and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in His Spirit

[i.e. in His mercy] by the former prophets." (105) So also

Haggai ii:5: "So My Spirit remaineth among you: fear not."

(1:106) The passage in Isaiah xlviii:16, "And now the Lord
and His Spirit hath sent me," may be taken to refer to God's
mercy or His revealed law; for the prophet says, "From the
beginning" (i.e. from the time when I first came to you, to
preach God's anger and His sentence forth against you) "I
spoke not in secret; from the time that it was, there am I,"

and now I am sent by the mercy of God as a joyful messenger
to preach your restoration. (1:107) Or we may understand him
to mean by the revealed law that he had before come to warn
them by the command of the law (Levit. xix:17) in the same
manner under the same conditions as Moses had warned them,
that now, like Moses, he ends by preaching their restoration.

(108) But the first explanation seems to me the best.

(1:109) Returning, then, to the main object of our discussion,
we find that the Scriptural phrases, "The Spirit of the Lord
was upon a prophet," "The Lord breathed His Spirit into men,"

"Men were filled with the Spirit of God, with the Holy Spirit,"

&c., are quite clear to us, and mean that prophets were endowed
with a peculiar and extraordinary power, and devoted themselves
to piety with especial constancy(3); that thus they perceived
the mind or the thought of God, for we have shown that God's

Spirit signifies in Hebrew God's mind or thought, and that the
law which shows His mind and thought is called His Spirit; hence
that the imagination of the prophets, inasmuch as through it
were revealed the decrees of God, may equally be called the mind
of God, and the prophets be said to have possessed the mind of God.

(1:109a) On our minds also the mind of God and His eternal thoughts
are impressed; but this being the same for all men is less taken
into account, especially by the Hebrews, who claimed a
pre-eminence, and despised other men and other men's knowledge.

(110) Lastly, the prophets were said to possess the Spirit of

God because men knew not the cause of prophetic knowledge, and
in their wonder referred it with other marvels directly to the

Deity, styling it Divine knowledge.

[1:7] (111) We need no longer scruple to affirm that the prophets
only perceived God's revelation by the aid of imagination, that is,
by words and figures either real or imaginary. (112) We find no
other means mentioned in Scripture, and therefore must not invent
any. (113) As to the particular law of Nature by which the
communications took place, I confess my ignorance. (114) I might,
indeed, say as others do, that they took place by the power of God;
but this would be mere trifling, and no better than explaining some
unique specimen by a transcendental term. (115) Everything takes
place by the power of God. (116) Nature herself is the power of

God under another name, and our ignorance of the power of God is
co-extensive with our ignorance of Nature. (117) It is absolute
folly, therefore, to ascribe an event to the power of God when
we know not its natural cause, which is the power of God.

(1:118) However, we are not now inquiring into the causes of
prophetic knowledge. (119) We are only attempting, as I have
said, to examine the Scriptural documents, and to draw our
conclusions from them as from ultimate natural facts; the
causes of the documents do not concern us.

III:[1:120] As the prophets perceived the revelations of God by the
aid of imagination, they could indisputably perceive much that
is beyond the boundary of the intellect, for many more ideas can
be constructed from words and figures than from the principles
and notions on which the whole fabric of reasoned knowledge is
reared.

(1:121) Thus we have a clue to the fact that the prophets perceived
nearly everything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual
truths in bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination.

(122) We need no longer wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak
so strangely and obscurely of God's Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers xi:17,

1 Kings xxii:21, &c.), that the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting,
by Daniel as an old man clothed in white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that
the Holy Spirit appeared to those with Christ as a descending dove,
to the apostles as fiery tongues, to Paul on his conversion as a great
light. (123) All these expressions are plainly in harmony with the
current ideas of God and spirits.

(1:124) Inasmuch as imagination is fleeting and inconstant, we find
that the power of prophecy did not remain with a prophet for long,
nor manifest itself frequently, but was very rare; manifesting
itself only in a few men, and in them not often.

(1:125)We must necessarily inquire how the prophets became assured
of the truth of what they perceived by imagination, and not by sure
mental laws; but our investigation must be confined to Scripture,
for the subject is one on which we cannot acquire certain knowledge,
and which we cannot explain by the immediate causes. (126) Scripture
teaching about the assurance of prophets I will treat of in the next
chapter.

[2:0] CHAPTER II. - OF PROPHETS.

(2:1) It follows from the last chapter that, as I have said, the
prophets were endowed with unusually vivid imaginations, and not
with unusually, perfect minds. (2) This conclusion is amply
sustained by Scripture, for we are told that Solomon was the
wisest of men, but had no special faculty of prophecy. (3) Heman,

Calcol, and Dara, though men of great talent, were not prophets,
whereas uneducated countrymen, nay, even women, such as Hagar,

Abraham's handmaid, were thus gifted. (4) Nor is this contrary to
ordinary experience and reason. (5) Men of great imaginative power
are less fitted for abstract reasoning, whereas those who excel in
intellect and its use keep their imagination more restrained and
controlled, holding it in subjection, so to speak, lest it should
usurp the place of reason.

[2:1] (6) Thus to suppose that knowledge of natural and spiritual
phenomena can be gained from the prophetic books, is an utter
mistake, which I shall endeavour to expose, as I think philosophy,
the age, and the question itself demand. (7) I care not for the
girdings of superstition, for superstition is the bitter enemy
of all true knowledge and true morality. (8) Yes; it has come to
this! (9) Men who openly confess that they can form no idea of God,
and only know Him through created things, of which they know not
the causes, can unblushingly accuse philosophers of Atheism.

(2:10) Treating the question methodically, I will show that
prophecies varied, not only according to the imagination and
physical temperament of the prophet, but also according to his
particular opinions; and further that prophecy never rendered the
prophet wiser than he was before. (11) But I will first discuss
the assurance of truth which the prophets received, for this is
akin to the subject-matter of the chapter, and will serve to
elucidate somewhat our present point.

(2:12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any
certainty of truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct
idea, but requires some extrinsic reason to assure us of its
objective reality: hence prophecy cannot afford certainty, and the
prophets were assured of God's revelation by some sign, and not by
the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham, who, when he
had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he did
not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God

Who made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the
case of Gideon: "Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I
may know that it is Thou that talkest with me." (14) God also says
to Moses: "And let this be a sign that I have sent thee."

(2:15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah to be a prophet,
none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he predicted.

(15a) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for
this reason Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets
a sign, namely, the prediction of some coming event. (16) In this
respect, prophetic knowledge is inferior to natural knowledge,
which needs no sign, and in itself implies certitude.

(2:17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral.

(18) Moses lays down the punishment of death for the prophet
who preaches new gods, even though he confirm his doctrine by
signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he says, "the Lord
also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." (19) And

Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing

(Matt. xxiv:24). (20) Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly
states that God sometimes deceives men with false revelations;
and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of the prophets of Ahab.

(2:21) Although these instances go to prove that revelation is
open to doubt, it nevertheless contains, as we have said, a
considerable element of certainty, for God never deceives the
good, nor His chosen, but (according to the ancient proverb,
and as appears in the history of Abigail and her speech), God
uses the good as instruments of goodness, and the wicked as
means to execute His wrath. (22) This may be seen from the case
of Micaiah above quoted; for although God had determined to
deceive Ahab, through prophets, He made use of lying prophets;
to the good prophet He revealed the truth, and did not forbid his
proclaiming it.

(2:23) Still the certitude of prophecy remains, as I have said,
merely moral; for no one can justify himself before God, nor
boast that he is an instrument for God's goodness. (24) Scripture
itself teaches and shows that God led away David to number the
people, though it bears ample witness to David's piety.

[2:2] (25) The whole question of the certitude of prophecy was
based on these three considerations:

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

2. The presence of a sign;

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

(2:26) Although Scripture does not always make mention of a sign,
we must nevertheless suppose that a sign was always vouchsafed;
for Scripture does not always relate every condition and
circumstance (as many have remarked), but rather takes them for
granted. (27) We may, however, admit that no sign was needed when
the prophecy declared nothing that was not already contained in
the law of Moses, because it was confirmed by that law. (28) For
instance, Jeremiah's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was
confirmed by the prophecies of other prophets, and by the threats
in the law, and, therefore, it needed no sign; whereas Hananiah,
who, contrary to all the prophets, foretold the speedy restoration
of the state, stood in need of a sign, or he would have been in
doubt as to the truth of his prophecy, until it was confirmed by
facts. (29) "The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word
of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known
that the Lord hath truly sent him."

(2:30) As, then, the certitude afforded to the prophet by signs
was not mathematical (i.e. did not necessarily follow from the
perception of the thing perceived or seen), but only moral, and
as the signs were only given to convince the prophet, it follows
that such signs were given according to the opinions and capacity
of each prophet, so that a sign which convince one prophet would
fall far short of convincing another who was imbued with different
opinions. (31) Therefore the signs varied according to the
individual prophet.

[2:3] (32) So also did the revelation vary, as we have stated,
according to individual disposition and temperament, and
according to the opinions previously held.

(2:33) It varied according to disposition, in this way: if a
prophet was cheerful, victories, peace, and events which make
men glad, were revealed to him; in that he was naturally more
likely to imagine such things. (34) If, on the contrary, he
was melancholy, wars, massacres, and calamities were revealed;
and so, according as a prophet was merciful, gentle, quick to
anger, or severe, he was more fitted for one kind of revelation
than another. (35) It varied according to the temper of
imagination in this way: if a prophet was cultivated he
perceived the mind of God in a cultivated way, if he was
confused he perceived it confusedly. (36) And so with
revelations perceived through visions. (37) If a prophet was
a countryman he saw visions of oxen, cows, and the like; if
he was a soldier, he saw generals and armies; if a courtier,
a royal throne, and so on.

(2:38) Lastly, prophecy varied according to the opinions held
by the prophets; for instance, to the Magi, who believed in
the follies of astrology, the birth of Christ was revealed
through the vision of a star in the East. (39) To the augurs
of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was revealed
through entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from
oracles and the direction of arrows which he shot into the air.

(40) To prophets who believed that man acts from free choice
and by his own power, God was revealed as standing apart from
and ignorant of future human actions. (41) All of which we will
illustrate from Scripture.

(2:42) The first point is proved from the case of Elisha, who,
in order to prophecy to Jehoram, asked for a harp, and was unable
to perceive the Divine purpose till he had been recreated by its
music; then, indeed, he prophesied to Jehoram and to his allies
glad tidings, which previously he had been unable to attain to
because he was angry with the king, and these who are angry with
anyone can imagine evil of him, but not good. (43) The theory
that God does not reveal Himself to the angry or the sad, is a
mere dream: for God revealed to Moses while angry, the terrible
slaughter of the firstborn, and did so without the intervention
of a harp. (2:44) To Cain in his rage, God was revealed, and to

Ezekiel, impatient with anger, was revealed the contumacy and
wretchedness of the Jews. (45) Jeremiah, miserable and weary of
life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews, so that Josiah
would not consult him, but inquired of a woman, inasmuch as it
was more in accordance with womanly nature that God should reveal

His mercy thereto. (46) So, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab,
though other true prophets had done so, but invariably evil.

(46a) Thus we see that individual prophets were by temperament
more fitted for one sort of revelation than another.

(2:47) The style of the prophecy also varied according to the
eloquence of the individual prophet. (48) The prophecies of

Ezekiel and Amos are not written in a cultivated style like
those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more rudely. (49) Any Hebrew
scholar who wishes to inquire into this point more closely,
and compares chapters of the different prophets treating of
the same subject, will find great dissimilarity of style.

(2:50) Compare, for instance, chap. i. of the courtly Isaiah,
verse 11 to verse 20, with chap. v. of the countryman Amos,
verses 21-24. (51) Compare also the order and reasoning of the
prophecies of Jeremiah, written in Idumaea (chap. xhx.), with
the order and reasoning of Obadiah. (52) Compare, lastly,

Isa. xl:19, 20, and xliv:8, with Hosea viii:6, and xiii:2.

And so on.

(2:53) A due consideration of these passage will clearly show us
that God has no particular style in speaking, but, according to
the learning and capacity of the prophet, is cultivated,
compressed, severe, untutored, prolix, or obscure.

(2:54) There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions
vouchsafed to the prophets, and in the symbols by which they
expressed them, for Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord departing
from the Temple in a different form from that presented to

Ezekiel. (55) The Rabbis, indeed, maintain that both visions
were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a countryman, was
above measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth in
full detail; but unless there is a trustworthy tradition on
the subject, which I do not for a moment believe, this theory
is plainly an invention. Isaiah saw seraphim with six wings,

Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah saw God clothed and
sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the likeness of a
fire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he usually
imagined Him.

(2:56) Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in
details; for the revelations of Zechariah were too obscure to
be understood by the prophet without explanation, as appears
from his narration of them; the visions of Daniel could not be
understood by him even after they had been explained, and this
obscurity did not arise from the difficulty of the matter revealed

(for being merely human affairs, these only transcended human
capacity in being future), but solely in the fact that Daniel's
imagination was not so capable for prophecy while he was awake
as while he was asleep; and this is further evident from the
fact that at the very beginning of the vision he was so
terrified that he almost despaired of his strength. (2:57) Thus,
on account of the inadequacy of his imagination and his strength,
the things revealed were so obscure to him that he could not
understand them even after they had been explained. (58) Here
we may note that the words heard by Daniel, were, as we have
shown above, simply imaginary, so that it is hardly wonderful
that in his frightened state he imagined them so confusedly and
obscurely that afterwards he could make nothing of them.

(2:59) Those who say that God did not wish to make a clear
revelation, do not seem to have read the words of the angel,
who expressly says that he came to make the prophet understand
what should befall his people in the latter days (Dan. x:14).

(2:60) The revelation remained obscure because no one was found,
at that time, with imagination sufficiently strong to conceive
it more clearly. (61) Lastly, the prophets, to whom it was
revealed that God would take away Elijah, wished to persuade

Elisha that he had been taken somewhere where they would find
him; showing sufficiently clearly that they had not understood

God's revelation aright.

(2:62) There is no need to set this out more amply, for nothing
is more plain in the Bible than that God endowed some prophets
with far greater gifts of prophecy than others. (63) But I will
show in greater detail and length, for I consider the point more
important, that the prophecies varied according to the opinions
previously embraced by the prophets, and that the prophets held
diverse and even contrary opinions and prejudices. (2:64) (I speak,
be it understood, solely of matters speculative, for in regard to
uprightness and morality the case is widely different.) (65) From
thence I shall conclude that prophecy never rendered the prophets
more learned, but left them with their former opinions, and that
we are, therefore, not at all bound to trust them in matters of
intellect.

(2:66) Everyone has been strangely hasty in affirming that the
prophets knew everything within the scope of human intellect;
and, although certain passages of Scripture plainly affirm that
the prophets were in certain respects ignorant, such persons
would rather say that they do not understand the passages than
admit that there was anything which the prophets did not know;
or else they try to wrest the Scriptural words away from their
evident meaning.

(2:67) If either of these proceedings is allowable we may as well
shut our Bibles, for vainly shall we attempt to prove anything
from them if their plainest passages may be classed among obscure
and impenetrable mysteries, or if we may put any interpretation
on them which we fancy. (68) For instance, nothing is more clear
in the Bible than that Joshua, and perhaps also the author who
wrote his history, thought that the sun revolves round the earth,
and that the earth is fixed, and further that the sun for a certain
period remained still. (2:69) Many, who will not admit any movement in
the heavenly bodies, explain away the passage till it seems to mean
something quite different; others, who have learned to philosophize
more correctly, and understand that the earth moves while the sun
is still, or at any rate does not revolve round the earth, try with
all their might to wrest this meaning from Scripture, though plainly
nothing of the sort is intended. (70) Such quibblers excite my wonder!

(2:71) Are we, forsooth, bound to believe that Joshua the Soldier was
a learned astronomer? or that a miracle could not be revealed to him,
or that the light of the sun could not remain longer than usual above
the horizon, without his knowing the cause? (72) To me both
alternatives appear ridiculous, and therefore I would rather say
that Joshua was ignorant of the true cause of the lengthened day,
and that he and the whole host with him thought that the sun moved
round the earth every day, and that on that particular occasion it
stood still for a time, thus causing the light to remain longer; and

I would say, that they did not conjecture that, from the amount of
snow in the air (see Josh. x:11), the refraction may have been
greater than usual, or that there may have been some other cause
which we will not now inquire into.

(2:73) So also the sign of the shadow going back was revealed to

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

(2:75) With regard to the building of the Temple by Solomon, if it
was really dictate by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely,
that all the measurements were revealed according to the opinions
and understanding of the king; for as we are not bound to believe
that Solomon was a mathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant
of the true ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a
circle, and that, like the generality of workmen, he thought that it
was as three to one. (76) But if it is allowable to declare that we
do not understand the passage, in good sooth I know nothing in the

Bible that we can understand; for the process of building is there
narrated simply and as a mere matter of history. (2:77) If, again,
it is permitted to pretend that the passage has another meaning,
and was written as it is from some reason unknown to us, this is
no less than a complete subversal of the Bible; for every absurd
and evil invention of human perversity could thus, without detriment
to Scriptural authority, be defended and fostered. (78) Our
conclusion is in no wise impious, for though Solomon, Isaiah,

Joshua, &c. were prophets, they were none the less men, and as
such not exempt from human shortcomings.

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

(2:80) Not only in matters of this kind, but in others more
important, the about the Divine attributes, but held quite
ordinary notions about God, and to these notions their
revelations were adapted, as I will demonstrate by ample

Scriptural testimony; from all which one may easily see
that they were praised and commended, not so much for the
sublimity and eminence of their intellect as for their
piety and faithfulness. (2:81) Adam, the first man to whom God
was revealed, did not know that He is omnipotent and omniscient;
for he hid himself from Him, and attempted to make excuses for
his fault before God, as though he had had to do with a man;
therefore to him also was God revealed according to his
understanding - that is, as being unaware of his situation or
his sin, for Adam heard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walling,
in the garden, calling him and asking him where he was; and then,
on seeing his shamefacedness, asking him whether he had eaten of
the forbidden fruit. (82) Adam evidently only knew the Deity as
the Creator of all things. (82a) To Cain also God was revealed,
according to his understanding, as ignorant of human affairs,
nor was a higher conception of the Deity required for repentance
of his sin.

(2:83) To Laban the Lord revealed Himself as the God of Abraham,
because Laban believed that each nation had its own special
divinity see Gen. xxxi:29). (84) Abraham also knew not that

God is omnipresent, and has foreknowledge of all things; for
when he heard the sentence against the inhabitants of Sodom,
he prayed that the Lord should not execute it till He had
ascertained whether they all merited such punishment; for he
said (see Gen. xviii:24), "Peradventure there be fifty righteous
within the city," and in accordance with this belief God was
revealed to him; as Abraham imagined, He spake thus: "I will
go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according
to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and, if not, I will know."

(2:85) Further, the Divine testimony concerning Abraham asserts
nothing but that he was obedient, and that he "commanded his
household after him that they should keep the way of the Lord"

(Gen. xviii:19); it does not state that he held sublime
conceptions of the Deity.

(2:86) Moses, also, was not sufficiently aware that God is
omniscient, and directs human actions by His sole decree,
for although God Himself says that the Israelites should
hearken to Him, Moses still considered the matter doubtful
and repeated, "But if they will not believe me, nor hearken
unto my voice." (87) To him in like manner God was revealed
as taking no part in, and as being ignorant of, future human
actions: the Lord gave him two signs and said, "And it
shall come to pass that if they will not believe thee,
neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they
will believe the voice of the latter sign; but if not, thou
shalt take of the water of the river," &c. (2:88) Indeed,
if any one considers without prejudice the recorded opinions
of Moses, he will plainly see that Moses conceived the Deity
as a Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always
will exist, and for this cause he calls Him by the name

Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these three phases of
existence: as to His nature, Moses only taught that He is
merciful, gracious, and exceeding jealous, as appears from
many passages in the Pentateuch. (89) Lastly, he believed
and taught that this Being was so different from all other
beings, that He could not be expressed by the image of any
visible thing; also, that He could not be looked upon, and
that not so much from inherent impossibility as from human
infirmity; further, that by reason of His power He was without
equal and unique. (2:90) Moses admitted, indeed, that there were
beings (doubtless by the plan and command of the Lord) who
acted as God's vicegerents - that is, beings to whom God had
given the right, authority, and power to direct nations, and
to provide and care for them; but he taught that this Being

Whom they were bound to obey was the highest and Supreme God,
or (to use the Hebrew phrase) God of gods, and thus in the song

(Exod. xv:11) he exclaims, "Who is like unto Thee, 0 Lord,
among the gods?" and Jethro says (Exod. xviii:11), "Now I know
that the Lord is greater than all gods." (91) That is to say,

"I am at length compelled to admit to Moses that Jehovah is
greater than all gods, and that His power is unrivalled."

(2:92) We must remain in doubt whether Moses thought that these
beings who acted as God's vicegerents were created by Him, for he
has stated nothing, so far as we know, about their creation and
origin. (93) He further taught that this Being had brought the
visible world into order from Chaos, and had given Nature her germs,
and therefore that He possesses supreme right and power over all
things; further, that by reason of this supreme right and power

He had chosen for Himself alone the Hebrew nation and a certain
strip of territory, and had handed over to the care of other gods
substituted by Himself the rest of the nations and territories,
and that therefore He was called the God of Israel and the God
of Jerusalem, whereas the other gods were called the gods of the

Gentiles. (2:94) For this reason the Jews believed that the strip of
territory which God had chosen for Himself, demanded a Divine worship
quite apart and different from the worship which obtained elsewhere,
and that the Lord would not suffer the worship of other gods adapted
to other countries. (95) Thus they thought that the people whom the
king of Assyria had brought into Judaea were torn in pieces by lions
because they knew not the worship of the National Divinity

(2 Kings xvii:25).

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

(2:97) David, in telling Saul that he was compelled by the king's
persecution to live away from his country, said that he was driven
out from the heritage of the Lord, and sent to worship other gods

(1 Sam. xxvi:19). (98) Lastly, he believed that this Being or Deity
had His habitation in the heavens (Deut. xxxiii:27), an opinion
very common among the Gentiles.

(2:99) If we now examine the revelations to Moses, we shall find
that they were accommodated to these opinions; as he believed
that the Divine Nature was subject to the conditions of mercy,
graciousness, &c., so God was revealed to him in accordance with
his idea and under these attributes (see Exodus xxxiv:6, 7, and
the second commandment). (100) Further it is related (Ex. xxxiii:18)

that Moses asked of God that he might behold Him, but as Moses

(as we have said) had formed no mental image of God, and God

(as I have shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in
accordance with the disposition of their imagination, He did not
reveal Himself in any form. (2:101) This, I repeat, was because
the imagination of Moses was unsuitable, for other prophets bear
witness that they saw the Lord; for instance, Isaiah, Ezekiel,

Daniel, &c. (102) For this reason God answered Moses, "Thou canst
not see My face;" and inasmuch as Moses believed that God can be
looked upon - that is, that no contradiction of the Divine nature
is therein involved (for otherwise he would never have preferred
his request) - it is added, "For no one shall look on Me and live,"

thus giving a reason in accordance with Moses' idea, for it is not
stated that a contradiction of the Divine nature would be involved,
as was really the case, but that the thing would not come to pass
because of human infirmity.

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

(vide verse 16).

(2:104) Lastly, as Moses believed that God dwelt in the heavens,

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

(2:105) The Israelites knew scarcely anything of God, although

He was revealed to them; and this is abundantly evident from
their transferring, a few days afterwards, the honour and
worship due to Him to a calf, which they believed to be the
god who had brought them out of Egypt. (106) In truth, it is
hardly likely that men accustomed to the superstitions of Egypt,
uncultivated and sunk in most abject slavery, should have held
any sound notions about the Deity, or that Moses should have
taught them anything beyond a rule of right living; inculcating
it not like a philosopher, as the result of freedom, but like a
lawgiver compelling them to be moral by legal authority.

(2:107) Thus the rule of right living, the worship and love
of God, was to them rather a bondage than the true liberty,
the gift and grace of the Deity. (108) Moses bid them love God
and keep His law, because they had in the past received benefits
from Him (such as the deliverance from slavery in Egypt), and
further terrified them with threats if they transgressed His
commands, holding out many promises of good if they should
observe them; thus treating them as parents treat irrational
children. (108a) It is, therefore, certain that they knew not
the excellence of virtue and the true happiness.

(2:109) Jonah thought that he was fleeing from the sight of God,
which seems to show that he too held that God had entrusted the
care of the nations outside Judaea to other substituted powers.

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

(2:113) But let us return to the prophets whose conflicting
opinions we have undertaken to note. (114) The expressed
ideas of Ezekiel seemed so diverse from those of Moses to the

Rabbis who have left us the extant prophetic books (as is
told in the treatise of Sabbathus, i:13, 2), that they had
serious thoughts of omitting his prophecy from the canon, and
would doubtless have thus excluded it if a certain Hananiah
had not undertaken to explain it; a task which (as is there
narrated) he with great zeal and labour accomplished.

(2:115) How he did so does not sufficiently appear, whether
it was by writing a commentary which has now perished, or
by altering Ezekiel's words and audaciously - striking out
phrases according to his fancy. (2:116) However this may be,
chapter xviii. certainly does not seem to agree with

Exodus xxxiv:7, Jeremiah xxxii:18, &c.

(2:117) Samuel believed that the Lord never repented of
anything He had decreed (1 Sam. xv:29), for when Saul was
sorry for his sin, and wished to worship God and ask for
forgiveness, Samuel said that the Lord would not go back
from his decree.

(2:118) To Jeremiah, on the other hand, it was revealed that,

"If that nation against whom I (the Lord) have pronounced,
turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought
to do unto them. (119) If it do evil in my sight, that it obey
not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said

I would benefit them" (Jer. xviii:8-10). (120) Joel (ii:13)

taught that the Lord repented Him only of evil. (121) Lastly,
it is clear from Gen iv: 7 that a man can overcome the
temptations of sin, and act righteously; for this doctrine is
told to Cain, though, as we learn from Josephus and the

Scriptures, he never did so overcome them. (2:122) And this
agrees with the chapter of Jeremiah just cited, for it is
there said that the Lord repents of the good or the evil
pronounced, if the men in question change their ways and
manner of life. (123) But, on the other hand, Paul (Rom.ix:10)

teaches as plainly as possible that men have no control over
the temptations of the flesh save by the special vocation and
grace of God. (124) And when (Rom. iii:5 and vi:19) he
attributes righteousness to man, he corrects himself as
speaking merely humanly and through the infirmity of the flesh.

(2:125) We have now more than sufficiently proved our point,
that God adapted revelations to the understanding and opinions
of the prophets, and that in matters of theory without bearing
on charity or morality the prophets could be, and, in fact,
were, ignorant, and held conflicting opinions. (126) It
therefore follows that we must by no means go to the prophets
for knowledge, either of natural or of spiritual phenomena.

(2:127) We have determined, then, that we are only bound to
believe in the prophetic writings, the object and substance
of the revelation; with regard to the details, every one
may believe or not, as he likes. (128) For instance, the
revelation to Cain only teaches us that God admonished him
to lead the true life, for such alone is the object and
substance of the revelation, not doctrines concerning free
will and philosophy. (129) Hence, though the freedom of the
will is clearly implied in the words of the admonition,
we are at liberty to hold a contrary opinion, since the
words and reasons were adapted to the understanding of Cain.

(2:130) So, too, the revelation to Micaiah would only teach
that God revealed to him the true issue of the battle between

Ahab and Aram; and this is all we are bound to believe.

(131) Whatever else is contained in the revelation concerning
the true and the false Spirit of God, the army of heaven
standing on the right hand and on the left, and all the other
details, does not affect us at all. (131a) Everyone may
believe as much of it as his reason allows.

(2:132) The reasonings by which the Lord displayed His power to

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

(2:133) We can come to no different conclusion with respect to the
reasonings of Christ, by which He convicted the Pharisees of pride
and ignorance, and exhorted His disciples to lead the true life.

(134) He adapted them to each man's opinions and principles.

(2:135) For instance, when He said to the Pharisees (Matt. xii:26),

"And if Satan cast out devils, his house is divided against itself,
how then shall his kingdom stand? (136) "He only wished to convince
the Pharisees according, to their own principles, not to teach
that there are devils, or any kingdom of devils. (137) So, too,
when He said to His disciples (Matt. viii:10), "See that ye despise
not one of these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels,"

&c. (137a) He merely desired to warn them against pride and despising any
of their fellows, not to insist on the actual reason given, which was
simply adopted in order to persuade them more easily.

(2:138) Lastly, we should say exactly the same of the apostolic
signs and reasonings, but there is no need to go further into
the subject. (139) If I were to enumerate all the passages of

Scripture addressed only to individuals, or to a particular man's
understanding, and which cannot, without great danger to philosophy,
be defended as Divine doctrines, I should go far beyond the brevity
at which I aim. (140) Let it suffice, then, to have indicated a few
instances of general application, and let the curious reader
consider others by himself. (141) Although the points we have just
raised concerning prophets and prophecy are the only ones which
have any direct bearing on the end in view, namely, the separation
of Philosophy from Theology, still, as I have touched on the general
question, I may here inquire whether the gift of prophecy was
peculiar to the Hebrews, or whether it was common to all nations.

(2:142) I must then come to a conclusion about the vocation of the

Hebrews, all of which I shall do in the ensuing chapter.

[3:0] CHAPTER III. OF THE VOCATION OF THE HEBREWS, AND

WHETHER THE GIFT OF PROPHECY WAS PECULIAR TO THEM.

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

(3:4) Whoever, therefore, rejoices for such reasons, rejoices in
another's misfortune, and is, so far, malicious and bad, knowing
neither true happiness nor the peace of the true life.

[3:1] (5) When Scripture, therefore, in exhorting the Hebrews to
obey the law, says that the Lord has chosen them for Himself before
other nations (Deut. x:15); that He is near them, but not near
others (Deut. iv:7); that to them alone He has given just laws

(Deut. iv:8); and, lastly, that He has marked them out before
others (Deut. iv:32); it speaks only according to the
understanding of its hearers, who, as we have shown in the
last chapter, and as Moses also testifies (Deut. ix:6, 7),
knew not true blessedness. (6) For in good sooth they would
have been no less blessed if God had called all men equally
to salvation, nor would God have been less present to them for
being equally present to others; their laws, would have been
no less just if they had been ordained for all, and they
themselves would have been no less wise. (3:7) The miracles would
have shown God's power no less by being wrought for other nations
also; lastly, the Hebrews would have been just as much bound
to worship God if He had bestowed all these gifts equally on
all men.

(3:8) When God tells Solomon (1 Kings iii:12) that no one shall
be as wise as he in time to come, it seems to be only a manner
of expressing surpassing wisdom; it is little to be believed
that God would have promised Solomon, for his greater happiness,
that He would never endow anyone with so much wisdom in time to
come; this would in no wise have increased Solomon's intellect,
and the wise king would have given equal thanks to the Lord if
everyone had been gifted with the same faculties.

(3:9) Still, though we assert that Moses, in the passages of the

Pentateuch just cited, spoke only according to the understanding
of the Hebrews, we have no wish to deny that God ordained the Mosaic
law for them alone, nor that He spoke to them alone, nor that they
witnessed marvels beyond those which happened to any other nation;
but we wish to emphasize that Moses desired to admonish the Hebrews
in such a manner, and with such reasonings as would appeal most
forcibly to their childish understanding, and constrain them to
worship the Deity. [3:2] (10) Further, we wished to show that the

Hebrews did not surpass other nations in knowledge, or in piety,
but evidently in some attribute different from these; or (to speak
like the Scriptures, according to their understanding), that the

Hebrews were not chosen by God before others for the sake of the
true life and sublime ideas, though they were often thereto
admonished, but with some other object. (11) What that object was,

I will duly show.

(3:12) But before I begin, I wish in a few words to explain what I
mean by the guidance of God, by the help of God, external and inward,
and, lastly, what I understand by fortune.

(3:13) By the help of God, I mean the fixed and unchangeable order
of nature or the chain of natural events: for I have said before
and shown elsewhere that the universal laws of nature, according
to which all things exist and are determined, are only another name
for the eternal decrees of God, which always involve eternal truth
and necessity.

(3:14) So that to say that everything happens according to natural
laws, and to say that everything is ordained by the decree and
ordinance of God, is the same thing. (15) Now since the power in
nature is identical with the power of God, by which alone all
things happen and are determined, it follows that whatsoever man,
as a part of nature, provides himself with to aid and preserve his
existence, or whatsoever nature affords him without his help, is
given to him solely by the Divine power, acting either through
human nature or through external circumstance. (16) So whatever
human nature can furnish itself with by its own efforts to preserve
its existence, may be fitly called the inward aid of God, whereas
whatever else accrues to man's profit from outward causes may be
called the external aid of God.

(3:17) We can now easily understand what is meant by the election
of God. (18) For since no one can do anything save by the
predetermined order of nature, that is by God's eternal ordinance
and decree, it follows that no one can choose a plan of life for
himself, or accomplish any work save by God's vocation choosing him
for the work or the plan of life in question, rather than any other.

(3:19) Lastly, by fortune, I mean the ordinance of God in so far as
it directs human life through external and unexpected means.

(20) With these preliminaries I return to my purpose of discovering
the reason why the Hebrews were said to be elected by God before
other nations, and with the demonstration I thus proceed.

(3:21) All objects of legitimate desire fall, generally
speaking, under one of these three categories:

1. The knowledge of things through

their primary causes.

2. The government of the passions,

or the acquirement of the habit

of virtue.

3. Secure and healthy life.

(3:22) The means which most directly conduce towards the first two
of these ends, and which may be considered their proximate an
efficient causes are contained in human nature itself, so that their
acquisition hinges only on our own power, and on the laws of human
nature. (23) It may be concluded that these gifts are not peculiar
to any nation, but have always been shared by the whole human race,
unless, indeed, we would indulge the dream that nature formerly
created men of different kinds. (24) But the means which conduce to
security and health are chiefly in external circumstance, and are
called the gifts of fortune because they depend chiefly on objective
causes of which we are ignorant; for a fool may be almost as liable
to happiness or unhappiness as a wise man. (25) Nevertheless, human
management and watchfulness can greatly assist towards living in
security and warding off the injuries of our fellow-men, and even of
beasts. (3:26) Reason and experience show no more certain means of
attaining this object than the formation of a society with fixed laws,
the occupation of a strip of territory and the concentration of all
forces, as it were, into one body, that is the social body. (27) Now
for forming and preserving a society, no ordinary ability and care is
required: that society will be most secure, most stable, and least
liable to reverses, which is founded and directed by far-seeing and
careful men; while, on the other hand, a society constituted by men
without trained skill, depends in a great measure on fortune, and is
less constant. (3:28) If, in spite of all, such a society lasts a long
time, it is owing to some other directing influence than its own; if
it overcomes great perils and its affairs prosper, it will perforce
marvel at and adore the guiding Spirit of God (in so far, that is, as

God works through hidden means, and not through the nature and mind of
man), for everything happens to it unexpectedly and contrary to
anticipation, it may even be said and thought to be by miracle.

[3:3] (29) Nations, then, are distinguished from one another in respect
to the social organization and the laws under which they live and are
governed; the Hebrew nation was not chosen by God in respect to its
wisdom nor its tranquillity of mind, but in respect to its social
organization and the good fortune with which it obtained supremacy and
kept it so many years. (30) This is abundantly clear from Scripture.

(3:30a) Even a cursory perusal will show us that the only respects
in which the Hebrews surpassed other nations, are in their successful
conduct of matters relating to government, and in their surmounting
great perils solely by God's external aid; in other ways they were on
a par with their fellows, and God was equally gracious to all.

(3:31) For in respect to intellect (as we have shown in the last chapter)

they held very ordinary ideas about God and nature, so that they cannot
have been God's chosen in this respect; nor were they so chosen in
respect of virtue and the true life, for here again they, with the
exception of a very few elect, were on an equality with other nations:

therefore their choice and vocation consisted only in the temporal
happiness and advantages of independent rule. (32) In fact, we do not
see that God promised anything beyond this to the patriarchs [Endnote 4]

or their successors; in the law no other reward is offered for obedience
than the continual happiness of an independent commonwealth and other
goods of this life; while, on the other hand, against contumacy and the
breaking of the covenant is threatened the downfall of the commonwealth
and great hardships. (33) Nor is this to be wondered at; for the ends
of every social organization and commonwealth are (as appears from what
we have said, and as we will explain more at length hereafter) security
and comfort; a commonwealth can only exist by the laws being binding on
all. (34) If all the members of a state wish to disregard the law, by
that very fact they dissolve the state and destroy the commonwealth.

(3:35) Thus, the only reward which could be promised to the Hebrews for
continued obedience to the law was security [Endnote 5] and its
attendant advantages, while no surer punishment could be threatened for
disobedience, than the ruin of the state and the evils which generally
follow therefrom, in addition to such further consequences as might
accrue to the Jews in particular from the ruin of their especial state.

(36) But there is no need here to go into this point at more length.

(3:37) I will only add that the laws of the Old Testament were revealed
and ordained to the Jews only, for as God chose them in respect to the
special constitution of their society and government, they must, of
course, have had special laws. (38) Whether God ordained special laws
for other nations also, and revealed Himself to their lawgivers
prophetically, that is, under the attributes by which the latter were
accustomed to imagine Him, I cannot sufficiently determine. (39) It is
evident from Scripture itself that other nations acquired supremacy
and particular laws by the external aid of God; witness only the two
following passages:

[3:4] (40) In Genesis xiv:18, 19, 20, it is related that Melchisedek
was king of Jerusalem and priest of the Most High God, that in exercise
of his priestly functions he blessed Abraham, and that Abraham the
beloved of the Lord gave to this priest of God a tithe of all his
spoils. (41) This sufficiently shows that before He founded the

Israelitish nation God constituted kings and priests in Jerusalem,
and ordained for them rites and laws. (42) Whether He did so
prophetically is, as I have said, not sufficiently clear; but I am
sure of this, that Abraham, whilst he sojourned in the city, lived
scrupulously according to these laws, for Abraham had received no
special rites from God; and yet it is stated (Gen. xxvi:5), that he
observed the worship, the precepts, the statutes, and the laws of

God, which must be interpreted to mean the worship, the statutes,
the precepts, and the laws of king Melchisedek. (43) Malachi chides
the Jews as follows (i:10-11.): "Who is there among you that will shut
the doors? [of the Temple]; neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for
nought. (44) I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts.

(3:45) For from the rising of the sun, even until the going down of the
same My Name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place
incense shall be offered in My Name, and a pure offering; for My Name
is great among the heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts." (3:46) These words,
which, unless we do violence to them, could only refer to the current
period, abundantly testify that the Jews of that time were not more
beloved by God than other nations, that God then favoured other nations
with more miracles than He vouchsafed to the Jews, who had then partly
recovered their empire without miraculous aid; and, lastly, that the

Gentiles possessed rites and ceremonies acceptable to God. (47) But I
pass over these points lightly: it is enough for my purpose to have
shown that the election of the Jews had regard to nothing but temporal
physical happiness and freedom, in other words, autonomous government,
and to the manner and means by which they obtained it; consequently to
the laws in so far as they were necessary to the preservation of that
special government; and, lastly, to the manner in which they were
revealed. In regard to other matters, wherein man's true happiness
consists, they were on a par with the rest of the nations.

[3:5] (48) When, therefore, it is said in Scripture (Deut. iv:7) that
the Lord is not so nigh to any other nation as He is to the Jews,
reference is only made to their government, and to the period when so
many miracles happened to them, for in respect of intellect and virtue -
that is, in respect of blessedness - God was, as we have said already,
and are now demonstrating, equally gracious to all. (49) Scripture itself
bears testimony to this fact, for the Psalmist says (cxlv:18), "The Lord
is near unto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in
truth." (3:50) So in the same Psalm, verse 9, "The Lord is good to all,
and His tender mercies are over all His works." In Ps. xxxiii:16, it is
clearly stated that God has granted to all men the same intellect, in
these words, He fashioneth their hearts alike." (50a) The heart was
considered by the Hebrews, as I suppose everyone knows, to be the seat
of the soul and the intellect.

(3:51) Lastly, from Job xxxviii:28, it is plain that God had ordained
for the whole human race the law to reverence God, to keep from evil
doing, or to do well, and that Job, although a Gentile, was of all men
most acceptable to God, because he exceeded all in piety and religion.

(52) Lastly, from Jonah iv:2, it is very evident that, not only to the

Jews but to all men, God was gracious, merciful, long-suffering, and
of great goodness, and repented Him of the evil, for Jonah says:

"Therefore I determined to flee before unto Tarshish, for I know that

Thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great
kindness," &c., and that, therefore, God would pardon the Ninevites.

(3:53) We conclude, therefore (inasmuch as God is to all men equally
gracious, and the Hebrews were only chosen by him in respect to their
social organization and government), that the individual Jew, taken
apart from his social organization and government, possessed no gift
of God above other men, and that there was no difference between Jew
and Gentile. (54) As it is a fact that God is equally gracious,
merciful, and the rest, to all men; and as the function of the
prophet was to teach men not so much the laws of their country,
as true virtue, and to exhort them thereto, it is not to be doubted
that all nations possessed prophets, and that the prophetic gift was
not peculiar to the Jews. (3:55) Indeed, history, both profane and
sacred, bears witness to the fact. (56) Although, from the sacred
histories of the Old Testament, it is not evident that the other
nations had as many prophets as the Hebrews, or that any Gentile
prophet was expressly sent by God to the nations, this does not
affect the question, for the Hebrews were careful to record their
own affairs, not those of other nations. (57) It suffices, then,
that we find in the Old Testament Gentiles, and uncircumcised, as

Noah, Enoch, Abimelech, Balaam, &c., exercising prophetic gifts;
further, that Hebrew prophets were sent by God, not only to their
own nation but to many others also. (3:58) Ezekiel prophesied to all
the nations then known; Obadiah to none, that we are ware of, save
the Idumeans; and Jonah was chiefly the prophet to the Ninevites.

(3:59) Isaiah bewails and predicts the calamities, and hails the
restoration not only of the Jews but also of other nations, for he
says (chap. xvi:9), "Therefore I will bewail Jazer with weeping;"

and in chap. xix. he foretells first the calamities and then the
restoration of the Egyptians (see verses 19, 20, 21, 25), saying
that God shall send them a Saviour to free them, that the Lord
shall be known in Egypt, and, further, that the Egyptians shall
worship God with sacrifice and oblation; and, at last, he calls
that nation the blessed Egyptian people of God; all of which
particulars are specially noteworthy.

(3:60) Jeremiah is called, not the prophet of the Hebrew nation,
but simply the prophet of the nations (see Jer:i.5). (61) He also
mournfully foretells the calamities of the nations, and predicts
their restoration, for he says (xlviii:31) of the Moabites,

"Therefore will I howl for Moab, and I will cry out for all Moab"

(verse 36), "and therefore mine heart shall sound for Moab like
pipes;" in the end he prophesies their restoration, as also the
restoration of the Egyptians, Ammonites, and Elamites.

(62) Wherefore it is beyond doubt that other nations also,
like the Jews, had their prophets, who prophesied to them.

(3:63) Although Scripture only makes mention of one man, Balaam,
to whom the future of the Jews and the other nations was revealed,
we must not suppose that Balaam prophesied only once, for from
the narrative itself it is abundantly clear that he had long
previously been famous for prophesy and other Divine gifts.

(64) For when Balak bade him to come to him, he said (Num. xxii:6),

"For I know that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou
cursest is cursed." (65) Thus we see that he possessed the gift
on Abraham. Further, as accustomed to prophesy, Balaam bade the
messengers wait for him till the will of the Lord was revealed
to him. (3:66) When he prophesied, that is, when he interpreted
the true mind of God, he was wont to say this of himself: "He hath
said, which heard the words of God and knew the knowledge of the

Most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty falling into a
trance, but having his eyes open." (3:67) Further, after he had
blessed the Hebrews by the command of God, he began (as was his
custom) to prophesy to other nations, and to predict their future;
all of which abundantly shows that he had lways been a prophet,
or had often prophesied, and (as we may also remark here) possessed
that which afforded the chief certainty to prophets of the truth of
their prophecy, namely, a mind turned wholly to what is right and
good, for he did not bless those whom he wished to bless, nor curse
those whom he wished to curse, as Balak supposed, but only those
whom God wished to be blessed or cursed. (68) Thus he answered

Balak: "If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold,

I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord to do either good
or bad of my own mind; but what the Lord saith, that will I speak."

(3:69) As for God being angry with him in the way, the same happened
to Moses when he set out to Egypt by the command of the Lord;
and as o his receiving money for prophesying, Samuel did the same

(1 Sam. ix:7, 8); if in anyway he sinned, "there is not a just man
upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not," Eccles. vii:20.

(Vide 2 Epist. Peter ii:15, 16, and Jude 5:11.)

(3:70) His speeches must certainly have had much weight with God,
and His power for cursing must assuredly have been very great from
the number of times that we find stated in Scripture, in proof of

God's great mercy to the Jews, that God would not hear Balaam, and
that He changed the cursing to blessing (see Deut. xxiii:6,

Josh. xxiv:10, Neh. xiii:2). (71) Wherefore he was without doubt
most acceptable to God, for the speeches and cursings of the wicked
move God not at all. (3:72) As then he was a true prophet, and
nevertheless Joshua calls him a soothsayer or augur, it is certain
that this title had an honourable signification, and that those whom
the Gentiles called augurs and soothsayers were true prophets,
while those whom Scripture often accuses and condemns were false
soothsayers, who deceived the Gentiles as false prophets deceived
the Jews; indeed, this is made evident from other passages in the

Bible, whence we conclude that the gift of prophecy was not peculiar
to the Jews, but common to all nations. (3:73) The Pharisees, however,
vehemently contend that this Divine gift was peculiar to their nation,
and that the other nations foretold the future (what will superstition
invent next?) by some unexplained diabolical faculty. (3:74) The
principal passage of Scripture which they cite, by way of confirming
their theory with its authority, is Exodus xxxiii:16, where Moses says
to God, "For wherein shall it be known here that I and Thy people have
found grace in Thy sight? is it not in that Thou goest with us? so
shall we be separated, I and Thy people, from all the people that are
upon the face of the earth." (75) From this they would infer that Moses
asked of God that He should be present to the Jews, and should reveal

Himself to them prophetically; further, that He should grant this
favour to no other nation. (3:76) It is surely absurd that Moses should
have been jealous of God's presence among the Gentiles, or that he
should have dared to ask any such thing. (77) The act is, as Moses
knew that the disposition and spirit of his nation was rebellious,
he clearly saw that they could not carry out what they had begun
without very great miracles and special external aid from God; nay,
that without such aid they must necessarily perish: as it was evident
that God wished them to be preserved, he asked for this special
external aid. (3:78) Thus he says (Ex. xxxiv:9), "If now I have found
grace in Thy sight, 0 Lord, let my Lord, I pray Thee, go among us;
for it is a stiffnecked people." (79) The reason, therefore, for his
seeking special external aid from God was the stiffneckedness of the
people, and it is made still more plain, that he asked for nothing
beyond this special external aid by God's answer - for God answered
at once (verse 10 of the same chapter) - "Behold, I make a covenant:

before all Thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done
in all the earth, nor in any nation." (80) Therefore Moses had in view
nothing beyond the special election of the Jews, as I have explained it,
and made no other request to God. ( 81) I confess that in Paul's Epistle
to the Romans, I find another text which carries more weight, namely,
where Paul seems to teach a different doctrine from that here set down,
for he there says (Rom. iii:1): "What advantage then hath the Jew? or
what profit is there of circumcision? (82) Much every way: chiefly,
because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

(3:83) But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired
to teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention;
on the contrary, his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says

(Rom. iii:29) "that God is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles,
and" (ch. ii:25, 26) "But, if thou be a breaker of the law, thy
circumcision is made uncircumcision. (84) Therefore if the
uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his
uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?" (85) Further, in
chap. iv:verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were
under sin, and that without commandment and law there is no sin.

(3:86) Wherefore it is most evident that to all men absolutely was
revealed the law under which all lived - namely, the law which has
regard only to true virtue, not the law established in respect to,
and in the formation of a particular state and adapted to the
disposition of a particular people. (3:87) Lastly, Paul concludes
that since God is the God of all nations, that is, is equally
gracious to all, and since all men equally live under the law
and under sin, so also to all nations did God send His Christ,
to free all men equally from the bondage of the law, that they
should no more do right by the command of the law, but by the
constant determination of their hearts. (88) So that Paul teaches
exactly the same as ourselves. [3:6] (89) When, therefore, he
says "To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of God," we
must either understand that to them only were the laws entrusted
in writing, while they were given to other nations merely in
revelation and conception, or else (as none but Jews would object
to the doctrine he desired to advance) that Paul was answering only
in accordance with the understanding and current ideas of the Jews,
for in respect to teaching things which he had partly seen, partly
heard, he was to the Greeks a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.

[3:7] (90) It now only remains to us to answer the arguments of
those who would persuade themselves that the election of the Jews
was not temporal, and merely in respect of their commonwealth,
but eternal; for, they say, we see the Jews after the loss of their
commonwealth, and after being scattered so many years and separated
from all other nations, still surviving, which is without parallel
among other peoples, and further the Scriptures seem to teach that

God has chosen for Himself the Jews for ever, so that though they
have lost their commonwealth, they still nevertheless remain God's
elect.

(3:91) The passages which they think teach most clearly
this eternal election, are chiefly:

1. Jer. xxxi:36, where the prophet testifies

that the seed of Israel shall for ever remain
the nation of God, comparing them with the
stability of the heavens and nature;

1. Ezek. xx:32, where the prophet seems to intend

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

(3:92) Moses (Lev. xviii:27) warned the Israelites that they be not
polluted with whoredoms, lest the land spue them out as it had spued
out the nations who had dwelt there before, and in Deut. viii:19, 20,
in the plainest terms He threatens their total ruin, for He says,

"I testify against you that ye shall surely perish. (93) As the
nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye
perish." In like manner many other passages are found in the law
which expressly show that God chose the Hebrews neither absolutely
nor for ever. (3:94) If, then, the prophets foretold for them a new
covenant of the knowledge of God, love, and grace, such a promise
is easily proved to be only made to the elect, for Ezekiel in the
chapter which we have just quoted expressly says that God will
separate from them the rebellious and transgressors, and

Zephaniah (iii:12, 13), says that "God will take away the proud
from the midst of them, and leave the poor." (3:95) Now, inasmuch
as their election has regard to true virtue, it is not to be
thought that it was promised to the Jews alone to the exclusion
of others, but we must evidently believe that the true Gentile
prophets (and every nation, as we have shown, possessed such)

promised the same to the faithful of their own people, who were
thereby comforted. (96) Wherefore this eternal covenant of the
knowledge of God and love is universal, as is clear, moreover,
from Zeph. iii:10, 11 : no difference in this respect can be
admitted between Jew and Gentile, nor did the former enjoy any
special election beyond that which we have pointed out.

(3:97) When the prophets, in speaking of this election which regards
only true virtue, mixed up much concerning sacrifices and ceremonies,
and the rebuilding of the temple and city, they wished by such
figurative expressions, after the manner and nature of prophecy,
to expound matters spiritual, so as at the same time to show to the

Jews, whose prophets they were, the true restoration of the state and
of the temple to be expected about the time of Cyrus.

(3:98) At the present time, therefore, there is absolutely nothing
which the Jews can arrogate to themselves beyond other people.

(3:99) As to their continuance so long after dispersion and the loss
of empire, there is nothing marvellous in it, for they so separated
themselves from every other nation as to draw down upon themselves
universal hate, not only by their outward rites, rites conflicting
with those of other nations, but also by the sign of circumcision
which they most scrupulously observe. (100) That they have been
preserved in great measure by Gentile hatred, experience demonstrates.

(3:101) When the king of Spain formerly compelled the Jews to embrace
the State religion or to go into exile, a large number of Jews accepted

Catholicism. (102) Now, as these renegades were admitted to all the
native privileges of Spaniards, and deemed worthy of filling all
honourable offices, it came to pass that they straightway became so
intermingled with the Spaniards as to leave of themselves no relic
or remembrance. (103) But exactly the opposite happened to those
whom the king of Portugal compelled to become Christians, for they
always, though converted, lived apart, inasmuch as they were considered
unworthy of any civic honours.

(3:104) The sign of circumcision is, as I think, so important, that

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

(3:106) Of such a possibility we have a very famous example in the

Chinese. (107) They, too, have some distinctive mark on their heads
which they most scrupulously observe, and by which they keep themselves
apart from everyone else, and have thus kept themselves during so many
thousand years that they far surpass all other nations in antiquity.

(108) They have not always retained empire, but they have recovered
it when lost, and doubtless will do so again after the spirit of the

Tartars becomes relaxed through the luxury of riches and pride.

(3:109) Lastly, if any one wishes to maintain that the Jews, from
this or from any other cause, have been chosen by God for ever, I
will not gainsay him if he will admit that this choice, whether
temporary or eternal, has no regard, in so far as it is peculiar
to the Jews, to aught but dominion and physical advantages (for
such alone can one nation be distinguished from another), whereas
in regard to intellect and true virtue, every nation is on a with
the rest, and God has not in these respects chosen one people
rather than another.

[4:0] CHAPTER IV. - OF THE DIVINE LAW.

(4:1) The word law, taken in the abstract, means that by which an
individual, or all things, or as many things as belong to a particular
species, act in one and the same fixed and definite manner, which
manner depends either on natural necessity or on human decree. (2) A
law which depends on natural necessity is one which necessarily follows
from the nature, or from the definition of the thing in question; a law
which depends on human decree, and which is more correctly called an
ordinance, is one which men have laid down for themselves and others in
order to live more safely or conveniently, or from some similar reason.

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

[4:1]

1. (4:7)Because man, in so far as he is a part of nature,
constitutes a part of the power of nature. (8) Whatever,
therefore, follows necessarily from the necessity of
human nature (that is, from nature herself, in so far
as we conceive of her as acting through man) follows,
even though it be necessarily, from human power.

(9) Hence the sanction of such laws may very well be
said to depend on man's decree, for it principally
depends on the power of the human mind; so that the
human mind in respect to its perception of things as
true and false, can readily be conceived as without
such laws, but not without necessary law as we have
just defined it.

2. (4:10)I have stated that these laws depend on human
decree because it is well to define and explain things
by their proximate causes. (11) The general consideration
of fate and the concatenation of causes would aid us
very little in forming and arranging our ideas
concerning particular questions. (12) Let us add that
as to the actual coordination and concatenation of things,
that is how things are ordained and linked together, we
are obviously ignorant; therefore, it is more profitable
for right living, nay, it is necessary for us to consider
things as contingent. (13) So much about law in the abstract.

(4:14) Now the word law seems to be only applied to natural phenomena
by analogy, and is commonly taken to signify a command which men can
either obey or neglect, inasmuch as it restrains human nature within
certain originally exceeded limits, and therefore lays down no rule
beyond human strength. (15) Thus it is expedient to define law more
particularly as a plan of life laid down by man for himself or others
with a certain object. (16) However, as the true object of legislation
is only perceived by a few, and most men are almost incapable of
grasping it, though they live under its conditions, legislators, with
a view to exacting general obedience, have wisely put forward another
object, very different from that which necessarily follows from the
nature of law: they promise to the observers of the law that which the
masses chiefly desire, and threaten its violators with that which they
chiefly fear: thus endeavouring to restrain the masses, as far as may be,
like a horse with a curb; whence it follows that the word law is chiefly
applied to the modes of life enjoined on men by the sway of others;
hence those who obey the law are said to live under it and to be under
compulsion. (4:17) In truth, a man who renders everyone their due
because he fears the gallows, acts under the sway and compulsion of
others, and cannot be called just. (18) But a man who does the same
from a knowledge of the true reason for laws and their necessity, acts
from a firm purpose and of his own accord, and is therefore properly
called just. (19) This, I take it, is Paul's meaning when he says, that
those who live under the law cannot be justified through the law, for
justice, as commonly defined, is the constant and perpetual will to
render every man his due. (4:20) Thus Solomon says (Prov. xxi:15),

"It is a joy to the just to do judgment," but the wicked fear.

(II:[4:2] ) (4:21) Law, then, being a plan of living which men have for
a certain object laid down for themselves or others, may, as it seems,
be divided into human law and Divine law. (22) By human law I mean
a plan of living which serves only to render life and the state secure.

(23) By Divine law I mean that which only regards the highest good,
in other words, the true knowledge of God and love.

(4:24) I call this law Divine because of the nature of the
highest good, which I will here shortly explain as clearly
as I can.

(4:25) Inasmuch as the intellect is the best part of our being,
it is evident that we should make every effort to perfect it as far
as possible if we desire to search for what is really profitable to
us. (26) For in intellectual perfection the highest good should
consist. (27) Now, since all our knowledge, and the certainty which
removes every doubt, depend solely on the knowledge of God;- firstly,
because without God nothing can exist or be conceived; secondly,
because so long as we have no clear and distinct idea of God we may
remain in universal doubt - it follows that our highest good and
perfection also depend solely on the knowledge of God. (4:28) Further,
since without God nothing can exist or be conceived, it is evident
that all natural phenomena involve and express the conception of God
as far as their essence and perfection extend, so that we have greater
and more perfect knowledge of God in proportion to our knowledge of
natural phenomena: conversely (since the knowledge of an effect through
its cause is the same thing as the knowledge of a particular property
of a cause) the greater our knowledge of natural phenomena, the more
perfect is our knowledge of the essence of God (which is the cause of
all things). (4:29) So, then, our highest good not only depends on the
knowledge of God, but wholly consists therein; and it further follows
that man is perfect or the reverse in proportion to the nature and
perfection of the object of his special desire; hence the most perfect
and the chief sharer in the highest blessedness is he who prizes above
all else, and takes especial delight in, the intellectual knowledge of

God, the most perfect Being.

(4:30) Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim -
namely, to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded
by this aim of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as the idea
of him is in us, may be called the commands of God, because they proceed,
as it were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists in our minds, and
the plan of life which has regard to this aim may be fitly called the
law of God. (4:31) The nature of the means, and the plan of life which
this aim demands, how the foundations of the best states follow its
lines, and how men's life is conducted, are questions pertaining to
general ethics. (32) Here I only proceed to treat of the Divine law in
a particular application. (33) As the love of God is man's highest
happiness and blessedness, and the ultimate end and aim of all human
actions, it follows that he alone lives by the Divine law who loves God
not from fear of punishment, or from love of any other object, such as
sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely because he has knowledge
of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love of God is the highest
good. (4:34) The sum and chief precept, then, of the Divine law is to love

God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not from fear of any
pains and penalties, or from the love of any other object in which we
desire to take pleasure. (35) The idea of God lays down the rule that

God is our highest good - in other words, that the knowledge and love of

God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions should be directed.

(4:36) The worldling cannot understand these things, they appear
foolishness to him. because he has too meager a knowledge of God, and
also because in this highest good he can discover nothing which he can
handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he chiefly
delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason.

(37) They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater
gift than intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have
said without question.

(4:38) We have now explained that wherein the Divine law chiefly
consists, and what are human laws, namely, all those which have a
different aim unless they have been ratified by revelation, for in
this respect also things are referred to God (as we have shown above)

and in this sense the law of Moses, although it was not universal,
but entirely adapted to the disposition and particular preservation
of a single people, may yet be called a law of God or Divine law,
inasmuch as we believe that it was ratified by prophetic insight.

[4:3] (39) If we consider the nature of natural Divine law as we
have just explained it, we shall see:

I. (4:40) That it is universal or common to all men, for we

have deduced it from universal human nature.

II. (4:41) That it does not depend on the truth of any historical

narrative whatsoever, for inasmuch as this natural

Divine law is comprehended solely by the consideration

of human nature, it is plain that we can conceive it as

existing as well in Adam as in any other man, as well

in a man living among his fellows, as in a man who lives

by himself.

(4:42) The truth of a historical narrative, however assured,

cannot give us the knowledge nor consequently the love of God,

for love of God springs from knowledge of Him, and knowledge of

Him should be derived from general ideas, in themselves

and known, so that the truth of a historical narrative is very

far from being a necessary requisite for our attaining our

highest good.

(4:43) Still, though the truth of histories cannot give us

the knowledge and love of God, I do not deny that reading them

is very useful with a view to life in the world, for the more we

have observed and known of men's customs and circumstances, which

are best revealed by their actions, the more warily we shall be

able to order our lives among them, and so far as reason dictates

to adapt our actions to their dispositions.

III. (4:44)We see that this natural Divine law does not demand the

performance of ceremonies - that is, actions in themselves

indifferent, which are called good from the fact of their

institution, or actions symbolizing something for salvation

or (if one prefers this definition) actions of which the

meaning surpasses human understanding. (45) The natural

light of reason does not demand anything which it is

itself unable to supply, but only such as it can very

clearly show to be good, or a means to our blessedness.

(46) Such things as are good simply because they have been

commanded or instituted, or as being symbols of something

good, are mere shadows which cannot be reckoned among actions

that are the offsprings as it were, or fruit of a sound mind

and of intellect. (47) There is no need for me to go into

this now in more detail.

IV. (4:48) Lastly, we see that the highest reward of the Divine

law is the law itself, namely, to know God and to love Him

of our free choice, and with an undivided and fruitful spirit;

while its penalty is the absence of these things, and being

in bondage to the flesh - that is, having an inconstant and

wavering spirit.

[4:4] (4:49) These points being noted, I must now inquire:

I. (50) Whether by the natural light of reason we can

conceive of God as a law-giver or potentate

ordaining laws for men?

II. (51) What is the teaching of Holy Writ concerning

this natural light of reason and natural law?

III. (52) With what objects were ceremonies formerly

instituted?

IV. (53) Lastly, what is the good gained by knowing

the sacred histories and believing them?

(4:54) Of the first two I will treat in this chapter, of the remaining
two in the following one. (55) Our conclusion about the first is easily
deduced from the nature of God's will, which is only distinguished from

His understanding in relation to our intellect - that is, the will and
the understanding of God are in reality one and the same, and are only
distinguished in relation to our thoughts which we form concerning God's
understanding. (4:56) For instance, if we are only looking to the fact
that the nature of a triangle is from eternity contained in the Divine
nature as an eternal verity, we say that God possesses the idea of a
triangle, or that He understands the nature of a triangle; but if
afterwards we look to the fact that the nature of a triangle is thus
contained in the Divine nature, solely by the necessity of the Divine
nature, and not by the necessity of the nature and essence of a triangle -
in fact, that the necessity of a triangle's essence and nature, in so
far as they are conceived of as eternal verities, depends solely on the
necessity of the Divine nature and intellect, we then style God's will
or decree, that which before we styled His intellect. (57) Wherefore
we make one and the same affirmation concerning God when we say that

He has from eternity decreed that three angles of a triangle are equal
to two right angles, as when we say that He has understood it.

[4:5] (58) Hence the affirmations and the negations of God always
involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to

Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam
should have been able to eat of it, and would therefore have been
impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command
would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. (4:59) But
since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this
command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree,
we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would
surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose
that such evil would of necessity come to pass. (60) Thus it was
that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary
truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss,
not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but
solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that
the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and
solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were,
a lawgiver and potentate. (4:61) From the same cause, namely, from
lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law,
for since they knew not the existence of God as an eternal truth,
they must have taken as a law that which was revealed to them in the

Decalogue, namely, that God exists, and that God only should be
worshipped. (62) But if God had spoken to them without the
intervention of any bodily means, immediately they would have
perceived it not as a law, but as an eternal truth.

(4:63) What we have said about the Israelites and Adam, applies also
to all the prophets who wrote laws in God's name - they did not
adequately conceive God's decrees as eternal truths. (64) For
instance, we must say of Moses that from revelation, from the basis
of what was revealed to him, he perceived the method by which the

Israelitish nation could best be united in a particular territory,
and could form a body politic or state, and further that he perceived
the method by which that nation could best be constrained to obedience;
but he did not perceive, nor was it revealed to him, that this method
was absolutely the best, nor that the obedience of the people in a
certain strip of territory would necessarily imply the end he had in
view. (4:65) Wherefore he perceived these things not as eternal truths,
but as precepts and ordinances, and he ordained them as laws of God,
and thus it came to be that he conceived God as a ruler, a legislator,
a king, as merciful, just, &c., whereas such qualities are simply
attributes of human nature, and utterly alien from the nature of the

Deity. (64:6)Thus much we may affirm of the prophets who wrote laws in
the name of God; but we must not affirm it of Christ, for Christ,
although He too seems to have written laws in the name of God, must be
taken to have had a clear and adequate perception, for Christ was not
so much a prophet as the mouthpiece of God. (67) For God made
revelations to mankind through Christ as He had before done through
angels - that is, a created voice, visions, &c. (68) It would be as
unreasonable to say that God had accommodated his revelations to the
opinions of Christ as that He had before accommodated them to the
opinions of angels (that is, of a created voice or visions) as matters
to be revealed to the prophets, a wholly absurd hypothesis.

(4:69) Moreover, Christ was sent to teach not only the Jews but
the whole human race, and therefore it was not enough that His
mind should be accommodated to the opinions the Jews alone, but
also to the opinion and fundamental teaching common to the whole
human race - in other words, to ideas universal and true. (70) Inasmuch
as God revealed Himself to Christ, or to Christ's mind immediately,
and not as to the prophets through words and symbols, we must needs
suppose that Christ perceived truly what was revealed, in other words,

He understood it, for a, matter is understood when it is perceived
simply by the mind without words or symbols.

(4:71) Christ, then, perceived (truly and adequately) what was revealed,
and if He ever proclaimed such revelations as laws, He did so because
of the ignorance and obstinacy of the people, acting in this respect
the part of God; inasmuch as He accommodated Himself to the
comprehension of the people, and though He spoke somewhat more
clearly than the other prophets, yet He taught what was revealed
obscurely, and generally through parables, especially when He was
speaking to those to whom it was not yet given to understand the
kingdom of heaven. (See Matt. xiii:10, &c.) (72) To those to whom it
was given to understand the mysteries of heaven, He doubtless taught

His doctrines as eternal truths, and did not lay them down as laws,
thus freeing the minds of His hearers from the bondage of that law
which He further confirmed and established. (4:73) Paul apparently
points to this more than once (e.g. Rom. vii:6, and iii:28), though
he never himself seems to wish to speak openly, but, to quote his own
words (Rom. iii:6, and vi:19), "merely humanly." (74) This he expressly
states when he calls God just, and it was doubtless in concession to
human weakness that he attributes mercy, grace, anger, and similar
qualities to God, adapting his language to the popular mind, or, as
he puts it (1 Cor. iii:1, 2), to carnal men. [4:6] (75) In Rom. ix:18,
he teaches undisguisedly that God's auger and mercy depend not on the
actions of men, but on God's own nature or will; further, that no one
is justified by the works of the law, but only by faith, which he seems
to identify with the full assent of the soul; lastly, that no one is
blessed unless he have in him the mind of Christ (Rom. viii:9), whereby
he perceives the laws of God as eternal truths. (76) We conclude,
therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled
just, merciful, &c., merely in concession to popular understanding,
and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and
directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection,
and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve
necessity. (77) So much for the first point which I wished to explain
and demonstrate.

(4:78) Passing on to the second point, let us search the sacred
pages for their teaching concerning the light of nature and this

Divine law. (79) The first doctrine we find in the history of
the first man, where it is narrated that God commanded Adam not
to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;
this seems to mean that God commanded Adam to do and to seek after
righteousness because it was good, not because the contrary was evil:

that is, to seek the good for its own sake, not from fear of evil.

(4:80) We have seen that he who acts rightly from the true knowledge
and love of right, acts with freedom and constancy, whereas he who
acts from fear of evil, is under the constraint of evil, and acts
in bondage under external control. (81) So that this commandment
of God to Adam comprehends the whole Divine natural law, and absolutely
agrees with the dictates of the light of nature; nay, it would be easy
to explain on this basis the whole history or allegory of the first man.

(4:82) But I prefer to pass over the subject in silence, because, in
the first place, I cannot be absolutely certain that my explanation
would be in accordance with the intention of the sacred writer; and,
secondly, because many do not admit that this history is an allegory,
maintaining it to be a simple narrative of facts. (83) It will be
better, therefore, to adduce other passages of Scripture, especially
such as were written by him, who speaks with all the strength of his
natural understanding, in which he surpassed all his contemporaries,
and whose sayings are accepted by the people as of equal weight with
those of the prophets. (84) I mean Solomon, whose prudence and wisdom
are commended in Scripture rather than his piety and gift of prophecy.

(4:85) Life being taken to mean the true life (as is evident from Deut.

xxx:19), the fruit of the understanding consists only in the true life,
and its absence constitutes punishment. (86) All this absolutely agrees
with what was set out in our fourth point concerning natural law.

(4:87) Moreover our position that it is the well-spring of life, and that
the intellect alone lays down laws for the wise, is plainly taught by
the sage, for he says (Prov. xiii14): "The law of the wise is a fountain
of life" - that is, as we gather from the preceding text, the
understanding. (4:88) In chap. iii:13, he expressly teaches that the
understanding renders man blessed and happy, and gives him true peace
of mind. "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that
getteth understanding," for "Wisdom gives length of days, and
riches and honour; her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her
paths peace" (xiiii6, 17). (89) According to Solomon, therefore, it is
only the wise who live in peace and equanimity, not like the wicked
whose minds drift hither and thither, and (as Isaiah says, chap. Ivii:20)

"are like the troubled sea, for them there is no peace."

(4:90) Lastly, we should especially note the passage in chap. ii. of

Solomon's proverbs which most clearly confirms our contention:

"If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for
understanding . . . then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord,
and find the knowledge of God; for the Lord giveth wisdom; out of His
mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." (91) These words clearly
enunciate (1), that wisdom or intellect alone teaches us to fear God
wisely - that is, to worship Him truly; (2), that wisdom and knowledge
flow from God's mouth, and that God bestows on us this gift; this we
have already shown in proving that our understanding and our knowledge
depend on, spring from, and are perfected by the idea or knowledge of

God, and nothing else. (4:92) Solomon goes on to say in so many words
that this knowledge contains and involves the true principles of
ethics and politics: "When wisdom entereth into thy heart, and
knowledge is pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee,
understanding shall keep thee, then shalt thou understand righteousness,
and judgment, and equity, yea every good path." (93) All of which is
in obvious agreement with natural knowledge: for after we have come to
the understanding of things, and have tasted the excellence of
knowledge, she teaches us ethics and true virtue.

(4:94) Thus the happiness and the peace of him who cultivates his
natural understanding lies, according to Solomon also, not so much
under the dominion of fortune (or God's external aid) as in inward
personal virtue (or God's internal aid), for the latter can to a
great extent be preserved by vigilance, right action, and thought.

(4:95) Lastly, we must by no means pass over the passage in Paul's

Epistle to the Romans, i:20, in which he says: "For the invisible
things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and

Godhead; so that they are without excuse, because, when they knew God,
they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful."

(4:96) These words clearly show that everyone can by the light
of nature clearly understand the goodness and the eternal divinity
of God, and can thence know and deduce what they should seek for and
what avoid; wherefore the Apostle says that they are without excuse
and cannot plead ignorance, as they certainly might if it were a
question of supernatural light and the incarnation, passion, and
resurrection of Christ. (97) "Wherefore," he goes on to say (ib. 24),

"God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts;" and so on, through the rest of the chapter, he describes
the vices of ignorance, and sets them forth as the punishment of
ignorance. (98) This obviously agrees with the verse of Solomon,
already quoted, "The instruction of fools is folly," so that it is
easy to understand why Paul says that the wicked are without excuse.

(4:99) As every man sows so shall he reap: out of evil, evils
necessarily spring, unless they be wisely counteracted. (100) Thus
we see that Scripture literally approves of the light of natural
reason and the natural Divine law, and I have fulfilled the promises
made at the beginning of this chapter.

[5:0] CHAPTER V. - OF THE CEREMONIAL LAW.

(5:1) In the foregoing chapter we have shown that the Divine law,
which renders men truly blessed, and teaches them the true life,
is universal to all men; nay, we have so intimately deduced it
from human nature that it must be esteemed innate, and, as it were,
ingrained in the human mind.

(5:2) But with regard to the ceremonial observances which were
ordained in the Old Testament for the Hebrews only, and were so
adapted to their state that they could for the most part only be
observed by the society as a whole and not by each individual,
it is evident that they formed no part of the Divine law, and
had nothing to do with blessedness and virtue, but had reference
only to the election of the Hebrews, that is (as I have shown in

Chap. II.), to their temporal bodily happiness and the tranquillity
of their kingdom, and that therefore they were only valid while
that kingdom lasted. (3) If in the Old Testament they are spoken
of as the law of God, it is only because they were founded on
revelation, or a basis of revelation. (4) Still as reason,
however sound, has little weight with ordinary theologians,

I will adduce the authority of Scripture for what I here assert,
and will further show, for the sake of greater clearness, why and
how these ceremonials served to establish and preserve the Jewish
kingdom. [5:1] (5) Isaiah teaches most plainly that the Divine
law in its strict sense signifies that universal law which consists
in a true manner of life, and does not signify ceremonial
observances. (6) In chapter i:10, the prophet calls on his
countrymen to hearken to the Divine law as he delivers it, and
first excluding all kinds of sacrifices and all feasts, he at
length sums up the law in these few words, "Cease to do evil,
learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed."

(5:7) Not less striking testimony is given in Psalm xl:7- 9, where
the Psalmist addresses God: "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not
desire; mine ears hast Thou opened; burnt offering and sin-offering
hast Thou not required; I delight to do Thy will, 0 my God; yea,

Thy law is within my heart." (8) Here the Psalmist reckons as the
law of God only that which is inscribed in his heart, and excludes
ceremonies therefrom, for the latter are good and inscribed on the
heart only from the fact of their institution, and not because of
their intrinsic value.

(5:9) Other passages of Scripture testify to the same truth, but
these two will suffice. (10) We may also learn from the Bible that
ceremonies are no aid to blessedness, but only have reference to the
temporal prosperity of the kingdom; for the rewards promised for
their observance are merely temporal advantages and delights,
blessedness being reserved for the universal Divine law. (11) In
all the five books commonly attributed to Moses nothing is promised,
as I have said, beyond temporal benefits, such as honours, fame,
victories, riches, enjoyments, and health. (12) Though many moral
precepts besides ceremonies are contained in these five books, they
appear not as moral doctrines universal to all men, but as commands
especially adapted to the understanding and character of the Hebrew
people, and as having reference only to the welfare of the kingdom.

(5:13) For instance, Moses does not teach the Jews as a prophet not
to kill or to steal, but gives these commandments solely as a lawgiver
and judge; he does not reason out the doctrine, but affixes for its
non-observance a penalty which may and very properly does vary in
different nations. (14) So, too, the command not to commit adultery
is given merely with reference to the welfare of the state; for if
the moral doctrine had been intended, with reference not only to the
welfare of the state, but also to the tranquillity and blessedness of
the individual, Moses would have condemned not merely the outward act,
but also the mental acquiescence, as is done by Christ, Who taught
only universal moral precepts, and for this cause promises a
spiritual instead of a temporal reward. (5:15) Christ, as I have
said, was sent into the world, not to preserve the state nor to
lay down laws, but solely to teach the universal moral law, so we
can easily understand that He wished in nowise to do away with the
law of Moses, inasmuch as He introduced no new laws of His own -

His sole care was to teach moral doctrines, and distinguish them
from the laws of the state; for the Pharisees, in their ignorance,
thought that the observance of the state law and the Mosaic law
was the sum total of morality; whereas such laws merely had
reference to the public welfare, and aimed not so much at
instructing the Jews as at keeping them under constraint. (16) But
let us return to our subject, and cite other passages of Scripture
which set forth temporal benefits as rewards for observing the
ceremonial law, and blessedness as reward for the universal law.

(5:17) None of the prophets puts the point more clearly than Isaiah.

(18) After condemning hypocrisy he commends liberty and charity
towards one's self and one's neighbours, and promises as a reward:

"Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy health
shall spring forth speedily, thy righteousness shall go before thee,
and the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward" (chap. lviii:8).

(5:19) Shortly afterwards he commends the Sabbath, and for a due
observance of it, promises: "Then shalt thou delight thyself in the

Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the
earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for
the mouth of the Lord has spoken it." (20) Thus the prophet for
liberty bestowed, and charitable works, promises a healthy mind
in a healthy body, and the glory of the Lord even after death;
whereas, for ceremonial exactitude, he only promises security
of rule, prosperity, and temporal happiness.

(5:21) In Psalms xv. and xxiv. no mention is made of ceremonies,
but only of moral doctrines, inasmuch as there is no question
of anything but blessedness, and blessedness is symbolically
promised: it is quite certain that the expressions, "the hill
of God," and "His tents and the dwellers therein," refer to
blessedness and security of soul, not to the actual mount of

Jerusalem and the tabernacle of Moses, for these latter were
not dwelt in by anyone, and only the sons of Levi ministered
there. (22) Further, all those sentences of Solomon to which

I referred in the last chapter, for the cultivation of the
intellect and wisdom, promise true blessedness, for by wisdom
is the fear of God at length understood, and the knowledge of

God found.

(5:23) That the Jews themselves were not bound to practise their
ceremonial observances after the destruction of their kingdom
is evident from Jeremiah. (24) For when the prophet saw and
foretold that the desolation of the city was at hand, he said
that God only delights in those who know and understand that He
exercises loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the
earth, and that such persons only are worthy of praise. (Jer. ix:23.)

(5:25) As though God had said that, after the desolation of the city,

He would require nothing special from the Jews beyond the natural law
by which all men are bound.

[5:2] (26) The New Testament also confirms this view, for only
moral doctrines are therein taught, and the kingdom of heaven is
promised as a reward, whereas ceremonial observances are not
touched on by the Apostles, after they began to preach the Gospel
to the Gentiles. (27) The Pharisees certainly continued to
practise these rites after the destruction of the kingdom, but
more with a view of opposing the Christians than of pleasing God:

for after the first destruction of the city, when they were led
captive to Babylon, not being then, so far as I am aware, split up
into sects, they straightway neglected their rites, bid farewell
to the Mosaic law, buried their national customs in oblivion as
being plainly superfluous, and began to mingle with other nations,
as we may abundantly learn from Ezra and Nehemiah. (5:28) We cannot,
therefore, doubt that they were no more bound by the law of Moses,
after the destruction of their kingdom, than they had been before
it had been begun, while they were still living among other peoples
before the exodus from Egypt, and were subject to no special law
beyond the natural law, and also, doubtless, the law of the state
in which they were living in so far as it was consonant with the

Divine natural law.

(5:29) As to the fact that the patriarchs offered sacrifices,

I think they did so for the purpose of stimulating their piety,
for their minds had been accustomed from childhood to the idea
of sacrifice, which we know had been universal from the time of

Enoch; and thus they found in sacrifice their most powerful
incentive. (30) The patriarchs, then, did not sacrifice to God
at the bidding of a Divine right, or as taught by the basis of
the Divine law, but simply in accordance with the custom of the
time; and, if in so doing they followed any ordinance, it was
simply the ordinance of the country they were living in, by
which (as we have seen before in the case of Melchisedek) they
were bound.

[5:3] (31) I think that I have now given Scriptural authority
for my view: it remains to show why and how the ceremonial
observances tended to preserve and confirm the Hebrew kingdom;
and this I can very briefly do on grounds universally accepted.

(5:32) The formation of society serves not only for defensive
purposes, but is also very useful, and, indeed, absolutely
necessary, as rendering possible the division of labour. (33) If
men did not render mutual assistance to each other, no one would
have either the skill or the time to provide for his own
sustenance and preservation: for all men are not equally apt for
all work, and no one would be capable of preparing all that he
individually stood in need of. (34) Strength and time, I repeat,
would fail, if every one had in person to plough, to sow, to reap,
to grind corn, to cook, to weave, to stitch, and perform the other
numerous functions required to keep life going; to say nothing of
the arts and sciences which are also entirely necessary to the
perfection and blessedness of human nature. (35) We see that peoples
living, in uncivilized barbarism lead a wretched and almost animal
life, and even they would not be able to acquire their few rude
necessaries without assisting one another to a certain extent.

(5:36) Now if men were so constituted by nature that they desired
nothing but what is designated by true reason, society would
obviously have no need of laws: it would be sufficient to inculcate
true moral doctrines; and men would freely, without hesitation,
act in accordance with their true interests. (37) But human nature
is framed in a different fashion: every one, indeed, seeks his own
interest, but does not do so in accordance with the dictates of sound
reason, for most men's ideas of desirability and usefulness are
guided by their fleshly instincts and emotions, which take no
thought beyond the present and the immediate object. (5:38) Therefore,
no society can exist without government, and force, and laws to
restrain and repress men's desires and immoderate impulses. (39) Still
human nature will not submit to absolute repression. (40) Violent
governments, as Seneca says, never last long; the moderate governments
endure. (41) So long as men act simply from fear they act contrary to
their inclinations, taking no thought for the advantages or necessity
of their actions, but simply endeavouring to escape punishment or loss
of life. (5:42) They must needs rejoice in any evil which befalls
their ruler, even if it should involve themselves; and must long for
and bring about such evil by every means in their power. (43) Again,
men are especially intolerant of serving and being ruled by their
equals. (44) Lastly, it is exceedingly difficult to revoke liberties
once granted.

(5:45) From these considerations it follows, firstly, that authority
should either be vested in the hands of the whole state in common,
so that everyone should be bound to serve, and yet not be in
subjection to his equals; or else, if power be in the hands of a
few, or one man, that one man should be something above average
humanity, or should strive to get himself accepted as such.

(5:46) Secondly, laws should in every government be so arranged
that people should be kept in bounds by the hope of some greatly
desired good, rather than by fear, for then everyone will do his
duty willingly.

(5:47) Lastly, as obedience consists in acting at the bidding of
external authority, it would have no place in a state where the
government is vested in the whole people, and where laws are made
by common consent. (48) In such a society the people would remain
free, whether the laws were added to or diminished, inasmuch as it
would not be done on external authority, but their own free consent.

(5:49) The reverse happens when the sovereign power is vested in
one man, for all act at his bidding; and, therefore, unless they
had been trained from the first to depend on the words of their
ruler, the latter would find it difficult, in case of need, to
abrogate liberties once conceded, and impose new laws.

(5:50) From these universal considerations, let us pass on to the
kingdom of the Jews. (51) The Jews when they first came out of

Egypt were not bound by any national laws, and were therefore free
to ratify any laws they liked, or to make new ones, and were at
liberty to set up a government and occupy a territory wherever
they chose. (5:52) However, they were entirely unfit to frame a
wise code of laws and to keep the sovereign power vested in the
community; they were all uncultivated and sunk in a wretched
slavery, therefore the sovereignty was bound to remain vested
in the hands of one man who would rule the rest and keep them
under constraint, make laws and interpret them. (53) This
sovereignty was easily retained by Moses, because he surpassed
the rest in virtue and persuaded the people of the fact, proving
it by many testimonies (see Exod. chap. xiv., last verse, and
chap. xix:9). (5:54) He then, by the Divine virtue he possessed,
made laws and ordained them for the people, taking the greatest
care that they should be obeyed willingly and not through fear,
being specially induced to adopt this course by the obstinate
nature of the Jews, who would not have submitted to be ruled
solely by constraint; and also by the imminence of war, for it
is always better to inspire soldiers with a thirst for glory
than to terrify them with threats; each man will then strive
to distinguish himself by valour and courage, instead of merely
trying to escape punishment. (55) Moses, therefore, by his
virtue and the Divine command, introduced a religion, so that
the people might do their duty from devotion rather than fear.

(5:56) Further, he bound them over by benefits, and prophesied
many advantages in the future; nor were his laws very severe,
as anyone may see for himself, especially if he remarks the
number of circumstances necessary in order to procure the
conviction of an accused person.

(5:57) Lastly, in order that the people which could not govern
itself should be entirely dependent on its ruler, he left nothing
to the free choice of individuals (who had hitherto been slaves);
the people could do nothing but remember the law, and follow the
ordinances laid down at the good pleasure of their ruler; they
were not allowed to plough, to sow, to reap, nor even to eat;
to clothe themselves, to shave, to rejoice, or in fact to do
anything whatever as they liked, but were bound to follow the
directions given in the law; and not only this, but they were
obliged to have marks on their door-posts, on their hands, and
between their eyes to admonish them to perpetual obedience.

(5:58) This, then, was the object of the ceremonial law, that men
should do nothing of their own free will, but should always act
under external authority, and should continually confess by their
actions and thoughts that they were not their own masters, but
were entirely under the control of others.

(5:59) From all these considerations it is clearer than day that
ceremonies have nothing to do with a state of blessedness, and
that those mentioned in the Old Testament, i.e. the whole Mosaic

Law, had reference merely to the government of the Jews, and
merely temporal advantages.

[5:6] (60) As for the Christian rites, such as baptism, the Lord's

Supper, festivals, public prayers, and any other observances which
are, and always have been, common to all Christendom, if they were
instituted by Christ or His Apostles (which is open to doubt), they
were instituted as external signs of the universal church, and not
as having anything to do with blessedness, or possessing any
sanctity in themselves. [5:5] (61) Therefore, though such
ceremonies were not ordained for the sake of upholding a government,
they were ordained for the preservation of a society, and
accordingly he who lives alone is not bound by them: nay, those
who live in a country where the Christian religion is forbidden,
are bound to abstain from such rites, and can none the less live
in a state of blessedness. (62) We have an example of this in

Japan, where the Christian religion is forbidden, and the Dutch
who live there are enjoined by their East India Company not to
practise any outward rites of religion. (5:63) I need not cite other
examples, though it would be easy to prove my point from the
fundamental principles of the New Testament, and to adduce many
confirmatory instances; but I pass on the more willingly, as I
am anxious to proceed to my next proposition. (64) I will now,
therefore, pass on to what I proposed to treat of in the second
part of this chapter, namely, what persons are bound to believe
in the narratives contained in Scripture, and how far they are so
bound. (65) Examining this question by the aid of natural reason,

I will proceed as follows.

(5:66) If anyone wishes to persuade his fellows for or against
anything which is not self-evident, he must deduce his contention
from their admissions, and convince them either by experience or
by ratiocination; either by appealing to facts of natural
experience, or to self-evident intellectual axioms. (67) Now
unless the experience be of such a kind as to be clearly and
distinctly understood, though it may convince a man, it will
not have the same effect on his mind and disperse the clouds
of his doubt so completely as when the doctrine taught is
deduced entirely from intellectual axioms - that is, by the
mere power of the understanding and logical order, and this
is especially the case in spiritual matters which have nothing
to do with the senses.

(5:68) But the deduction of conclusions from general truths

"a priori," usually requires a long chain of arguments, and,
moreover, very great caution, acuteness, and self-restraint -
qualities which are not often met with; therefore people
prefer to be taught by experience rather than deduce their
conclusion from a few axioms, and set them out in logical order.

(5:69) Whence it follows, that if anyone wishes to teach a
doctrine to a whole nation (not to speak of the whole human
race), and to be understood by all men in every particular,
he will seek to support his teaching with experience, and will
endeavour to suit his reasonings and the definitions of his
doctrines as far as possible to the understanding of the common
people, who form the majority of mankind, and he will not set
them forth in logical sequence nor adduce the definitions which
serve to establish them. (5:70) Otherwise he writes only for
the learned - that is, he will be understood by only a small
proportion of the human race.

(5:71) All Scripture was written primarily for an entire people,
and secondarily for the whole human race; therefore its contents
must necessarily be adapted as far as possible to the understanding
of the masses, and proved only by examples drawn from experience.

(5:72) We will explain ourselves more clearly. (73) The chief
speculative doctrines taught in Scripture are the existence of

God, or a Being Who made all things, and Who directs and sustains
the world with consummate wisdom; furthermore, that God takes the
greatest thought for men, or such of them as live piously and
honourably, while He punishes, with various penalties, those who
do evil, separating them from the good. (74) All this is proved in

Scripture entirely through experience-that is, through the
narratives there related. (5:75) No definitions of doctrine are
given, but all the sayings and reasonings are adapted to the
understanding of the masses. (76) Although experience can give
no clear knowledge of these things, nor explain the nature of God,
nor how He directs and sustains all things, it can nevertheless
teach and enlighten men sufficiently to impress obedience and
devotion on their minds.

(5:77) It is now, I think, sufficiently clear what persons are
bound to believe in the Scripture narratives, and in what degree
they are so bound, for it evidently follows from what has been
said that the knowledge of and belief in them is particularly
necessary to the masses whose intellect is not capable of
perceiving things clearly and distinctly. (78) Further, he who
denies them because he does not believe that God exists or takes
thought for men and the world, may be accounted impious; but a
man who is ignorant of them, and nevertheless knows by natural
reason that God exists, as we have said, and has a true plan of
life, is altogether blessed - yes, more blessed than the common
herd of believers, because besides true opinions he possesses
also a true and distinct conception. (79) Lastly, he who is
ignorant of the Scriptures and knows nothing by the light of
reason, though he may not be impious or rebellious, is yet less
than human and almost brutal, having none of God's gifts.

(5:80) We must here remark that when we say that the knowledge
of the sacred narrative is particularly necessary to the masses,
we do not mean the knowledge of absolutely all the narratives
in the Bible, but only of the principal ones, those which,
taken by themselves, plainly display the doctrine we have just
stated, and have most effect over men's minds.

(5:81) If all the narratives in Scripture were necessary for
the proof of this doctrine, and if no conclusion could be drawn
consideration of every one of the histories contained in the
sacred writings, truly the conclusion and demonstration of such
doctrine would over-task the understanding and strength not only
of the masses, but of humanity; who is there who could give
attention to all the narratives at once, and to all the
circumstances, and all the scraps of doctrine to be elicited
from such a host of diverse histories? (5:82) I cannot believe
that the men who have left us the Bible as we have it were so
abounding in talent that they attempted setting about such a
method of demonstration, still less can I suppose that we cannot
understand Scriptural doctrine till we have given heed to the
quarrels of Isaac, the advice of Achitophel to Absalom, the
civil war between Jews and Israelites, and other similar
chronicles; nor can I think that it was more difficult to teach
such doctrine by means of history to the Jews of early times, the
contemporaries of Moses, than it was to the contemporaries of Esdras.

(5:83) But more will be said on this point hereafter, we may now
only note that the masses are only bound to know those histories
which can most powerfully dispose their mind to obedience and
devotion. (5:84) However, the masses are not sufficiently skilled
to draw conclusions from what they read, they take more delight in
the actual stories, and in the strange and unlooked-for issues of
events than in the doctrines implied; therefore, besides reading
these narratives, they are always in need of pastors or church
ministers to explain them to their feeble intelligence.

(5:85) But not to wander from our point, let us conclude with
what has been our principal object - namely, that the truth of
narratives, be they what they may, has nothing to do with the

Divine law, and serves for nothing except in respect of doctrine,
the sole element which makes one history better than another.

(86) The narratives in the Old and New Testaments surpass
profane history, and differ among themselves in merit simply
by reason of the salutary doctrines which they inculcate.

(5:87) Therefore, if a man were to read the Scripture narratives
believing the whole of them, but were to give no heed to the
doctrines they contain, and make no amendment in his life, he
might employ himself just as profitably in reading the Koran
or the poetic drama, or ordinary chronicles, with the attention
usually given to such writings; on the other hand, if a man is
absolutely ignorant of the Scriptures, and none the less has
right opinions and a true plan of life, he is absolutely blessed
and truly possesses in himself the spirit of Christ.

(5:88) The Jews are of a directly contrary way of thinking,
for they hold that true opinions and a true plan of life are
of no service in attaining blessedness, if their possessors
have arrived at them by the light of reason only, and
not like the documents prophetically revealed to Moses.

(5:89) Maimonides ventures openly to make this assertion:

"Every man who takes to heart the seven precepts and
diligently follows them, is counted with the pious among
the nation, and an heir of the world to come; that is to
say, if he takes to heart and follows them because God
ordained them in the law, and revealed them to us by Moses,
because they were of aforetime precepts to the sons of Noah:

but he who follows them as led thereto by reason, is not
counted as a dweller among the pious or among the wise of the
nations." (5:90) Such are the words Of Maimonides, to which

R. Joseph, the son of Shem Job, adds in his book which he
calls "Kebod Elohim, or God's Glory," that although Aristotle

(whom he considers to have written the best ethics and to be
above everyone else) has not omitted anything that concerns
true ethics, and which he has adopted in his own book,
carefully following the lines laid down, yet this was not able
to suffice for his salvation, inasmuch as he embraced his
doctrines in accordance with the dictates of reason and not
as Divine documents prophetically revealed.

(5:91) However, that these are mere figments, and are not supported
by Scriptural authority will, I think, be sufficiently evident to
the attentive reader, so that an examination of the theory will be
sufficient for its refutation. (92) It is not my purpose here to
refute the assertions of those who assert that the natural light
of reason can teach nothing, of any value concerning the true way
of salvation. (93) People who lay no claims to reason for
themselves, are not able to prove by reason this their assertion;
and if they hawk about something superior to reason, it is a mere
figment, and far below reason, as their general method of life
sufficiently shows. (94) But there is no need to dwell upon such
persons. (5:95) I will merely add that we can only judge of a man
by his works. (96) If a man abounds in the fruits of the Spirit,
charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
gentleness, chastity, against which, as Paul says (Gal. v:22),
there is no law, such an one, whether he be taught by reason only
or by the Scripture only, has been in very truth taught by God,
and is altogether blessed. (97) Thus have I said all that I
undertook to say concerning Divine law.

End of Part 1 of 4

AUTHOR'S ENDNOTES TO THE THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE

CHAPTERS I to V

Chapter I

[Endnote 1] (1) The word naw-vee', Strong:5030, is rightly
interpreted by Rabbi Salomon Jarchi, but the sense is hardly
caught by Aben Ezra, who was not so good a Hebraist. (2) We
must also remark that this Hebrew word for prophecy has
a universal meaning and embraces all kinds of prophecy.

(3) Other terms are more special, and denote this or that
sort of prophecy, as I believe is well known to the learned.

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

Divine revelation and inward testimony. (4) Thus the sovereign
powers are the interpreters of their own rights of sway,
because these are defended only by their authority and
supported by their testimony.

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

CHAPTER III.

[Endnote 4] (1) In Gen. xv. it is written that God promised

Abraham to protect him, and to grant him ample rewards.

(2) Abraham answered that he could expect nothing which
could be of any value to him, as he was childless and well
stricken in years.

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

End of Endnotes to Part 1 of 4. - Chapters I to V.

End of A Theologico-Political Treatise - Part 1

"Joseph B. Yesselman" <jyselman@erols.com>

August 26, 1997