A Theologico-Political Treatise Pt 3
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

A THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE

Part 3 of 4 - Chapters XI to XV

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 versions:

Part 3 - http://www.erols.com/jyselman/ttpelws3.htm

____________________________________________________________________________

[11:0] Chapter XI

[12:0] Chapter XII

[13:0] Chapter XIII

[14:0] Chapter XIV

[15:0] Chapter XV

____________________________________________________________________________

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

Search forward and back with the same string.

Include square brackets in search string.

[11:0] CHAPTER XI - An Inquiry whether the Apostles wrote their

Epistles as Apostles and Prophets, or merely as Teachers,
and an Explanation of what is meant by an Apostle.

[11:1] The epistles not in the prophetic style.

[11:2] The Apostles not commanded to write or preach in
particular places.

[11:3] Different methods of teaching adopted by the Apostles.

[12:0] CHAPTER XII - Of the true Original of the Divine Law,
and wherefore Scripture is called Sacred, and the

Word of God. How that, in so far as it contains
the Word of God, it has come down to us uncorrupted.

[13:0] CHAPTER XIII - It is shown, that Scripture teaches only
very Simple Doctrines, such as suffice for right conduct.

[13:1] Error in speculative doctrine not impious - nor knowledge pious.

Piety consists in obedience.

[14:0] CHAPTER XIV - Definitions of Faith, the True Faith,
and the Foundations of Faith, which is once for all
separated from Philosophy.

[14:1] Danger resulting from the vulgar idea of faith.

[14:2] The only test of faith obedience and good works.

[14:3] As different men are disposed to obedience by different
opinions, universal faith can contain only the
simplest doctrines.

[14:4] Fundamental distinction between faith and philosophy -
the key-stone of the present treatise.

[15:0] CHAPTER XV - Theology is shown not to be subservient to

Reason, nor Reason to Theology: a Definition of the reason
which enables us to accept the Authority of the Bible.

[15:1] Theory that Scripture must be accommodated to Reason -
maintained by Maimonides - already refuted in Chapter vii.

[15:2] Theory that Reason must be accommodated to Scripture -
maintained by Alpakhar - examined.

[15:3] And refuted.

[15:4] Scripture and Reason independent of one another.

[15:5] Certainty of fundamental faith not mathematical but moral.

[15:6] Great utility of Revelation.

[Author’s Endnotes] to the Treatise.

____________________________________________________________________________

[11:0] CHAPTER XI - AN INQUIRY WHETHER THE APOSTLES WROTE THEIR

EPISTLES AS APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, OR MERELY AS TEACHERS;

AND AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS MEANT BY AN APOSTLE.

[11:1] (1) No reader of the New Testament can doubt that the Apostles
were prophets; but as a prophet does not always speak by revelation
but only at rare intervals, as we showed at the end of Chap. I.,
we may fairly inquire whether the Apostles wrote their Epistles as
prophets, by revelation and express mandate, as Moses, Jeremiah,
and others did, or whether only as private individuals or teachers,
especially as Paul, in Corinthians xiv:6, mentions two sorts of
preaching.

(11:2) If we examine the style of the Epistles, we shall find it
totally different from that employed by the prophets.

(11:3) The prophets are continually asserting that they speak by
the command of God: “Thus saith the Lord,” “The Lord of hosts saith,”

“The command of the Lord,” &c.; and this was their habit not only in
assemblies of the prophets, but also in their epistles containing
revelations, as appears from the epistle of Elijah to Jehoram,

2 Chron. xxi:12, which begins, “Thus saith the Lord.”

(11:4) In the Apostolic Epistles we find nothing of the sort.

(5) Contrariwise, in I Cor. vii:40 Paul speaks according to his own
opinion and in many passages we come across doubtful and perplexed
phrase; such as, “We think, therefore,” Rom. iii:28; “Now I think,”

[Endnote 24] Rom. viii:18, and so on. (6) Besides these, other
expressions are met with very different from those used by the
prophets. (7) For instance, 1 Cor. vii:6, “But I speak this by
permission, not by commandment;” “I give my judgment as one that
hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful” (1 Cor. vii:25),
and so on in many other passages. (8) We must also remark that in
the aforesaid chapter the Apostle says that when he states that he
has or has not the precept or commandment of God, he does not mean
the precept or commandment of God revealed to himself, but only the
words uttered by Christ in His Sermon on the Mount. (9) Furthermore,
if we examine the manner in which the Apostles give out evangelical
doctrine, we shall see that it differs materially from the method
adopted by the prophets. (11:10) The Apostles everywhere reason as if
they were arguing rather than prophesying; the prophecies, on the
other hand, contain only dogmas and commands. (11) God is therein
introduced not as speaking to reason, but as issuing decrees by His
absolute fiat. (12) The authority of the prophets does not submit
to discussion, for whosoever wishes to find rational ground for his
arguments, by that very wish submits them to everyone’s private
judgment. (11:13) This Paul, inasmuch as he uses reason, appears to
have done, for he says in 1 Cor. x:15, “I speak as to wise men,
judge ye what I say.” (14) The prophets, as we showed at the end
of Chapter I., did not perceive what was revealed by virtue of
their natural reason, and though there are certain passages in the

Pentateuch which seem to be appeals to induction, they turn out,
on nearer examination, to be nothing but peremptory commands.

(11:15) For instance, when Moses says, Deut. xxxi:27, “Behold,
while I am yet alive with you, this day ye have been rebellious
against the Lord; and how much more after my death,” we must by
no means conclude that Moses wished to convince the Israelites
by reason that they would necessarily fall away from the worship
of the Lord after his death; for the argument would have been
false, as Scripture itself shows: the Israelites continued
faithful during the lives of Joshua and the elders, and afterwards
during the time of Samuel, David, and Solomon. (16) Therefore the
words of Moses are merely a moral injunction, in which he predicts
rhetorically the future backsliding of the people so as to impress
it vividly on their imagination. (17) I say that Moses spoke of
himself in order to lend likelihood to his prediction, and not as
a prophet by revelation, because in verse 21 of the same chapter we
are told that God revealed the same thing to Moses in different
words, and there was no need to make Moses certain by argument of

God’s prediction and decree; it was only necessary that it should
be vividly impressed on his imagination, and this could not be
better accomplished than by imagining the existing contumacy of
the people, of which he had had frequent experience, as likely
to extend into the future.

(11:18) All the arguments employed by Moses in the five books are
to be understood in a similar manner; they are not drawn from the
armoury of reason, but are merely modes of expression calculated
to instil with efficacy, and present vividly to the imagination
the commands of God.

(11:19) However, I do not wish absolutely to deny that the
prophets ever argued from revelation; I only maintain that
the prophets made more legitimate use of argument in
proportion as their knowledge approached more nearly to
ordinary knowledge, and by this we know that they possessed a
knowledge above the ordinary, inasmuch as they proclaimed
absolute dogmas, decrees, or judgments. (11:20) Thus Moses, the
chief of the prophets, never used legitimate argument, and, on
the other hand, the long deductions and arguments of Paul, such
as we find in the Epistle to the Romans, are in nowise written
from supernatural revelation.

(11:21) The modes of expression and discourse adopted by the Apostles
in the Epistles, show very clearly that the latter were not written
by revelation and Divine command, but merely by the natural powers
and judgment of the authors. (22) They consist in brotherly
admonitions and courteous expressions such as would never be employed
in prophecy, as for instance, Paul’s excuse in Romans xv:15, “I have
written the more boldly unto you in some sort, my brethren.”

[11:2] (23) We may arrive at the same conclusion from observing that
we never read that the Apostles were commanded to write, but only
that they went everywhere preaching, and confirmed their words with
signs. (24) Their personal presence and signs were absolutely
necessary for the conversion and establishment in religion of the

Gentiles; as Paul himself expressly states in Rom. i:11, “But I long
to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to the end
that ye may be established.”

(11:25) It may be objected that we might prove in similar fashion
that the Apostles did not preach as prophets, for they did not go
to particular places, as the prophets did, by the command of God.

(26) We read in the Old Testament that Jonah went to Nineveh to
preach, and at the same time that he was expressly sent there,
and told that he most preach. (27) So also it is related, at great
length, of Moses that he went to Egypt as the messenger of God, and
was told at the same time what he should say to he children of

Israel and to king Pharaoh, and what wonders he should work before
them to give credit to his words. (28) Isaiah, Jeremiah, and

Ezekiel were expressly commanded to preach to the Israelites.

(11:29)Lastly, the prophets only preached what we are assured by Scripture
they had received from God, whereas this is hardly ever said of the

Apostles in the New Testament, when they went about to preach.

(29a) On the contrary, we find passages expressly implying that
the Apostles chose the places where they should preach on their own
responsibility, for there was a difference amounting to a quarrel
between Paul and Barnabas on the subject (Acts xv:37, 38).

(11:30) Often they wished to go to a place, but were prevented,
as Paul writes, Rom. i:13, “Oftentimes I purposed to come to you,
but was let hitherto;” and in I Cor. xvi:12, “As touching our
brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the
brethren, but his will was not at all to come at this time: but he
will come when he shall have convenient time.”

(11:31) From these expressions and differences of opinion among the

Apostles, and also from the fact that Scripture nowhere testifies
of them, as of the ancient prophets, that they went by the command
of God, one might conclude that they preached as well as wrote in
their capacity of teachers, and not as prophets: but the question
is easily solved if we observe the difference between the mission
of an Apostle and that of an Old Testament prophet. (32) The latter
were not called to preach and prophesy to all nations, but to
certain specified ones, and therefore an express and peculiar
mandate was required for each of them; the Apostles, on the other
hand, were called to preach to all men absolutely, and to turn all
men to religion. (11:33) Therefore, whithersoever they went, they were
fulfilling Christ’s commandment; there was no need to reveal to them
beforehand what they should preach, for they were the disciples of

Christ to whom their Master Himself said (Matt. X:19, 20): “But, when
they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak,
for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.”

(11:34) We therefore conclude that the Apostles were only indebted
to special revelation in what they orally preached and confirmed by
signs (see the beginning of Chap. 11.); that which they taught in
speaking or writing without any confirmatory signs and wonders
they taught from their natural knowledge. (See I Cor. xiv:6.)

(11:35) We need not be deterred by the fact that all the Epistles
begin by citing the imprimatur of the Apostleship, for the Apostles,
as I will shortly show, were granted, not only the faculty of
prophecy, but also the authority to teach. (36) We may therefore
admit that they wrote their Epistles as Apostles, and for this cause
every one of them began by citing the Apostolic imprimatur,
possibly with a view to the attention of the reader by asserting
that they were the persons who had made such mark among the faithful
by their preaching, and had shown bv many marvelous works that they
were teaching true religion and the way of salvation. (37) I observe
that what is said in the Epistles with regard to the Apostolic vocation
and the Holy Spirit of God which inspired them, has reference to their
former preaching, except in those passages where the expressions of
the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are used to signify a mind pure,
upright, and devoted to God. (11:38) For instance, in 1 Cor. vii:40,

Paul says: But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment,
and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” (39) By the Spirit
of God the Apostle here refers to his mind, as we may see from the
context: his meaning is as follows: “I account blessed a widow who
does not wish to marry a second husband; such is my opinion, for

I have settled to live unmarried, and I think that I am blessed.”

(11:40) There are other similar passages which I need not now quote.

(11:41) As we have seen that the Apostles wrote their Epistles solely
by the light of natural reason, we must inquire how they were enabled
to teach by natural knowledge matters outside its scope.

(42) However, if we bear in mind what we said in Chap. VII. of
this treatise our difficulty will vanish: for although the contents
of the Bible entirely surpass our understanding, we may safely
discourse of them, provided we assume nothing not told us in

Scripture: by the same method the Apostles, from what they saw
and heard, and from what was revealed to them, were enabled to
form and elicit many conclusions which they would have been able
to teach to men had it been permissible.

(11:43) Further, although religion, as preached by the Apostles,
does not come within the sphere of reason, in so far as it
consists in the narration of the life of Christ, yet its essence,
which is chiefly moral, like the whole of Christ’s doctrine,
can readily be apprehended by the natural faculties of all.

(11:44) Lastly, the Apostles had no lack of supernatural
illumination for the purpose of adapting the religion they had
attested by signs to the understanding of everyone so that it
might be readily received; nor for exhortations on the subject:

in fact, the object of the Epistles is to teach and exhort men
to lead that manner of life which each of the Apostles judged
best for confirming them in religion. (45) We may here repeat
our former remark, that the Apostles had received not only the
faculty of preaching the history of Christ as prophets,
and confirming it with signs, but also authority for teaching and
exhorting according as each thought best. (46) Paul (2 Tim. i:11),

“Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a
teacher of the Gentiles;” and again (I Tim. ii:7), “Whereunto I am
ordained a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ
and lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”

(11:47) These passages, I say, show clearly the stamp both of the
apostleship and the teachership: the authority for admonishing
whomsoever and wheresoever he pleased is asserted by Paul in the

Epistle to Philemon, v:8: “Wherefore, though I might be much bold
in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet,” &c.,
where we may remark that if Paul had received from God as a prophet
what he wished to enjoin Philemon, and had been bound to speak in
his prophetic capacity, he would not have been able to change the
command of God into entreaties. [11:3} (48) We must therefore
understand him to refer to the permission to admonish which he had
received as a teacher, and not as a prophet. (49) We have not yet
made it quite clear that the Apostles might each choose his own
way of teaching, but only that by virtue of their Apostleship
they were teachers as well as prophets; however, if we call reason
to our aid we shall clearly see that an authority to teach implies
authority to choose the method. (50) It will nevertheless be,
perhaps, more satisfactory to draw all our proofs from Scripture;
we are there plainly told that each Apostle chose his particular
method (Rom. xv: 20): “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel,
not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s
foundation.” (11:51) If all the Apostles had adopted the same
method of teaching, and had all built up the Christian religion on
the same foundation, Paul would have had no reason to call the
work of a fellow-Apostle “another man’s foundation,” inasmuch as
it would have been identical with his own: his calling it another
man’s proved that each Apostle built up his religious instruction
on different foundations, thus resembling other teachers who have
each their own method, and prefer instructing quite ignorant
people who have never learnt under another master, whether the
subject be science, languages, or even the indisputable truths of
mathematics. (11:52) Furthermore, if we go through the Epistles at
all attentively, we shall see that the Apostles, while agreeing
about religion itself, are at variance as to the foundations it
rests on. (53) Paul, in order to strengthen men’s religion,
and show them that salvation depends solely on the grace of God,
teaches that no one can boast of works, but only of faith,
and that no one can be justified by works (Rom. iii:27,28);
in fact, he preaches the complete doctrine of predestination.

(11:54) James, on the other hand, states that man is justified
by works, and not by faith only (see his Epistle, ii:24), and
omitting all the disputations of Paul, confines religion to a
very few elements.

(11:55) Lastly, it is indisputable that from these different ground;
for religion selected by the Apostles, many quarrels and schisms
distracted the Church, even in the earliest times, and doubtless
they will continue so to distract it for ever, or at least till
religion is separated from philosophical speculations, and reduced
to the few simple doctrines taught by Christ to His disciples;
such a task was impossible for the Apostles, because the Gospel
was then unknown to mankind, and lest its novelty should offend
men’s ears it had to be adapted to the disposition of
contemporaries (2 Cor. ix:19, 20), and built up on the groundwork
most familiar and accepted at the time. (56) Thus none of the

Apostles philosophized more than did Paul, who was called to
preach to the Gentiles; other Apostles preaching to the Jews,
who despised philosophy, similarly adapted themselves to the
temper of their hearers (see Gal. ii. 11), and preached a religion
free from all philosophical speculations. (11:57) How blest would
our age be if it could witness a religion freed also from all the
trammels of superstition!

____________________________________________________________________________

[12:0] CHAPTER XII - OF THE TRUE ORIGINAL OF THE DIVINE LAW, AND

WHEREFORE SCRIPTURE IS CALLED SACRED, AND THE WORD OF GOD.

HOW THAT, IN SO FAR AS IT CONTAINS THE WORD OF GOD,

IT HAS COME DOWN TO US UNCORRUPTED.

(12:1) Those who look upon the Bible as a message sent down by God from

Heaven to men, will doubtless cry out that I have committed the sin
against the Holy Ghost because I have asserted that the Word of God
is faulty, mutilated, tampered with, and inconsistent; that we
possess it only in fragments, and that the original of the covenant
which God made with the Jews has been lost. (12:2) However, I have no
doubt that a little reflection will cause them to desist from their
uproar: for not only reason but the expressed opinions of prophets
and apostles openly proclaim that God’s eternal Word and covenant,
no less than true religion, is Divinely inscribed in human hearts,
that is, in the human mind, and that this is the true original of

God’s covenant, stamped with His own seal, namely, the idea of

Himself, as it were, with the image of His Godhood.

(12:3) Religion was imparted to the early Hebrews as a law written
down, because they were at that time in the condition of children,
but afterwards Moses (Deut. xxx:6) and Jeremiah (xxxi:33)

predicted a time coming when the Lord should write His law in their
hearts. (4) Thus only the Jews, and amongst them chiefly the

Sadducees, struggled for the law written on tablets; least of all
need those who bear it inscribed on their hearts join in the
contest. (5) Those, therefore, who reflect, will find nothing
in what I have written repugnant either to the Word of God or to
true religion and faith, or calculated to weaken either one or the
other: contrariwise, they will see that I have strengthened
religion, as I showed at the end of Chapter X.; indeed, had it not
been so, I should certainly have decided to hold my peace, nay,

I would even have asserted as a way out of all difficulties that
the Bible contains the most profound hidden mysteries; however,
as this doctrine has given rise to gross superstition and other
pernicious results spoken of at the beginning of Chapter V.,

I have thought such a course unnecessary, especially as religion
stands in no need of superstitious adornments, but is, on the
contrary, deprived by such trappings of some of her splendour.

(12:6) Still, it will be said, though the law of God is written in
the heart, the Bible is none the less the Word of God, and it is
no more lawful to say of Scripture than of God’s Word that it is
mutilated and corrupted. (7) I fear that such objectors are too
anxious to be pious, and that they are in danger of turning
religion into superstition, and worshipping paper and ink in place
of God’s Word.

(12:8) I am certified of thus much: I have said nothing unworthy
of Scripture or God’s Word, and I have made no assertions which I
could not prove by most plain argument to be true. (9) I can,
therefore, rest assured that I have advanced nothing which is
impious or even savours of impiety.

(12:10) I confess that some profane men, to whom religion is a
burden, may, from what I have said, assume a licence to sin,
and without any reason, at the simple dictates of their lusts
conclude that Scripture is everywhere faulty and falsified,
and that herefore its authority is null; but such men are
beyond the reach of help, for nothing, as the proverb has it,
can be said so rightly that it cannot be twisted into wrong.

(12:11) Those who wish to give rein to their lusts are at no
loss for an excuse, nor were those men of old who possessed
the original Scriptures, the ark of the covenant, nay,
the prophets and apostles in person among them, any better than the
people of to-day. (12) Human nature, Jew as well as Gentile, has
always been the same, and in every age virtue has been exceedingly
rare.

(12:13) Nevertheless, to remove every scruple, I will here show
in what sense the Bible or any inanimate thing should be called
sacred and Divine; also wherein the law of God consists, and how
it cannot be contained in a certain number of books; and, lastly,

I will show that Scripture, in so far as it teaches what is
necessary for obedience and salvation, cannot have been corrupted.

(11:14) From these considerations everyone will be able to judge
that I have neither said anything against the Word of God nor
given any foothold to impiety.

(12:15) A thing is called sacred and Divine when it is designed
for promoting piety, and continues sacred so long as it is
religiously used: if the users cease to be pious, the thing ceases
to be sacred: if it be turned to base uses, that which was
formerly sacred becomes unclean and profane. (16) For instance,
a certain spot was named by the patriarch Jacob the house of God,
because he worshipped God there revealed to him: by the prophets
the same spot was called the house of iniquity (see Amos v:5,
and Hosea x:5), because the Israelites were wont, at the
instigation of Jeroboam, to sacrifice there to idols. (17) Another
example puts the matter in the plainest light. (12:18) Words gain
their meaning solely from their usage, and if they are arranged
according to their accepted signification so as to move those who
read them to devotion, they will become sacred, and the book so
written will be sacred also. (19) But if their usage afterwards
dies out so that the words have no meaning, or the book becomes
utterly neglected, whether from unworthy motives, or because it
is no longer needed, then the words and the book will lose both
their use and their sanctity: lastly, if these same words be
otherwise arranged, or if their customary meaning becomes
perverted into its opposite, then both the words and the book
containing them become, instead of sacred, impure and profane.

(12:20) From this it follows that nothing is in itself absolutely
sacred, or profane, and unclean, apart from the mind, but only
relatively thereto. (21) Thus much is clear from many passages
in the Bible. (22) Jeremiah (to select one case out of many)

says (chap. vii:4), that the Jews of his time were wrong in calling

Solomon’s Temple, the Temple of God, for, as he goes on to say in
the same chapter, God’s name would only be given to the Temple so
long as it was frequented by men who worshipped Him, and defended
justice, but that, if it became the resort of murderers, thieves,
idolaters, and other wicked persons, it would be turned into a den
of malefactors.

(12:23) Scripture, curiously enough, nowhere tells us what became
of the Ark of the Covenant, though there is no doubt that it was
destroyed, or burnt together with the Temple; yet there was
nothing which the Hebrews considered more sacred, or held in
greater reverence. (24) Thus Scripture is sacred, and its words

Divine so long as it stirs mankind to devotion towards God:

but if it be utterly neglected, as it formerly was by the Jews,
it becomes nothing but paper and ink, and is left to be
desecrated or corrupted: still, though Scripture be thus corrupted
or destroyed, we must not say that the Word of God has suffered
in like manner, else we shall be like the Jews, who said that
the Temple which would then be the Temple of God had perished in
the flames. (12:25) Jeremiah tells us this in respect to the law,
for he thus chides the ungodly of his time, “Wherefore, say you we
are masters, and the law of the Lord is with us? (26) Surely it
has been given in vain, it is in vain that the pen of the scribes”

(has been made) - that is, you say falsely that the Scripture is
in your power, and that you possess the law of God; for ye have
made it of none effect.

(12:27) So also, when Moses broke the first tables of the law, he did
not by any means cast the Word of God from his hands in anger and
shatter it - such an action would be inconceivable, either of Moses
or of God’s Word - he only broke the tables of stone, which, though
they had before been holy from containing the covenant wherewith the

Jews had bound themselves in obedience to God, had entirely lost
their sanctity when the covenant had been violated by the worship of
the calf, and were, therefore, as liable to perish as the ark of the
covenant. (28) It is thus scarcely to be wondered at, that the
original documents of Moses are no longer extant, nor that the books
we possess met with the fate we have described, when we consider
that the true original of the Divine covenant, the most sacred
object of all, has totally perished.

(12:29) Let them cease, therefore, who accuse us of impiety,
inasmuch as we have said nothing against the Word of God, neither
have we corrupted it, but let them keep their anger, if they would
wreak it justly, for the ancients whose malice desecrated the Ark,
the Temple, and the Law of God, and all that was held sacred,
subjecting them to corruption. (30) Furthermore, if, according
to the saying of the Apostle in 2 Cor. iii:3, they possessed

“the Epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit
of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy
tables of the heart,” let them cease to worship the letter,
and be so anxious concerning it.

(12:31) I think I have now sufficiently shown in what respect

Scripture should be accounted sacred and Divine; we may now see
what should rightly be understood by the expression, the Word
of the Lord; debar (the Hebrew original) signifies word, speech,
command, and thing. (32) The causes for which a thing is in

Hebrew said to be of God, or is referred to Him, have been
already detailed in Chap. I., and we can therefrom easily
gather what meaning Scripture attaches to the phrases, the word,
the speech, the command, or the thing of God. (12:33) I need not,
therefore, repeat what I there said, nor what was shown under
the third head in the chapter on miracles. (34) It is enough to
mention the repetition for the better understanding of what I am
about to say - viz., that the Word of the Lord when it has
reference to anyone but God Himself, signifies that Divine law
treated of in Chap. IV.; in other words, religion, universal and
catholic to the whole human race, as Isaiah describes it (chap. i:10),
teaching that the true way of life consists, not in ceremonies,
but in charity, and a true heart, and calling it indifferently God’s

Law and God’s Word.

(12:35) The expression is also used metaphorically for the order
of nature and destiny (which, indeed, actually depend and follow
from the eternal mandate of the Divine nature), and especially
for such parts of such order as were foreseen by the prophets,
for the prophets did not perceive future events as the result of
natural causes, but as the fiats and decrees of God. (36) Lastly,
it is employed for the command of any prophet, in so far as he
had perceived it by his peculiar faculty or prophetic gift, and
not by the natural light of reason; this use springs chiefly from
the usual prophetic conception of God as a legislator, which we
remarked in Chap. IV. (12:36a) There are, then, three causes for the

Bible’s being called the Word of God: because it teaches true
religion, of which God is the eternal Founder; because it narrates
predictions of future events as though they were decrees of God;
because its actual authors generally perceived things not by their
ordinary natural faculties, but by a power peculiar to themselves,
and introduced these things perceived, as told them by God.

(12:37) Although Scripture contains much that is merely historical
and can be perceived by natural reason, yet its name is acquired
from its chief subject matter.

(12:38) We can thus easily see how God can be said to be the Author
of the Bible: it is because of the true religion therein contained,
and not because He wished to communicate to men a certain number of
books. (39) We can also learn from hence the reason for the
division into Old and New Testament. (12:40) It was made because the
prophets who preached religion before Christ, preached it as a
national law in virtue of the covenant entered into under Moses;
while the Apostles who came after Christ, preached it to all men as
a universal religion solely in virtue of Christ’s Passion: the
cause for the division is not that the two parts are different in
doctrine, nor that they were written as originals of the covenant,
nor, lastly, that the catholic religion (which is in entire
harmony with our nature) was new except in relation to those who
had not known it: “it was in the world,” as John the Evangelist
says, “and the world knew it not.”

(12:41) Thus, even if we had fewer books of the Old and New Testament
than we have, we should still not be deprived of the Word of God

(which, as we have said, is identical with true religion), even as we
do not now hold ourselves to be deprived of it, though we lack many
cardinal writings such as the Book of the Law, which was religiously
guarded in the Temple as the original of the Covenant, also the Book
of Wars, the Book of Chronicles, and many others, from whence the
extant Old Testament was taken and compiled.

(12:42) The above conclusion may be supported by many reasons.

I. (12:43) Because the books of both Testaments were not written
by express command at one place for all ages, but are
a fortuitous collection of the works of men, writing
each as his period and disposition dictated.

(44) So much is clearly shown by the call of the
prophets who were bade to admonish the ungodly of
their time, and also by the Apostolic Epistles.

II. (12:45) Because it is one thing to understand the meaning of

Scripture and the prophets, and quite another thing
to understand the meaning of God, or the actual truth.

(46) This follows from what we said in Chap. II.

(47) We showed, in Chap. VI., that it applied to
historic narratives, and to miracles: but it by no
means applies to questions concerning true religion
and virtue.

III. (12:48) Because the books of the Old Testament were selected
from many, and were collected and sanctioned by a
council of the Pharisees, as we showed in Chap. X.

(49) The books of the New Testament were also chosen
from many by councils which rejected as spurious other
books held sacred by many. (50) But these councils,
both Pharisee and Christian, were not composed of
prophets, but only of learned men and teachers.

(51) Still, we must grant that they were guided in
their choice by a regard for the Word of God; and they
must, therefore, have known what the law of God was.

IV. (12:52) Because the Apostles wrote not as prophets, but as
teachers (see last Chapter), and chose whatever method
they thought best adapted for those whom they addressed:

and consequently, there are many things in the Epistles

(as we showed at the end of the last Chapter) which are
not necessary to salvation.

V. (12:53) Lastly, because there are four Evangelists in the

New Testament, and it is scarcely credible that God can have
designed to narrate the life of Christ four times over,
and to communicate it thus to mankind. (54) For though
there are some details related in one Gospel which are
not in another, and one often helps us to understand
another, we cannot thence conclude that all that is set
down is of vital importance to us, and that God chose
the four Evangelists in order that the life of Christ
might be better understood; for each one preached his

Gospel in a separate locality, each wrote it down as he
preached it, in simple language, in order that the
history of Christ might be clearly told, not with any
view of explaining his fellow-Evangelists.

(12:55) If there are some passages which can be better, and more
easily understood by comparing the various versions, they are the
result of chance, and are not numerous: their continuance in
obscurity would have impaired neither the clearness of the
narrative nor the blessedness of mankind.

(12:56) We have now shown that Scripture can only be called the

Word of God in so far as it affects religion, or the Divine law;
we must now point out that, in respect to these questions, it is
neither faulty, tampered with, nor corrupt. (57) By faulty,
tampered with, and corrupt, I here mean written so incorrectly
that the meaning cannot be arrived at by a study of the language,
nor from the authority of Scripture. (58) I will not go to such
lengths as to say that the Bible, in so far as it contains the

Divine law, has always preserved the same vowel-points, the same
letters, or the same words (I leave this to be proved by the

Massoretes and other worshippers of the letter), I only maintain
that the meaning by which alone an utterance is entitled to be
called Divine, has come down to us uncorrupted, even though the
original wording may have been more often changed than we suppose.

(12:59) Such alterations, as I have said above, detract nothing
from the Divinity of the Bible, for the Bible would have been no
less Divine had it been written in different words or a different
language. (60) That the Divine law has in this sense come down
to us uncorrupted, is an assertion which admits of no dispute.

(12:61) For from the Bible itself we learn, without the smallest
difficulty or ambiguity, that its cardinal precept is: To love

God above all things, and one’s neighbour as one’s self.

(12:62) This cannot be a spurious passage, nor due to a hasty
and mistaken scribe, for if the Bible had ever put forth a
different doctrine it would have had to change the whole of its
teaching, for this is the corner-stone of religion, without
which the whole fabric would fall headlong to the ground.

(63) The Bible would not be the work we have been examining,
but something quite different.

(12:64) We remain, then, unshaken in our belief that this has
always been the doctrine of Scripture, and, consequently, that
no error sufficient to vitiate it can have crept in without
being instantly observed by all; nor can anyone have succeeded
in tampering with it and escaped the discovery of his malice.

(12:65) As this corner-stone is intact, we must perforce admit
the same of whatever other passages are indisputably dependent
on it, and are also fundamental, as, for instance, that a God
exists, that He foresees all things, that He is Almighty, that
by His decree the good prosper and the wicked come to naught,
and, finally, that our salvation depends solely on His grace.

(12:66) These are doctrines which Scripture plainly teaches
throughout, and which it is bound to teach, else all the rest
would be empty and baseless; nor can we be less positive about
other moral doctrines, which plainly are built upon this
universal foundation - for instance, to uphold justice, to
aid the weak, to do no murder, to covet no man’s goods, &c.

(12:67) Precepts, I repeat, such as these, human malice and
the lapse of ages are alike powerless to destroy, for if any
part of them perished, its loss would immediately be supplied
from the fundamental principle, especially the doctrine of
charity, which is everywhere in both Testaments extolled
above all others. (12:68) Moreover, though it be true that
there s no conceivable crime so heinous that it has never
been committed, still there is no one who would attempt in
excuse for his crimes to destroy the law, or introduce an
impious doctrine in the place of what is eternal and salutary;
men’s nature is so constituted that everyone (be he king or
subject) who has committed a base action, tries to deck out
his conduct with spurious excuses, till he seems to have
done nothing but what is just and right.

(12:69) We may conclude, therefore, that the whole Divine law,
as taught by Scripture, has come down to us uncorrupted.

(70) Besides this there are certain facts which we may be
sure have been transmitted in good faith. (71) For instance,
the main facts of Hebrew history, which were perfectly well
known to everyone. (72) The Jewish people were accustomed in
former times to chant the ancient history of their nation in
psalms. (12:73) The main facts, also, of Christ’s life and
passion were immediately spread abroad through the whole Roman
empire. (73a) It is therefore scarcely credible, unless
nearly everybody consented thereto, which we cannot suppose,
that successive generations have handed down the broad outline
of the Gospel narrative otherwise than as they received it.

(12:74) Whatsoever, therefore, is spurious or faulty can only
have reference to details - some circumstances in one or the
other history or prophecy designed to stir the people to greater
devotion; or in some miracle, with a view of confounding
philosophers; or, lastly, in speculative matters after they had
become mixed up with religion, so that some individual might
prop up his own inventions with a pretext of Divine authority.

(12:75) But such matters have little to do with salvation,
whether they be corrupted little or much, as I will show in
detail in the next chapter, though I think the question
sufficiently plain from what I have said already, especially
in Chapter II.

____________________________________________________________________________

[13:0] CHAPTER XIII - IT IS SHOWN THAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES ONLY VERY

SIMPLE DOCTRINES, SUCH AS SUFFICE FOR RIGHT CONDUCT.

(13:1) In the second chapter of this treatise we pointed out that the
prophets were gifted with extraordinary powers of imagination,
but not of understanding; also that God only revealed to them such
things as are very simple - not philosophic mysteries, - and that

He adapted His communications to their previous opinions. (13:2) We
further showed in Chap. V. that Scripture only transmits and
teaches truths which can readily be comprehended by all; not
deducing and concatenating its conclusions from definitions and
axioms, but narrating quite simply, and confirming its statements,
with a view to inspiring belief, by an appeal to experience as
exemplified in miracles and history, and setting forth its truths
in the style and phraseology which would most appeal to the
popular mind (cf. Chap. VI., third division).

(13:3) Lastly, we demonstrated in Chap. VIII. that the difficulty
of understanding Scripture lies in the language only, and not in
the abstruseness of the argument.

(13:4) To these considerations we may add that the Prophets did
not preach only to the learned, but to all Jews, without exception,
while the Apostles were wont to teach the gospel doctrine in
churches where there were public meetings; whence it follows that

Scriptural doctrine contains no lofty speculations nor philosophic
reasoning, but only very simple matters, such as could be
understood by the slowest intelligence.

(13:5) I am consequently lost in wonder at the ingenuity of those
whom I have already mentioned, who detect in the Bible mysteries
so profound that they cannot be explained in human language,
and who have introduced so many philosophic speculations into
religion that the Church seems like an academy, and religion like
a science, or rather a dispute.

(13:6) It is not to be wondered at that men, who boast of
possessing supernatural intelligence, should be unwilling to
yield the palm of knowledge to philosophers who have only their
ordinary faculties; still I should be surprised if I found them
teaching any new speculative doctrine, which was not a
commonplace to those Gentile philosophers whom, in spite of all,
they stigmatize as blind; for, if one inquires what these
mysteries lurking in Scripture may be, one is confronted with
nothing but the reflections of Plato or Aristotle, or the like,
which it would often be easier for an ignorant man to dream than
for the most accomplished scholar to wrest out of the Bible.

(13:7) However, I do not wish to affirm absolutely that Scripture
contains no doctrines in the sphere of philosophy, for in the last
chapter I pointed out some of the kind, as fundamental principles;
but I go so far as to say that such doctrines are very few and
very simple. (8) Their precise nature and definition I will now
set forth. (9) The task will be easy, for we know that Scripture
does not aim at imparting scientific knowledge, and, therefore,
it demands from men nothing but obedience, and censures obstinacy,
but not ignorance.

(13:10) Furthermore, as obedience to God consists solely in love
to our neighbour - for whosoever loveth his neighbour, as a means
of obeying God, hath, as St. Paul says (Rom. xiii:8), fulfilled
the law, - it follows that no knowledge is commended in the Bible
save that which is necessary for enabling all men to obey God in
the manner stated, and without which they would become rebellious,
or without the discipline of obedience.

(13:11) Other speculative questions, which have no direct bearing
on this object, or are concerned with the knowledge of natural
events, do not affect Scripture, and should be entirely separated
from religion.

(13:12) Now, though everyone, as we have said, is now quite able
to see this truth for himself, I should nevertheless wish,
considering that the whole of Religion depends thereon, to
explain the entire question more accurately and clearly.

(13:13) To this end I must first prove that the intellectual
or accurate knowledge of God is not a gift, bestowed upon all
good men like obedience; and, further, that the knowledge of God,
required by Him through His prophets from everyone without
exception, as needful to be known, is simply a knowledge of His

Divine justice and charity. (14) Both these points are easily
proved from Scripture. (15) The first plainly follows from

Exodus vi:2, where God, in order to show the singular grace
bestowed upon Moses, says to him: “And I appeared unto Abraham,
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of El Sadai (A. V. God

Almighty); but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them” -
for the better understanding of which passage I may remark that

El Sadai, in Hebrew, signifies the God who suffices, in that

He gives to every man that which suffices for him; and,
although Sadai is often used by itself, to signify God,
we cannot doubt that the word El (God) is everywhere understood.

(13;16) Furthermore, we must note that Jehovah is the only word
found in Scripture with the meaning of the absolute essence of God,
without reference to created things. (17) The Jews maintain,
for this reason, that this is, strictly speaking, the only name
of God; that the rest of the words used are merely titles; and,
in truth, the other names of God, whether they be substantives or
adjectives, are merely attributive, and belong to Him, in so far
as He is conceived of in relation to created things, or manifested
through them. (13:18) Thus El, or Eloah, signifies powerful, as is
well known, and only applies to God in respect to His supremacy,
as when we call Paul an apostle; the faculties of his power are
set forth in an accompanying adjective, as El, great, awful, just,
merciful, &c., or else all are understood at once by the use of El
in the plural number, with a singular signification, an expression
frequently adopted in Scripture.

(13:19) Now, as God tells Moses that He was not known to the
patriarchs by the name of Jehovah, it follows that they were not
cognizant of any attribute of God which expresses His absolute
essence, but only of His deeds and promises that is, of His power,
as manifested in visible things. (20) God does not thus speak
to Moses in order to accuse the patriarchs of infidelity, but,
on the contrary, as a means of extolling their belief and faith,
inasmuch as, though they possessed no extraordinary knowledge
of God (such as Moses had), they yet accepted His promises as
fixed and certain; whereas Moses, though his thoughts about God
were more exalted, nevertheless doubted about the Divine
promises, and complained to God that, instead of the promised
deliverance, the prospects of the Israelites had darkened.

(13:21) As the patriarchs did not know the distinctive name of God,
and as God mentions the fact to Moses, in praise of their faith
and single-heartedness, and in contrast to the extraordinary grace
granted to Moses, it follows, as we stated at first, that men are
not bound by decree to have knowledge of the attributes of God,
such knowledge being only granted to a few of the faithful: it is
hardly worth while to quote further examples from Scripture, for
everyone must recognize that knowledge of God is not equal among
all good men. (13:22) Moreover, a man cannot be ordered to be wise
any more than he can be ordered to live and exist. (23) Men, women,
and children are all alike able to obey by commandment, but not to
be wise. If any tell us that it is not necessary to understand the

Divine attributes, but that we must believe them simply without
proof, he is plainly trifling. (24) For what is invisible and
can only be perceived by the mind, cannot be apprehended by any
other means than proofs; if these are absent the object remains
ungrasped; the repetition of what has been heard on such subjects
no more indicates or attains to their meaning than the words of a
parrot or a puppet speaking without sense or signification.

(13:25) Before I proceed I ought to explain how it comes that we
are often told in Genesis that the patriarchs preached in the name
of Jehovah, this being in plain contradiction to the text above quoted.

(26) A reference to what was said in Chap. VIII. will readily
explain the difficulty. (27) It was there shown that the writer
of the Pentateuch did not always speak of things and places by the
names they bore in the times of which he was writing, but by the
names best known to his contemporaries. (28) God is thus said in
the Pentateuch to have been preached by the patriarchs under the
name of Jehovah, not because such was the name by which the patriarchs
knew Him, but because this name was the one most reverenced by the Jews.

(13:29) This point, I say, must necessarily be noticed, for in Exodus
it is expressly stated that God was not known to the patriarchs by
this name; and in chap. iii:13, it is said that Moses desired to
know the name of God. (30) Now, if this name had been already known
it would have been known to Moses. (31) We must therefore draw the
conclusion indicated, namely, that the faithful patriarchs did not
know this name of God, and that the knowledge of God is bestowed and
not commanded by the Deity.

(13:32) It is now time to pass on to our second point, and show that

God through His prophets required from men no other knowledge of

Himself than is contained in a knowledge of His justice and charity -
that is, of attributes which a certain manner of life will enable
men to imitate. (33) Jeremiah states this in so many words

(xxii:15, 16): “Did not thy father eat, and drink, and do judgment
and justice? and then it was well with him. (34) He judged the
cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not
this to know Me? saith the Lord.” (35) The words in chap. ix:24
of the same book are equally clear. (36) “But let him that glorieth
glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the

Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness
in the earth; for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.”

(13:37) The same doctrine maybe gathered from Exod. xxxiv:6, where

God revealed to Moses only those of His attributes which display
the Divine justice and charity. (38) Lastly, we may call attention
to a passage in John which we shall discuss at more length hereafter;
the Apostle explains the nature of God (inasmuch as no one has
beheld Him) through charity only, and concludes that he who possesses
charity possesses, and in very truth knows God.

(13:39) We have thus seen that Moses, Jeremiah, and John sum up
in a very short compass the knowledge of God needful for all,
and that they state it to consist in exactly what we said, namely,
that God is supremely just, and supremely merciful - in other words,
the one perfect pattern of the true life. (40) We may add that

Scripture nowhere gives an express definition of God, and does not
point out any other of His attributes which should be apprehended
save these, nor does it in set terms praise any others.

(13:41) Wherefore we may draw the general conclusion that an
intellectual knowledge of God, which takes cognizance of His
nature in so far as it actually is, and which cannot by any
manner of living be imitated by mankind or followed as an example,
has no bearing whatever on true rules of conduct, on faith, or on
revealed religion; consequently that men may be in complete
error on the subject without incurring the charge of sinfulness.

(13:42) We need now no longer wonder that God adapted Himself to
the existing opinions and imaginations of the prophets, or that the
faithful held different ideas of God, as we showed in Chap. II.; or,
again, that the sacred books speak very inaccurately of God,
attributing to Him hands, feet, eyes, ears, a mind, and motion
from one place to another; or that they ascribe to Him emotions,
such as jealousy, mercy, &c., or, lastly, that they describe Him
as a Judge in heaven sitting on a royal throne with Christ on His
right hand. (43) Such expressions are adapted to the understanding
of the multitude, it being the object of the Bible to make men not
learned but obedient.

(13:44) In spite of this the general run of theologians, when they
come upon any of these phrases which they cannot rationally
harmonize with the Divine nature, maintain that they should be
interpreted metaphorically, passages they cannot understand they
say should be interpreted literally. (45) But if every expression
of this kind in the Bible is necessarily to be interpreted and
understood metaphorically, Scripture must have been written,
not for the people and the unlearned masses, but chiefly for
accomplished experts and philosophers.

(13:46) If it were indeed a sin to hold piously and simply the
ideas about God we have just quoted, the prophets ought to have
been strictly on their guard against the use of such expressions,
seeing the weak-mindedness of the people, and ought, on the
other hand, to have set forth first of all, duly and clearly,
those attributes of God which are needful to be understood.

[13:1] (47) This they have nowhere done; we cannot, therefore,
think that opinions taken in themselves without respect to
actions are either pious or impious, but must maintain that a
man is pious or impious in his beliefs only in so far as he is
thereby incited to obedience, or derives from them license to
sin and rebel. (48) If a man, by believing what is true, becomes
rebellious, his creed is impious; if by believing what is false
he becomes obedient, his creed is pious; for the true knowledge
of God comes not by commandment, but by Divine gift. (49) God has
required nothing from man but a knowledge of His Divine justice
and charity, and that not as necessary to scientific accuracy,
but to obedience.

____________________________________________________________________________

[14:0] CHAPTER XIV - DEFINITIONS OF FAITH, THE FAITH, AND THE

FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH, WHICH IS ONCE FOR ALL SEPARATED

FROM PHILOSOPHY.

(14:1) For a true knowledge of faith it is above all things necessary
to understand that the Bible was adapted to the intelligence,
not only of the prophets, but also of the diverse and fickle

Jewish multitude. (2) This will be recognized by all who give any
thought to the subject, for they will see that a person who accepted
promiscuously everything in Scripture as being the universal and
absolute teaching of God, without accurately defining what was
adapted to the popular intelligence, would find it impossible to
escape confounding the opinions of the masses with the Divine
doctrines, praising the judgments and comments of man as the
teaching of God, and making a wrong use of Scriptural authority.

(14:3) Who, I say, does not perceive that this is the chief reason
why so many sectaries teach contradictory opinions as Divine
documents, and support their contentions with numerous Scriptural
texts, till it has passed in Belgium into a proverb, geen ketter
sonder letter - no heretic without a text? (4) The sacred books
were not written by one man, nor for the people of a single
period, but by many authors of different temperaments, at times
extending from first to last over nearly two thousand years, and
perhaps much longer. (14:5) We will not, however, accuse the sectaries
of impiety because they have adapted the words of Scripture to their
own opinions; it is thus that these words were adapted to the
understanding of the masses originally, and everyone is at liberty
so to treat them if he sees that he can thus obey God in matters
relating to justice and charity with a more full consent: but
we do accuse those who will not grant this freedom to their fellows,
but who persecute all who differ from them, as God’s enemies,
however honourable and virtuous be their lives; while, on the other
hand, they cherish those who agree with them, however foolish they
may be, as God’s elect. (6) Such conduct is as wicked and dangerous
to the state as any that can be conceived.

[14:1] (7) In order, therefore, to establish the limits to which
individual freedom should extend, and to decide what persons,
in spite of the diversity of their opinions, are to be looked
upon as the faithful, we must define faith and its essentials.

(14:8) This task I hope to accomplish in the present chapter,
and also to separate faith from philosophy, which is the chief
aim of the whole treatise.

(14:9) In order to proceed duly to the demonstration let us
recapitulate the chief aim and object of Scripture; this will
indicate a standard by which we may define faith.

(14:10) We have said in a former chapter that the aim and object
of Scripture is only to teach obedience. (11) Thus much, I think,
no one can question. (12) Who does not see that both Testaments
are nothing else but schools for this object, and have neither of
them any aim beyond inspiring mankind with a voluntary obedience?

(14:13) For (not to repeat what I said in the last chapter) I will
remark that Moses did not seek to convince the Jews by reason,
but bound them by a covenant, by oaths, and by conferring benefits;
further, he threatened the people with punishment if they should
infringe the law, and promised rewards if they should obey it.

(14:14) All these are not means for teaching knowledge, but for
inspiring obedience. (15) The doctrine of the Gospels enjoins
nothing but simple faith, namely, to believe in God and to honour

Him, which is the same thing as to obey him. (16) There is no
occasion for me to throw further light on a question so plain
by citing Scriptural texts commending obedience, such as may be
found in great numbers in both Testaments. (14:17) Moreover,
the Bible teaches very clearly in a great many passages what
everyone ought to do in order to obey God; the whole duty is
summed up in love to one’s neighbour. (18) It cannot, therefore,
be denied that he who by God’s command loves his neighbour as
himself is truly obedient and blessed according to the law,
whereas he who hates his neighbour or neglects him is rebellious
and obstinate.

(14:19) Lastly, it is plain to everyone that the Bible was not
written and disseminated only for the learned, but for men of
every age and race; wherefore we may rest assured that we are
not bound by Scriptural command to believe anything beyond what
is absolutely necessary for fulfilling its main precept.

(14:20) This precept, then, is the only standard of the whole

Catholic faith, and by it alone all the dogmas needful to be
believed should be determined. (21) So much being abundantly
manifest, as is also the fact that all other doctrines of the
faith can be legitimately deduced therefrom by reason alone,

I leave it to every man to decide for himself how it comes to
pass that so many divisions have arisen in the Church: can it
be from any other cause than those suggested at the beginning
of Chap. VIII.? (22) It is these same causes which compel me
to explain the method of determining the dogmas of the faith
from the foundation we have discovered, for if I neglected to
do so, and put the question on a regular basis, I might justly
be said to have promised too lavishly, for that anyone might,
by my showing, introduce any doctrine he liked into religion,
under the pretext that it was a necessary means to obedience:

especially would this be the case in questions respecting the

Divine attributes.

(14:23) In order, therefore, to set forth the whole matter
methodically, I will begin with a definition of faith, which
on the principle above given, should be as follows:-

(14:24) Faith consists in a knowledge of God, without which
obedience to Him would be impossible, and which the mere fact
of obedience to Him implies. (25) This definition is so clear,
and follows so plainly from what we have already proved,
that it needs no explanation. (14:26) The consequences involved
therein I will now briefly show.

[14:2]

(I.) (14:27) Faith is not salutary in itself, but only in respect
to the obedience it implies, or as James puts it in
his Epistle, ii:17, “Faith without works is dead”

(see the whole of the chapter quoted).

(II.) (14:28) He who is truly obedient necessarily possesses
true and saving faith; for if obedience be granted, faith
must be granted also, as the same Apostle expressly
says in these words (ii:18), “Show me thy faith
without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by
my works.” (29) So also John, I Ep. iv:7: “Everyone
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God: he that
loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.”

(30) From these texts, I repeat, it follows that we
can only judge a man faithful or unfaithful by his
works. (31) If his works be good, he is faithful,
however much his doctrines may differ from those of
the rest of the faithful: if his works be evil,
though he may verbally conform, he is unfaithful.

(32) For obedience implies faith, and faith without
works is dead.

(14:33) John, in the 13th verse of the chapter above quoted,
expressly teaches the same doctrine: “Hereby,” he says, “know
we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given
us of His Spirit,” i.e. love. (34) He had said before that

God is love, and therefore he concludes (on his own received
principles), that whoso possesses love possesses truly the

Spirit of God. (35) As no one has beheld God he infers that
no one has knowledge or consciousness of God, except from love
towards his neighbour, and also that no one can have knowledge
of any of God’s attributes, except this of love, in so far as
we participate therein.

(14:36) If these arguments are not conclusive, they, at any rate,
show the Apostle’s meaning, but the words in chap. ii:3, 4, of
the same Epistle are much clearer, for they state in so many
words our precise contention: “And hereby we do know that we
know Him, if we keep His commandments. (37) He that saith,

I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and
the truth is not in him.”

(14:38) From all this, I repeat, it follows that they are the
true enemies of Christ who persecute honourable and justice-loving
men because they differ from them, and do not uphold the same
religious dogmas as themselves: for whosoever loves justice and
charity we know, by that very fact, to be faithful: whosoever
persecutes the faithful, is an enemy to Christ.

(14:39) Lastly, it follows that faith does not demand that dogmas
should be true as that they should be pious - that is, such as
will stir up the heart to obey; though there be many such which
contain not a shadow of truth, so long as they be held in good
faith, otherwise their adherents are disobedient, for how can
anyone, desirous of loving justice and obeying God, adore as

Divine what he knows to be alien from the Divine nature?

(14:40) However, men may err from simplicity of mind, and

Scripture, as we have seen, does not condemn ignorance,
but obstinacy. (14:41) This is the necessary result of our
definition of faith, and all its branches should spring from
the universal rule above given, and from the evident aim and
object of the Bible, unless we choose to mix our own inventions
therewith. (42) Thus it is not true doctrines which are
expressly required by the Bible, so much as doctrines necessary
for obedience, and to confirm in our hearts the love of our
neighbour, wherein (to adopt the words of John) we are in God,
and God in us.

[14:3] (43) As, then, each man’s faith must be judged pious or
impious only in respect of its producing obedience or obstinacy,
and not in respect of its truth; and as no one will dispute that
men’s dispositions are exceedingly varied, that all do not
acquiesce in the same things, but are ruled some by one opinion
some by another, so that what moves one to devotion moves another
to laughter and contempt, it follows that there can be no
doctrines in the Catholic, or universal, religion, which can
give rise to controversy among good men. (44) Such doctrines
might be pious to some and impious to others, whereas they
should be judged solely by their fruits.

(14:45) To the universal religion, then, belong only such dogmas
as are absolutely required in order to attain obedience to God,
and without which such obedience would be impossible; as for the
rest, each man - seeing that he is the best judge of his own
character should adopt whatever he thinks best adapted to
strengthen his love of justice. (46) If this were so, I think
there would be no further occasion for controversies in the Church.

(14:47) I have now no further fear in enumerating the dogmas of
universal faith or the fundamental dogmas of the whole of Scripture,
inasmuch as they all tend (as may be seen from what has been said)

to this one doctrine, namely, that there exists a God, that is,
a Supreme Being, Who loves justice and charity, and Who must be
obeyed by whosoever would be saved; that the worship of this Being
consists in the practice of justice and love towards one’s
neighbour, and that they contain nothing beyond the following
doctrines :-

I. (14:48) That God or a Supreme Being exists, sovereignly just
and merciful, the Exemplar of the true life; that whosoever
is ignorant of or disbelieves in His existence cannot obey

Him or know Him as a Judge.

II. (14:49) That He is One. (50) Nobody will dispute that this
doctrine is absolutely necessary for entire devotion, admiration,
and love towards God. (51) For devotion, admiration, and
spring from the superiority of one over all else.

III. (14:52) That He is omnipresent, or that all things are open to

Him, for if anything could be supposed to be concealed from Him,
or to be unnoticed by Him, we might doubt or be ignorant of the
equity of His judgment as directing all things.

IV. (14:53) That He has supreme right and dominion over all things,
and that He does nothing under compulsion, but by His absolute
fiat and grace. (54) All things are bound to obey Him, He is
not bound to obey any.

V. (14:55) That the worship of God consists only in
justice and charity, or love towards one’s neighbour.

VI. (14:56) That all those, and those only, who obey God by their
manner of life are saved; the rest of mankind, who live under
the sway of their pleasures, are lost. (57) If we did not
believe this, there would be no reason for obeying God rather
than pleasure.

VII. (14:58) Lastly, that God forgives the sins of those who
repent. (59) No one is free from sin, so that without this
belief all would despair of salvation, and there would
be no reason for believing in the mercy of God.

(60) He who firmly believes that God, out of the
mercy and grace with which He directs all things,
forgives the sins of men, and who feels his love of

God kindled thereby, he, I say, does really know Christ
according to the Spirit, and Christ is in him.

(14:61) No one can deny that all these doctrines are before all
things necessary to be believed, in order that every man, without
exception, may be able to obey God according to the bidding of the

Law above explained, for if one of these precepts be disregarded
obedience is destroyed. (62) But as to what God, or the Exemplar
of the true life, may be, whether fire, or spirit, or light, or
thought, or what not, this, I say, has nothing to do with faith
any more than has the question how He comes to be the Exemplar
of the true life, whether it be because He has a just and
merciful mind, or because all things exist and act through Him,
and consequently that we understand through Him, and through

Him see what is truly just and good. (63) Everyone may think
on such questions as he likes,

(14:64) Furthermore, faith is not affected, whether we hold that

God is omnipresent essentially or potentially; that He directs
all things by absolute fiat, or by the necessity of His nature;
that He dictates laws like a prince, or that He sets them forth
as eternal truths; that man obeys Him by virtue of free will,
or by virtue of the necessity of the Divine decree; lastly,
that the reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked is

natur